Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Sunil da,

 

I did not expect such a light minded reply from you. I have given enough

evidence of impossibility of lunar month of Maagha during Kali or Dvapar ages.

You should refute my statement on the basis of computation, I will welcome that.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Monday, July 6, 2009 7:44:47 PM

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

May be 1400 BCE then.

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 6:48 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

I have studied all aspects of this VJ problem and even made some special

softwares to test various viewpoints before declaring that the conditions

specified in VJ cannot be met within past one million years, leave aside 2400 or

1400 BCE. Lunar Magha Shukla Pratipada is impossible at the entry of Sun and

Moon into Dhanishthaa.

 

VJ talks of " entry into Dhanishthaa " and not about residence in Dhanishthaa.

Hence, 2400 BCE is not correct, because Sun and Moon must be at the start of

Dhanishthaa and not anywhere in Dhanishthaa.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 7:35:07 PM

 

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

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

 

Sinil Da,

 

After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

 

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

nakshatras

 

May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

 

Thanks

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400

BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

 

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

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

 

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

 

Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India ,

and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of

solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

 

Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

 

The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

 

The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where

it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

 

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

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

 

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

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

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

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

panchanga makers and by public at large.

 

The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed

Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas.

 

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

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

 

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

if someone throws away Raashis.

 

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

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

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

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

computations and predictions.

 

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

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

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

 

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

knowledge of astrology :

 

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

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

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

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

efficiency. "

 

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

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

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

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

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

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

 

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

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

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

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

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

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

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

 

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

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

 

Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

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

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

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

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

within the Bhachakra.

 

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

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

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

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

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

 

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

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

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

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

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

something so we meet somewhere.

 

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

the rashis appropriately.

 

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

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

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

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

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

compromise.

 

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

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

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

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

the mother knows who the father is.

 

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

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

 

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

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

according to SB Dixit.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

the fifth vedas always correct.

 

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

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

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Hari Malla

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> NShri Harimallaji,

 

>

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie. Tapa should coincide

 

> with Pausha month.

 

>

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dharmashastra.

 

>

 

> I summarise the above as follows:

 

>

 

> 1) Show precedents,

 

> 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

 

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

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

reassertions.

 

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

 

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

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

 

> 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

 

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

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

rashis of the fifth Veda?

 

>

 

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

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

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

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

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

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

 

>

 

> Sincerely

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

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

 

>

 

>

 

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

 

> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology

and the Sidereal

 

>

 

> Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear sir,

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

>

 

> thank you,

 

> Regards,

 

> Hari Malla

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear friend,

 

> >

 

> > You said:

 

> >

 

> > Quote

 

> >

 

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

 

> >

 

> > Unauote

 

> >

 

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

point.

 

> >

 

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

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

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

should take a lesson from them.

 

> >

 

> > Sincerely

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

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

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> >

 

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

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Dear sir,

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you,

 

> > Regards,

 

> > Hari Malla

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> > >

 

> > > Dear members,

 

> > >

 

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

 

> > >

 

> > > Quote

 

> > >

 

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

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

epochal mesh rashi.

 

> > >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> > >

 

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

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

the moving Tropical zodiac.

 

> > >

 

> > > Regards,

 

> > >

 

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

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

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

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

 

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > >

 

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

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

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

be fulfilled!

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

 

> > > Regards,

 

> > > Hari Malla

 

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

wrote:

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Dinesh-ji,

 

> > > >

 

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

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

the norm in some places :-(

 

> > > >

 

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

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

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

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

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

 

> > > >

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

 

> > > >

 

> > > > RR

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@

> wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

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

around the ecliptic.

 

> > > > >

 

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

what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

 

> > > > >

 

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

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

 

> > > > >

 

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

those can affect and others can not.

 

> > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

up with animal shaped constellation) .

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Love you all

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

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

wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

 

> > > > >

 

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

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Quote

 

> > > > >

 

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

ecliptic

 

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

other

 

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

having any

 

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

that.

 

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

to

 

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

the first

 

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

Do you

 

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

of the

 

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

ignorant of

 

> > > > > the same?

 

> > > > >

 

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

he

 

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

have no

 

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

would not

 

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

these useless

 

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

not know in

 

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

chosen

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Unquote

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Awaiting your reply.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sincerely,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

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

l.com> wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > >

 

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

 

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

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

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

what Dheengraji is saying.

 

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

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

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

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

it is not.

 

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

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

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

 

> > > > > Regards,

 

> > > > > HAri Malla

 

> > > > >

 

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

wrote:

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

is an age-old thing.

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

outdated person.

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > -VJ

 

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

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the same?

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sincerely,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > > >

 

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

wrote:

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

below:-

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

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

the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > >

 

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

not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

 

> > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

affect in same way

 

> > > > > >

 

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

present between us

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Thank you Sirs

 

> > > > > >

 

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

wrote:

 

> > > > > > >

 

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

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

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

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

 

> > > > > > >

 

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

 

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > >

 

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

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

 

> > > > > > >

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

> > > > > > > sincerely yours,

 

> > > > > > > HAri Malla

 

> > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

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

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Best wishes,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

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

 

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

 

> > > > > > > > Regards,

 

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

 

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

> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

assure you that I will start learning from you.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

just engaging in useless discussions.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

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

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

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

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

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

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

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

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

& g

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Vinay,

 

To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in

two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki

Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern

astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started.

When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this

means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha.

The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie.

after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start

of the Tapa.

 

Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am

now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar,

may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other

scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to

some of those groups also

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

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

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

 

Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But

all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

 

Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha,

because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

 

But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

 

Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

 

235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

 

Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard

for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he

ignores.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

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

nakshatras

 

Harimallaji,

 

There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

 

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

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

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

 

Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I

will explain in short.

For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of

maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused

by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi

of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is

that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

casued thereby.

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

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

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

>

Sinil Da,

>

> After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

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

nakshatras

>

> May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave

1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

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

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

> Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

> Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India

, and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms

of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

> Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

> The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

>

> The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

>

> -VJ

>

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

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

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

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

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

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

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

panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

> The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

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

siddhantas.

>

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

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

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

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

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

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

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

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

computations and predictions.

>

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

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

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

>

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

knowledge of astrology :

>

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

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

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

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

efficiency. "

>

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

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

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

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

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

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

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

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

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

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

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

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

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

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

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

>

> Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

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

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

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

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

within the Bhachakra.

>

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

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

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

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

>

> -VJ

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

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

>

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

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

nakshatras

>

> Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

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

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

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

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

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

something so we meet somewhere.

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

the rashis appropriately.

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

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

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

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

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

compromise.

>

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

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

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

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

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

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

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

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

>

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

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

the mother knows who the father is.

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

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

>

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

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

according to SB Dixit.

>

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

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

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

>

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

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

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

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

the fifth vedas always correct.

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

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

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> Sincerely yours,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > NShri Harimallaji,

> >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > with Pausha month.

> >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dharmashastra.

> >

> > I summarise the above as follows:

> >

> > 1) Show precedents,

> > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

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

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

reassertions.

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

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

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

> > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

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

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

rashis of the fifth Veda?

> >

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

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

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

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

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

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

> > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do

not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

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

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

> >

> > thank you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear friend,

> > >

> > > You said:

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Unauote

> > >

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

point.

> > >

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

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

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

should take a lesson from them.

> > >

> > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear members,

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

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

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

the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

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

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

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

future be fulfilled!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > >

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

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

the norm in some places :-(

> > > > >

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

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

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

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

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > >

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

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > >

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

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > >

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

those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > >

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

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

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

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

Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > >

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

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

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

ecliptic

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

other

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

having any

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

that.

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

to

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

the first

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

Do you

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

choice of the

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

ignorant of

> > > > > > the same?

> > > > > >

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

that he

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

band have no

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

would not

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

these useless

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

not know in

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

chosen

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

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

l.com> wrote:

> > > > > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

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

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

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

what Dheengraji is saying.

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

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

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

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

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

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

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

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > >

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

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

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

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

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

it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > >

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

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

an outdated person.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the same?

> > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

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

wrote:

> > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

below:-

> > > > > > >

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

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

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

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

affect in same way

> > > > > > >

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

works present between us

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > >

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

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

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

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

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> & g

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Vinay'

 

Though my reply was in a light hearted way  there was the  message that the

occurrence of the events mentioned in the  Vedanga Jyotisha were indeed possible

around 1800 BCE. Please consider the case that the Uttarayana occurred in  the

Dhanistha Nakshatra around 1800 BCE and it was the month of Magha at that

time. Tapa coincided with Magha when the Tapa started with the bright fortnight.

Hope now you will agree that it was possible that when the  Uttarayana occurred

in  Dhanistha and the months of Magaha and Tapa as well as the Shuklapaksha

occurred at that time. You have to consider the Purnimata Lunar month only.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

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

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 10:46 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil da,

 

I did not expect such a light minded reply from you. I have given enough

evidence of impossibility of lunar month of Maagha during Kali or Dvapar ages.

You should refute my statement on the basis of computation, I will welcome that.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

Monday, July 6, 2009 7:44:47 PM

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

nakshatras

 

May be 1400 BCE then.

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 6:48 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

I have studied all aspects of this VJ problem and even made some special

softwares to test various viewpoints before declaring that the conditions

specified in VJ cannot be met within past one million years, leave aside 2400 or

1400 BCE. Lunar Magha Shukla Pratipada is impossible at the entry of Sun and

Moon into Dhanishthaa.

 

VJ talks of " entry into Dhanishthaa " and not about residence in Dhanishthaa.

Hence, 2400 BCE is not correct, because Sun and Moon must be at the start of

Dhanishthaa and not anywhere in Dhanishthaa.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 7:35:07 PM

 

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

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

 

Sinil Da,

 

After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

 

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

nakshatras

 

May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

 

Thanks

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400

BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

 

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

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

 

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

 

Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India ,

and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of

solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

 

Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

 

The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

 

The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where

it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

 

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

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

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

nakshatras

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

 

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

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

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

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

panchanga makers and by public at large.

 

The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed

Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas.

 

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

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

 

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

if someone throws away Raashis.

 

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

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

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

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

computations and predictions.

 

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

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

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

 

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

knowledge of astrology :

 

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

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

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

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

efficiency. "

 

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

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

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

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

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

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

 

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

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

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

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

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

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

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

 

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

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

 

Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

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

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

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

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

within the Bhachakra.

 

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

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

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

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

 

-VJ

 

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

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

 

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

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

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

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

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

something so we meet somewhere.

 

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

the rashis appropriately.

 

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

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

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

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

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

compromise.

 

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

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

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

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

the mother knows who the father is.

 

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

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

 

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

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

according to SB Dixit.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

the fifth vedas always correct.

 

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

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

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Hari Malla

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> NShri Harimallaji,

 

>

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie. Tapa should coincide

 

> with Pausha month.

 

>

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dharmashastra.

 

>

 

> I summarise the above as follows:

 

>

 

> 1) Show precedents,

 

> 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

 

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

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

reassertions.

 

> 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

 

> 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

 

> 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

 

> 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

 

>

 

> Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven

points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed

so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to

particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have

you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

 

>

 

> Sincerely

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..>

 

> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology

and the Sidereal

 

>

 

> Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear sir,

 

> Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

 

> Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

 

> Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not

effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

 

>

 

> thank you,

 

> Regards,

 

> Hari Malla

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear friend,

 

> >

 

> > You said:

 

> >

 

> > Quote

 

> >

 

> > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

 

> >

 

> > Unauote

 

> >

 

> > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

 

> >

 

> > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

 

> >

 

> > Sincerely

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> >

 

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Dear sir,

 

> > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our

solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of

adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

 

> > Regards,

 

> > Hari Malla

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> > >

 

> > > Dear members,

 

> > >

 

> > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

 

> > >

 

> > > Quote

 

> > >

 

> > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month

to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new

epochal mesh rashi.

 

> > >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> > >

 

> > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras?

The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with

the moving Tropical zodiac.

 

> > >

 

> > > Regards,

 

> > >

 

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > >

 

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future

be fulfilled!

 

> > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

 

> > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

 

> > > Regards,

 

> > > Hari Malla

 

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Dinesh-ji,

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that

was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what

an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

 

> > > >

 

> > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created

by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent

movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its

slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of

" ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the

earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of

ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

 

> > > >

 

> > > > RR

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@

> wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered

around the ecliptic.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind

what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are

scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more

away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular

constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came

up with animal shaped constellation) .

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Love you all

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

 

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Quote

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

 

> > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

 

> > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

 

> > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

 

> > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

 

> > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

 

> > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

 

> > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice

of the

 

> > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

 

> > > > > the same?

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that

he

 

> > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no

 

> > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

 

> > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

 

> > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

 

> > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

 

> > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Unquote

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Awaiting your reply.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sincerely,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

 

> > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

 

> > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly,

it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true

for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus

forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually

it is not.

 

> > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

 

> > > > > Regards,

 

> > > > > HAri Malla

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient

wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence

of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an

astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or

planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why

you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles

before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who

is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it

is an age-old thing.

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but

you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an

outdated person.

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > -VJ

 

> > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

 

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sincerely,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

 

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees

away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means

those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about

the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has

not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works

present between us

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Thank you Sirs

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

 

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the

following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

 

> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

 

> > > > > > > sincerely yours,

 

> > > > > > > HAri Malla

 

> > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Best wishes,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the

receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the

different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects

on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

 

> > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

 

> > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you

want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do

not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

 

> > > > > > > > Regards,

 

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

 

> > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@

> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!!

And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if

you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and

enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are

just engaging in useless discussions.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

 

> > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

& g

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil da,

 

The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1,

Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of

month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon

..

 

But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start

of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in

actual practice.

 

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and

social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality

is Vedic and is still preserved.

 

As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among

those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better

friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or

art) because it never cheats.

 

-VJ

 

========================= ====

 

 

________________________________

" sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in

two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki

Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern

astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started.

When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this

means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha.

The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie.

after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start

of the Tapa.

 

Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am

now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar,

may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other

scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to

some of those groups also

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

 

Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But

all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

 

Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha,

because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

 

But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

 

Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

 

235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

 

Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard

for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he

ignores.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Harimallaji,

 

There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

 

harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

 

Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I

will explain in short.

For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of

maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused

by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi

of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is

that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

casued thereby.

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

>

Sinil Da,

>

> After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave

1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

> Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

> Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India

, and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms

of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

> Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

> The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

>

> The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ====

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

> Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert

of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being

made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this

committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by

panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

> The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

>

> Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

> Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

> But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God

can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the

Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

>

> Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss

to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their

livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe.

>

> The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

>

> " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

>

> Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

> Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana

was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing

ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be

defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

> Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which

are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha.

>

> Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

>

> Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= ======= ===

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

> Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over

one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

> 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift

the rashis appropriately.

> 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement

of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji

should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to

15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against

the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path

compromise.

>

> 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not

effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the

land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

> Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency.

>

> 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can

go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only

the mother knows who the father is.

> So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars)

will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

>

> 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish

the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed,

according to SB Dixit.

>

> 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the

original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are

better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

>

> 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying

so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is

uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting

that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep

the fifth vedas always correct.

> So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> Sincerely yours,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > NShri Harimallaji,

> >

> > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste

your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > with Pausha month.

> >

> > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western

astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect

on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand

why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able

to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what

you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt

repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and

Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to

the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please

quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much

much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called

Dharmashastra.

> >

> > I summarise the above as follows:

> >

> > 1) Show precedents,

> > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You

cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and

reassertions.

> > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

> >

> > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above

seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been

discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable

to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic.

Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear sir,

> > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do

not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

> >

> > thank you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear friend,

> > >

> > > You said:

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

> > >

> > > Unauote

> > >

> > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

> > >

> > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

> > >

> > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear sir,

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In

our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule

of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear members,

> > > >

> > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one

month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as

the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > >

> > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good

future be fulfilled!

> > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum

that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish

what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > >

> > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really

created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the

apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN

has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the

notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar

wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself

are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are

more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to

partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that

Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

> > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

> > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

> > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

> > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

> > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

> > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

> > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential

choice of the

> > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

> > > > > > the same?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he

> > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic

band have no

> > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

> > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

> > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

> > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

> > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

> > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for

ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One

who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because

it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point,

but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as

an outdated person.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in

the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9

degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself

has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many

works present between us

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote

the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

> > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at

the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from

the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their

effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

> > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if

you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars

do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising

more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> & g

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Rohini Da,

 

Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava

(Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of

Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small

hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.

 

-VJ

 

==================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> May be 1400 BCE then.

>

> SKB

 

Hey Dada-bhai,

 

Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the

earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all

ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of

Hydrogen ;-)

 

Love your sense of humour ;-)

 

Rohini

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil Da,

 

Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today

to Mr Hari Malla :

 

<<<

" 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar

year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit

together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun

will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11

days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next

year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year,

the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an

intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of

pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa), and so on. In 72 years,

there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one

day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla

Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make

computations before putting forth absurd claims.

 

I

said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla

Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this

condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average

condition now-a-days.

 

I also said that this condition was

impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha

Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry

into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri

because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say

so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and

Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one

rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two

months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are

being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in

Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described

in Vedanga Jyotisha.

 

The

conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years,

and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions

arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after

that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions.

 

Either

Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it

is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these

alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE,

because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into

Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during

entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false

opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said

something.

 

Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

 

You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions.

 

Please

do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs

sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to

your anti-mathematical opinions, because you are incapable of devoting

somne time on actual computations. Computing lunar month for 5000 years

is a great task which needs the knowledge of panchanga making as well

as computer programming, because manually one cannot do this job even

if one knows the method. Colebrooke did not possess a computer and

therefore erred. But had he possessed a computer, he would have

computed lunar month before arriving at any decision. A computer is

basically made for computing, but you are using it for spreading

anti-computational purposes, for spreading wrong ideas against

mathematical proofs.

 

Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

 

You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Eithe show your computations proving the

possibility of Magha Shukla Pratipada when Sun and Moon entered

Dhanishthaa during uttarayana around 1400 BCE, or stop your wrong

messages without backing your statements with computational evidence. "

>>>

 

 

The average duration of a lunar month is 29.5305878066 days in Drikpaksha and

29.530587946071 days in Saurapaksha. The difference is negligible. Hence I am

sending the Saurapakshiya computation below :

 

235 lunar months = 235 X 29.5305879460717

 

= 6939.68816732685378 days

 

19 Saurapakshiya years = 6939.9163731481481481481 days

 

235 lunar months are approximately equal to 19 solar years. No other number of

solar years is equal to a better number of lunar months approxiching integral

value. But even this value has a shortfall of 0.22820582129436533 days, which

accumulates to one extra lunar month during 29.530587946071 /

0.22820582129436533 = 129.4033069734 cycles of 19 years each, or 2458.6628

years (actually 2458.6615 years when we make proper computation from the

beginning of Creation according to siddhantic method).

 

Therefore, match between lunar months and solar year breaks down after 2459

years, after which one month of shift takes place. During 5100 years since the

onset of Kaliyuga, nearly two months of shift have occurred. that is why Mesha

Samkraanti occurred on Magha Shukla Pratipada in 3101 BCE ( Note that Magha

Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneousl entry into

Ashvini and not into dhanishthaa as required in Vedanga Jyotisha). but now Mesha

Samkraanti occurrs around Chaitra Shukla Pratipada on an average (I have

computed average of 114 years, 1900 - 2014 AD). Now-a-days, Sun enters Ashvini

around Chaitra Shukla, and enters Dhanishthaa (293 degrees) nearly two months

(67 degrees) earlier around Maagha. 2459 years ago, Sun entered Ashvini around

Phalguna Shukla Pratipada on the average, which means around 450 BCE Sun

entered Dhanishthaa 67 degrees earlier around Agrahaayana Krishna Ashtami to

Pousha Shukla Pratipada, and as we go into

earlier periods we get Sun in Dhanishthaa during lunar months before even

Agrahaayana. no chance of Naagha at all, either in 2400 or 1800 or 1400 BCE.

 

But it is easy to ignore lunar computations or put forth false ideas. Lunar

Magha was impossible around 1800 BCE, as I have shown above. Either the length

of solar year or of lunar year must be tampered with to make integral number of

lunar months during some integral number of solar years for assuming lunar

Maagha always in Dhanishthaa's Sun as some novices posing as experts do. You are

citing wrong persons. In mathematics, citations carry no value. Refute my

computations woth youtr computations, not citations of opinions. If you refute

my computations in this regard, I will follow all your ideas in every field

blindly.

 

 

Please show computations, not opinions of those who hate mathematics. I have

tested Drikpakshiya computations, which shows over 1.7 months' shift during

5100 years, which can be rounded to two, and thus tallies with Saurapakshiya

computations shown above.

 

-VJ

===================== ==

 

 

________________________________

" sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:39:08 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay'

 

Though my reply was in a light hearted way there was the message that the

occurrence of the events mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha were indeed possible

around 1800 BCE. Please consider the case that the Uttarayana occurred in the

Dhanistha Nakshatra around 1800 BCE and it was the month of Magha at that time.

Tapa coincided with Magha when the Tapa started with the bright fortnight. Hope

now you will agree that it was possible that when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha and the months of Magaha and Tapa as well as the Shuklapaksha occurred

at that time. You have to consider the Purnimata Lunar month only.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 10:46 AM

 

Sunil da,

 

I did not expect such a light minded reply from you. I have given enough

evidence of impossibility of lunar month of Maagha during Kali or Dvapar ages.

You should refute my statement on the basis of computation, I will welcome that.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= === ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Monday, July 6, 2009 7:44:47 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

May be 1400 BCE then.

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 6:48 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

I have studied all aspects of this VJ problem and even made some special

softwares to test various viewpoints before declaring that the conditions

specified in VJ cannot be met within past one million years, leave aside 2400 or

1400 BCE. Lunar Magha Shukla Pratipada is impossible at the entry of Sun and

Moon into Dhanishthaa.

 

VJ talks of " entry into Dhanishthaa " and not about residence in Dhanishthaa.

Hence, 2400 BCE is not correct, because Sun and Moon must be at the start of

Dhanishthaa and not anywhere in Dhanishthaa.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= = ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 7:35:07 PM

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

 

Sinil Da,

 

After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

 

Thanks

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400

BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

 

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

 

Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India ,

and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of

solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

 

Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

 

The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

 

The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where

it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== ====

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

 

Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of

traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being

made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this

committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by

panchanga makers and by public at large.

 

The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed

Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas.

 

Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

 

Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising

if someone throws away Raashis.

 

But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God

can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the

Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

 

Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss

to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their

livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe.

 

The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

 

" Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

 

Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

 

Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana

was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing

ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be

defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

 

Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are

not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha.

 

Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

 

Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ======= ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

" harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

 

 

Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

 

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

 

Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over

one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

 

1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift

the rashis appropriately.

 

2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of

limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should

be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15

degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the

concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path

compromise.

 

3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not

effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the

land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

 

Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is

suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of

jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency.

 

4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can

go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only

the mother knows who the father is.

 

So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will

easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

 

5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish

the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed,

according to SB Dixit.

 

6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the

original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are

better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

 

7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so

hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is

uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting

that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep

the fifth vedas always correct.

 

So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Hari Malla

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

>

 

> NShri Harimallaji,

 

>

 

> You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste

your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

 

> with Pausha month.

 

>

 

> You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western

astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect

on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand

why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able

to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what

you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt

repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and

Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to

the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please

quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much

much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called

Dharmashastra.

 

>

 

> I summarise the above as follows:

 

>

 

> 1) Show precedents,

 

> 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

 

> 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You

cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and

reassertions.

 

> 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

 

> 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

 

> 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

 

> 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

 

>

 

> Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven

points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed

so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to

particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have

you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

 

>

 

> Sincerely

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..>

 

> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology

and the Sidereal

 

>

 

> Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Dear sir,

 

> Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

 

> Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

 

> Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not

effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

 

>

 

> thank you,

 

> Regards,

 

> Hari Malla

 

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

 

> >

 

> > Dear friend,

 

> >

 

> > You said:

 

> >

 

> > Quote

 

> >

 

> > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

 

> >

 

> > Unauote

 

> >

 

> > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

 

> >

 

> > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

 

> >

 

> > Sincerely

 

> >

 

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> >

 

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> >

 

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> >

 

> > Dear sir,

 

> > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our

solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of

adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

 

> > Regards,

 

> > Hari Malla

 

> >

 

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> > >

 

> > > Dear members,

 

> > >

 

> > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

 

> > >

 

> > > Quote

 

> > >

 

> > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month

to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new

epochal mesh rashi.

 

> > >

 

> > > Unquote

 

> > >

 

> > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras?

The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with

the moving Tropical zodiac.

 

> > >

 

> > > Regards,

 

> > >

 

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > >

 

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > >

 

> > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

 

> > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future

be fulfilled!

 

> > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

 

> > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

 

> > > Regards,

 

> > > Hari Malla

 

> > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...>

wrote:

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Dinesh-ji,

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

 

> > > >

 

> > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that

was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what

an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

 

> > > >

 

> > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created

by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent

movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its

slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of

" ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the

earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of

ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

 

> > > >

 

> > > > RR

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > >

 

> > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@

> wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered

around the ecliptic.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind

what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are

scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more

away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular

constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came

up with animal shaped constellation) .

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Love you all

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

 

> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Quote

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

 

> > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

 

> > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

 

> > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

 

> > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

 

> > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

 

> > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

 

> > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice

of the

 

> > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

 

> > > > > the same?

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that

he

 

> > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no

 

> > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

 

> > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

 

> > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

 

> > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

 

> > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Unquote

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Awaiting your reply.

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sincerely,

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

 

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

 

> > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

 

> > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly,

it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true

for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus

forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually

it is not.

 

> > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

 

> > > > > Regards,

 

> > > > > HAri Malla

 

> > > > >

 

> > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient

wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence

of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an

astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or

planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why

you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles

before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who

is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it

is an age-old thing.

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but

you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an

outdated person.

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > -VJ

 

> > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

 

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sincerely,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

 

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees

away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means

those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about

the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has

not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works

present between us

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > Thank you Sirs

 

> > > > > >

 

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

 

> > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

 

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the

following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

 

> > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

 

> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

 

> > > > > > > sincerely yours,

 

> > > > > > > HAri Malla

 

> > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Best wishes,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

 

> > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the

receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the

different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects

on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

 

> > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

 

> > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you

want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do

not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

 

> > > > > > > > Regards,

 

> > > > > > > > Hari Malla

 

> > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@

> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!!

And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if

you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and

enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are

just engaging in useless discussions.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

 

> > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

 

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

 

> > > > > > > > >

 

> > > > > > > > > >

 

& g

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Vinay,

 

Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the

year as1800 BCE

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil da,

 

The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1,

Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of

month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon

..

 

But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start

of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in

actual practice.

 

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and

social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality

is Vedic and is still preserved.

 

As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ====

 

____________ _________ _________ __

" sunil_bhattacharjya @ " <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in

two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki

Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern

astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started.

When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this

means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha.

The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie.

after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start

of the Tapa.

 

Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am

now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar,

may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other

scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to

some of those groups also

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

 

Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But

all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

 

Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha,

because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

 

But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

 

Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

 

235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

 

Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard

for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he

ignores.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Harimallaji,

 

There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

 

harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

 

Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I

will explain in short.

For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of

maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused

by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi

of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is

that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

casued thereby.

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

>

Sinil Da,

>

> After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave

1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

> Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

> Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India

, and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms

of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

> Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

> The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

>

> The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ====

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

> Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert

of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being

made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this

committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by

panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

> The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

>

> Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

> Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

> But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God

can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the

Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

>

> Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss

to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their

livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe.

>

> The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

>

> " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

>

> Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

> Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana

was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing

ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be

defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

> Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which

are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha.

>

> Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

>

> Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= ======= ===

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

> Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over

one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

> 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift

the rashis appropriately.

> 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement

of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji

should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to

15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against

the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path

compromise.

>

> 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not

effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the

land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

> Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency.

>

> 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can

go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only

the mother knows who the father is.

> So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars)

will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

>

> 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish

the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed,

according to SB Dixit.

>

> 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the

original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are

better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

>

> 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying

so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is

uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting

that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep

the fifth vedas always correct.

> So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> Sincerely yours,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > NShri Harimallaji,

> >

> > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste

your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > with Pausha month.

> >

> > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western

astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect

on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand

why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able

to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what

you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt

repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and

Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to

the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please

quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much

much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called

Dharmashastra.

> >

> > I summarise the above as follows:

> >

> > 1) Show precedents,

> > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You

cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and

reassertions.

> > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

> >

> > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above

seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been

discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable

to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic.

Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear sir,

> > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do

not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

> >

> > thank you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear friend,

> > >

> > > You said:

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

> > >

> > > Unauote

> > >

> > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

> > >

> > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

> > >

> > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear sir,

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In

our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule

of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear members,

> > > >

> > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one

month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as

the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > >

> > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good

future be fulfilled!

> > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum

that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish

what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > >

> > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really

created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the

apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN

has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the

notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar

wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself

are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are

more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to

partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that

Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

> > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

> > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

> > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

> > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

> > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

> > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

> > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential

choice of the

> > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

> > > > > > the same?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he

> > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic

band have no

> > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

> > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

> > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

> > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

> > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

> > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for

ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One

who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because

it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point,

but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as

an outdated person.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in

the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9

degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself

has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many

works present between us

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote

the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

> > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at

the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from

the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their

effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

> > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if

you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars

do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising

more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> & g

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Rohini and Vinay,

 

I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention.

 

The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Date: Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM

 

 

Rohini Da,Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.-VJ============ ======== ==____________ _________ _________ __Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras---

In , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> May be 1400 BCE then.> > SKBHey Dada-bhai,Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-)Love your sense of humour ;-)Rohini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Pranamas,See the following alternative names:Sani : Mandhan Guru : IraNiyamRegards/Dhananjayan--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Cc: , vedic astrology , vedic_research_institute , WAVES-Vedic , indiaarchaeology Date: Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 5:00 PM

 

Dear Rohini and Vinay,

 

I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic convention.

 

The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess what was the Vedic name of Shani.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatrasMonday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM

 

 

Rohini Da,Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava (Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.-VJ============ ======== ==____________ _________ _________ __Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras---

In , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> May be 1400 BCE then.> > SKBHey Dada-bhai,Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-)Love your sense of humour ;-)Rohini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil Da,

 

You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say

that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ.

 

-VJ

===================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the

year as1800 BCE

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

 

Sunil da,

 

The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1,

Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of

month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon

..

 

But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start

of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in

actual practice.

 

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and

social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality

is Vedic and is still preserved.

 

As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ====

 

____________ _________ _________ __

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in

two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki

Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern

astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started.

When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this

means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha.

The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie.

after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start

of the Tapa.

 

Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am

now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar,

may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other

scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to

some of those groups also

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

 

Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But

all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

 

Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha,

because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

 

But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

 

Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

 

235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

 

Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard

for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he

ignores.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Harimallaji,

 

There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

 

harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

 

Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I

will explain in short.

For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of

maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused

by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi

of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is

that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

casued thereby.

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

>

Sinil Da,

>

> After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave

1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

> Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

> Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India

, and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms

of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

> Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

> The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

>

> The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ====

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

> Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert

of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being

made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this

committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by

panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

> The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

>

> Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

> Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

> But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God

can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the

Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

>

> Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss

to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their

livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe.

>

> The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

>

> " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

>

> Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

> Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana

was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing

ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be

defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

> Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which

are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha.

>

> Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

>

> Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= ======= ===

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

> Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over

one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

> 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift

the rashis appropriately.

> 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement

of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji

should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to

15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against

the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path

compromise.

>

> 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not

effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the

land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

> Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency.

>

> 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can

go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only

the mother knows who the father is.

> So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars)

will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

>

> 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish

the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed,

according to SB Dixit.

>

> 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the

original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are

better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

>

> 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying

so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is

uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting

that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep

the fifth vedas always correct.

> So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> Sincerely yours,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > NShri Harimallaji,

> >

> > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste

your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > with Pausha month.

> >

> > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western

astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect

on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand

why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able

to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what

you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt

repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and

Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to

the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please

quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much

much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called

Dharmashastra.

> >

> > I summarise the above as follows:

> >

> > 1) Show precedents,

> > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You

cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and

reassertions.

> > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

> >

> > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above

seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been

discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable

to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic.

Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear sir,

> > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do

not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

> >

> > thank you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear friend,

> > >

> > > You said:

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

> > >

> > > Unauote

> > >

> > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

> > >

> > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

> > >

> > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear sir,

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In

our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule

of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear members,

> > > >

> > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one

month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as

the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > >

> > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good

future be fulfilled!

> > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum

that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish

what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > >

> > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really

created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the

apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN

has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the

notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar

wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself

are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are

more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to

partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that

Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

> > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

> > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

> > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

> > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

> > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

> > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

> > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential

choice of the

> > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

> > > > > > the same?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he

> > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic

band have no

> > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

> > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

> > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

> > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

> > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

> > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for

ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One

who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because

it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point,

but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as

an outdated person.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in

the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9

degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself

has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many

works present between us

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote

the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

> > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at

the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from

the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their

effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

> > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if

you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars

do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising

more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> & g

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Vinay,

 

I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following :

 

Quote

 

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to.

 

Unquote

 

How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific

reference anywhere?

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say

that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ.

 

-VJ

============ ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the

year as1800 BCE

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

 

Sunil da,

 

The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1,

Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of

month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon

..

 

But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start

of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in

actual practice.

 

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and

social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality

is Vedic and is still preserved.

 

As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ====

 

____________ _________ _________ __

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in

two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki

Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern

astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started.

When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this

means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha.

The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie.

after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start

of the Tapa.

 

Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am

now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar,

may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other

scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to

some of those groups also

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

 

Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But

all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

 

Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha,

because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

 

But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

 

Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

 

235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

 

Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard

for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he

ignores.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Harimallaji,

 

There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

 

harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

 

Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I

will explain in short.

For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of

maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused

by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi

of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is

that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

thank you,

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

casued thereby.

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

>

>

Sinil Da,

>

> After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave

1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered

into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during

that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor

you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ.

Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any

period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the

prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ==

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal)

month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the

Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month

immediately after the Uttarayana.

>

> Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have

been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows

that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot

definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

>

> Sunil Da,

>

> You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar

Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I

am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to

solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

>

> Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India

, and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms

of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

>

> Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work.

Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed

person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions

described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot

be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha

Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately

to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs

around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past

one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha

cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

>

> The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no

advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

>

> The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ====

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear Vinay,

>

> Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha

the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in

Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> SKB

>

> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

>

> Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert

of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being

made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this

committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by

panchanga makers and by public at large.

>

> The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

>

> Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be

faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

>

> Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

>

> But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God

can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the

Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

>

> Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss

to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their

livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe.

>

> The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

>

> " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

>

> Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

>

> Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana

was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing

ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a

mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally

defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be

defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's

equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by

some moderners is causing all this trouble.

>

> Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which

are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha.

>

> Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

>

> Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ========= ======= ===

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

>

> Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

> Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over

one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

> 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift

the rashis appropriately.

> 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement

of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji

should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to

15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against

the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path

compromise.

>

> 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not

effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the

land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie

for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

> Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This

is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas

of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of

meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency.

>

> 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can

go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only

the mother knows who the father is.

> So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars)

will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

>

> 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish

the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed,

according to SB Dixit.

>

> 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the

original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are

better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

>

> 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying

so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is

uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting

that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep

the fifth vedas always correct.

> So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> Sincerely yours,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > NShri Harimallaji,

> >

> > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste

your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > with Pausha month.

> >

> > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western

astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect

on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand

why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able

to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what

you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt

repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and

Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to

the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please

quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much

much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called

Dharmashastra.

> >

> > I summarise the above as follows:

> >

> > 1) Show precedents,

> > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You

cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and

reassertions.

> > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie.

these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the

Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

> >

> > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above

seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been

discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable

to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic.

Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear sir,

> > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh

since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do

not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12

bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by

thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

> >

> > thank you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear friend,

> > >

> > > You said:

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

> > >

> > > Unauote

> > >

> > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this

point.

> > >

> > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal

equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In

that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas

should take a lesson from them.

> > >

> > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear sir,

> > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In

our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule

of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear members,

> > > >

> > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > > >

> > > > Quote

> > > >

> > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one

month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as

the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Unquote

> > > >

> > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > >

> > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good

future be fulfilled!

> > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth

whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum

that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish

what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those

electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being

installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > >

> > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really

created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the

apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN

has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the

notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar

wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > >

> > > > > RR

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only

those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself

are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are

more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to

partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that

Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the

ecliptic

> > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other

> > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any

> > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that.

> > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared

to

> > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in

the first

> > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band.

Do you

> > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential

choice of the

> > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is

ignorant of

> > > > > > the same?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he

> > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic

band have no

> > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not

> > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless

> > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does

not know in

> > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

> > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i

l.com> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth,

old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in

being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in

what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

> > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if

true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for

ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following :

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One

who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because

it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point,

but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as

an outdated person.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in

the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if

other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me

that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band

have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9

degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation

and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in

Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself

has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but

those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8

to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting

us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will

affect in same way

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many

works present between us

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will

raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote

the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

> > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that

plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at

the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from

the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their

effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same..

> > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then

the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if

you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars

do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since

you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising

more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth

whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If

so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect

these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> & g

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil Da,

 

I fail to understand why you insist on Vedic and post Vedic lunar months ! I

have already told you that for mathematical computations lunar months are

computed from New Moon and for all religiousand social purposes lunar months

begin and end with Full Moon. Both methods are Vedic and are still in vogue. You

insist on the Poornimaanta month because it is popular, and the Amaanta month is

used only in siddhanta.

 

Creation began with sun, Moon and all other planets at the beginning of Mesha,

according to all Indian siddhantas. Hence, it was New Moon at the beginning of

Creation. Therefore, counting of synodical month must start from the start of

Shukla Pratipadaa, ie from New Moon. But the first month of Creation was only a

half month, because lunar month ends with Full Month. there is no difference in

both systems. Lunar months are counted by New Moons, but recognized and named

with reference to Full Moons. There is no contradition and no disagreement. All

panchanga makers accept this system. Why you are inventing a disagreement

surprising.

 

You are raising a wrong point by putting Vedanga Jyotisha within Vedic

literature and Siddhanta Jyotisha outside it. As I already showed with reference

to Divya Varsha, Suryasiddhanta is 100% in conformity with the Puranic

tradition, and everyone knows that Puranic tradition is based on Vedic. There is

no need of creating a Vedic and non-Vedic division in the fielf of siddhanta of

Jyotisha on flimsy grounds, which was a clever ploy of Westerners in order to

prove a foreign origin of Siddhanta Jyotisha, as AKK also wants to prove.

Jyotisha cannot exist without Siddhanta, and Siddhanta is Vedanga because

Jyotisha is Vedanga. There were 18 apaurusheya siddhantas, of which only

Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other socalled siddhantas are not siddhantas on

two counts : they are tantra and karana texts and do not fulfill the basic

criterion of a siddhanta text that siddhanta must show computations from the

beginning of Creation, whereas texts like

Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shoromani compjute from some nearby era ; and they are

man-made unlike original siddhantas which have vanished excepting

Suryasiddhanta. Any opposition to Suryasiddhanta is opposition to Vedic-Puranic

tradition of Jyotisha, which is shown in all ancient texts.

 

-VJ

 

====================== ===

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was

Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is

directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic

convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the

verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to

the Shukla paksha.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today

to Mr Hari Malla :

 

<<<

" 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar

year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit

together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun

will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11

days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next

year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year,

the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an

intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of

pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years,

there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one

day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla

Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make

computations before putting forth absurd claims.

 

I

said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla

Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this

condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average

condition now-a-days.

 

I also said that this condition was

impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha

Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry

into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri

because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say

so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and

Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one

rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two

months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are

being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in

Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described

in Vedanga Jyotisha.

 

The

conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years,

and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions

arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after

that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions.

 

Either

Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it

is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these

alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE,

because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into

Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during

entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false

opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said

something.

 

Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

 

You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions.

 

Please

do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs

sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to

your anti-mathematical op

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil da,

 

I must add that bhagadatta was " Pragjyotishaadhipah " , " Mlechchhaanaam-adhipo "

and " Yananaih-sahito " according to verse-12 in 47th chapter of Sabha-parva of

internet edition of MBh.

 

The previous verse I sent you mentions him as Lord of the West.

 

In verse-49 of chapter-28 (ch-31 in internet edition of Maharshi Institute) of

Sabha-parva says :

 

" Antaakhim chaiva Romaan cha Yavanaanaam-puram " .

 

Gitapress edition says

 

" Aatavi, cha purim ramyaam Yavanaanaam-puram tathaa " .

 

The internet edition is clearly spurious. Many chapters are missing, and

spelling mistakes are intolerable. Rome was founded much after MBh.In Gitapress

edition, this verse clearly shows Yavanpuri was some yavana colony, a precursor

of Arikamedu or Arikamedu itself, in south India because this Yavanapuri was

among the kingdoms won by Sahadeva in his conquest of the far south.

 

Hence, it seems Bhagadatta was king of Pragjyotisha in Assam but due to some

strange reason Yavanas of the West accepted his suzerainty, as he is called lord

of Yavanas and Lord of the West.

 

Maybe some of the residents of Assam were predecessors of yavanas who went to

west later. I have no time to scan the whole of MBh for the occurrences of

" yavana " . Moreover, the edition which allows search function is unreliable. Can

Gitapress give us the comper copy of its edition for easy searching ?

 

_VJ

====================== ===

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was

Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is

directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic

convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the

verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to

the Shukla paksha.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today

to Mr Hari Malla :

 

<<<

" 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar

year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit

together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun

will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11

days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next

year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year,

the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an

intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of

pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years,

there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one

day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla

Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make

computations before putting forth absurd claims.

 

I

said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla

Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this

condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average

condition now-a-days.

 

I also said that this condition was

impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha

Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry

into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri

because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say

so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and

Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one

rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two

months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are

being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in

Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described

in Vedanga Jyotisha.

 

The

conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years,

and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions

arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after

that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions.

 

Either

Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it

is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these

alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE,

because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into

Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during

entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false

opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said

something.

 

Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

 

You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions.

 

Please

do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs

sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to

your anti-mathematical op

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil da,

 

Why you ignore the computational proofs which show

that Maagha, Shukla or Krishna, Amaanta or Poornimaanta, was impossible

during entire Kaliyuga under the conditions described in VJ ? Such a

condition is being met now-a-days, but there was an error of one month

per 2459 years as we go into past, error of two months if we go 4917

years into past, and so on.

 

Rudra becoming Shiva is a modern

myth created by mlechchhas posing as Vedic experts. Rudra means one who

causes to weep (Rud), while Shiva is auspicious. Yajnavalkya says in

Brihat-aranyaka-upanishada that 11 indriyas are 11 rudras

because they run after external things and foster desires, leading to

sorrow. when all 11 indriyas are restrained them Mind, the ultimate

Rudra, becomes Shiva by sublating all indriyas, ie it merges into

Shiva. Maitrayani Samhita (ie, Yajurveda) has detailed mantras for

Shiva, Gauri, Ganesh, Kartikeya, etc , yet mlechchhas say Shiva is a

post-Vedic deity !

 

Sunil da,

 

i

already sent you report of thorogh scan of Adi and Sabha parvas of MBh

about " yavana " . Now, I have finished checking Vanaparva, here is the

report :

 

Verse- in ch-48 of maharishi edition includes yavanas among the western nations

" paschimmani cha raajyaani.... " .

 

Verse-30

of ch-86 includes yavanas among ethically nefarious peoples ruling the

world in Kaliyuga. No eastern tribe or nation is listed, only western

and southern peoples are listed with yavanas.

 

Sabhaparva has only two occurrences of " yavana " .

 

-------

 

Viraata-parva does not mention the word " yavana " even once.

 

-------

 

Udyog-parva has two references :

 

Verse-21 in ch- 19 lists yavanas among western tribes (Kaamboja, Yavana, Shaka).

 

Verse-7 in ch-196 again includes yavanas among " Shakas, Kiraatas, Yavanas,

Shibis, Vasaatis " . even once.

 

-------

 

Bhishma-parva :

 

Verse-64 in ch-10 includes yavanas with Kambojas among mlechchhas. Kambojas

lived in west of India.

 

-VJ

========================= ==

 

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Cc: ; vedic astrology ;

vedic_research_institute ; WAVES-Vedic ;

indiaarchaeology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:00:26 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and

value of the nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Rohini and Vinay,

 

I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta

month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic

convention.

 

The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even

Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess

what was the Vedic name of Shani.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM

 

Rohini Da,

 

Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava

(Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of

Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small

hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> May be 1400 BCE then.

>

> SKB

 

Hey Dada-bhai,

 

Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the

earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all

ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of

Hydrogen ;-)

 

Love your sense of humour ;-)

 

Rohini

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hari Mallaji,

 

Sorry my mail got garbled. I am resending it.

 

You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla

pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the

conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the Krishna

pratipada ie. on the day after Pausha Purnima and after that when the dark

fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from

which the 5-year yuga well as  the seasonal month Tapa started. Uttarayana in

Dhanistha Nakshatra occurred within the same month of Magha, within which the

Yuga and Tapa had already started from the Shukla pratipada..  When VJ said "

syattad adiyugam " , VJ  was meaning " yugadi "  (ie. the start of the 5-year

yuga)  Thus  Shuklapaksha, yuga, Tapa and Uttarayana in Dhanistha  all occurred

within the month of Magha. 

 

By considering an Amanta Magha how can you show that Magha, Tapa, Yuga,

Shuklapaksha and Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha during 1400 to 2400 BCE..

Vinay is that way very sensible and he says that with an Amanta Magha the date

of these events of Vedanga Jyotisha cannot cannot occur in 1400 to 2400 BCE as

his knows the Mathematics well. You appear to be in an illusion and that is what

I meant when I said that you want to eat the cake and eat it too.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya .  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, sunil_bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 2:20 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hari Mallaji,

 

You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla

pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the

conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after

Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there

was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as  the seasonal

month started. Uttarayana  when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day

was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ  is meaning

" yugadi "  (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga)  

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote:

 

harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com>

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can

Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me

it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not?

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Harimallaji,

>  

> No guesswork in these  cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha

(VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of  the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was

composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the

cake and have it too.

>  

> However the VJ says as follows:

>  

> <<  svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau .

> syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak  >>

>  

> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the

start of the Yuga  and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the

seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha.  VJ did not say that Uttarayana

occurred on Shukla pratipada.

>  

> Sincerely

>  

> SKB

>  

>  

> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote:

>

>

> harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..>

> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

>

> Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM

>

>

Dear Bhattachajyaji,

> I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more

details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is

correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be

purnimanta.

> My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta

and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Vinay,

> >  

> > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following :

> >  

> > Quote

> >  

> > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to.

> >  

> > Unquote

> >  

> > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific

reference anywhere?

> >  

> > Best wishes,

> >  

> > SKB

> >  

> >

> >

> > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Da,

> >

> > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to

say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of

VJ.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ========= ==

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Dear Vinay,

> >

> > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and

the year as1800 BCE

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > SKB

> >

> > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

> >

> > Sunil da,

> >

> > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna

(chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is

" completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end

with a full moon .

> >

> > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at

start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon

in actual practice.

> >

> > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic

reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga

Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious

and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This

duality is Vedic and is still preserved.

> >

> > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ========= ==== ====

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Dear Vinay,

> >

> > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga

Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in

Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next

day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing

this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the

Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and

Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it

was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day

following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of

Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa.

> >

> > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I

am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari

Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of

other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail

to some of those groups also

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

> >

> > Sunil Da,

> >

> > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in

discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of

Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa

or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the

need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say

this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple

:

> >

> > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra.

But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha

Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is

a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month

should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga

makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of

Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious

duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also

supports them.

> >

> > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of

Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE.

> >

> > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

> >

> > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and

around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha

month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360

degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into

Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa.

Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33

= 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be

neglected.

> >

> > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best

approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is

left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not

an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have

examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of

Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ

problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one

" beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !!

> >

> > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no

regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence,

which he ignores.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ========= ==== ===

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> >

> > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM

> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Harimallaji,

> >

> > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not

understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's

date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon

could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the

bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that

it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter,

which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and

contribute to that only if possible.

> >

> > SKB

> >

> > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

wrote:

> >

> > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> >

> > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

> >

> > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

> > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this

remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

> > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time

I will explain in short.

> > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in

dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and

that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per

generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument,

with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days

in this context is pactically useless.

> > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi

of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha

caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of

dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada

swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf

to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun

in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700

years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of

nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this

whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that

whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar

nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan

> tithi

> > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim

is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the

celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never

celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are

scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan

system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too

are.May I think so?

> > thank you,

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > casued thereby.

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

> > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha

between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to..

Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at

most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto

a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period

and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this

aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month

immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved

there.

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

> > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sinil Da,

> > >

> > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters

Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ============ ======== ==

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again.

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > >

> > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM

> > >

> > > Sunil Da,

> > >

> > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke

gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar

Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both

entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible

during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr

Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described

in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to

any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for

the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ============ ========= ==

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

> > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar

(seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two

months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal

month immediately after the Uttarayana.

> > >

> > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must

have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This

shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one

cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM

> > >

> > > Sunil Da,

> > >

> > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the

solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume

that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always

equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ?

> > >

> > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of

India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in

terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

> > >

> > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later

work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some

unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma

Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical

conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because

Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New

Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after,

approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into

Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during

much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it.

Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

> > >

> > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe

no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of

culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that

Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions.

> > >

> > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta

where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have

experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some,

and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric

carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic

valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was

not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history

Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by

uncultured peoples.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> > > ============ ======== ====

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

> > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga

Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred

in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference)

which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are

only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha

is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the

month related to Uttarayana.

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

> > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM

> > >

> > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single

expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are

still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled

this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were

unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large.

> > >

> > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by

self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian

siddhantas.

> > >

> > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to

be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

> > >

> > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

> > >

> > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only

God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by

the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is

proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all

computations and predictions.

> > >

> > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this

loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn

their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us

believe.

> > >

> > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no

knowledge of astrology :

> > >

> > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency. "

> > >

> > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology :

Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and

Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be

indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no

effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

> > >

> > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this

Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for

computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes,

this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was

originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It

cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion

of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of

Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble.

> > >

> > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas,

which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of

Ayanamsha.

> > >

> > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists,

because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit

of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a

non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on

the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being

within the Bhachakra.

> > >

> > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of

astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well.

Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may

observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > > ============ ========= ======= ===

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > >

> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM

> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for

over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were

divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see

between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar

Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up

something so we meet somewhere.

> > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to

shift the rashis appropriately.

> > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an

improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be

welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the

sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa

even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness

is the middle path compromise.

> > >

> > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do

not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as

the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand

years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

> > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal

efficiency.

> > >

> > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we

can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the

seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is.

> > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole

stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars).

> > >

> > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to

re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be

changed, according to SB Dixit.

> > >

> > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of

the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers

are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students.

> > >

> > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am

trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar

sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I

am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar

sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct.

> > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a

logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of

people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> > > Sincerely yours,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > NShri Harimallaji,

> > > >

> > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not

waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About

Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when

the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the

Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the

Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I

said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our

ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you

know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the

Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that.

I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days

should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice,

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > > > with Pausha month.

> > > >

> > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the

western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different

effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to

understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody

should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please

incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made.

Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like

Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I

prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of

opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original

Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even

Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra.

> > > >

> > > > I summarise the above as follows:

> > > >

> > > > 1) Show precedents,

> > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

> > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion.

You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions

and reassertions.

> > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected,

> > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana

ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and

> > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

> > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but

the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana

rashis of the fifth Veda?

> > > >

> > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above

seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been

discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable

to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic.

Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the

Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > >

> > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear sir,

> > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go

agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited.

> > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from

mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan.

> > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic

do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the

12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too

by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link.

> > > >

> > > > thank you,

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friend,

> > > > >

> > > > > You said:

> > > > >

> > > > > Quote

> > > > >

> > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.

> > > > >

> > > > > Unauote

> > > > >

> > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on

this point.

> > > > >

> > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the

Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different

times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana

rashwallas should take a lesson from them.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > >

> > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear sir,

> > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited

nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the

basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and

backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees

forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa

is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar

seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15

degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal

value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to

shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new

ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank

you,

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > >

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear members,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt :

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one

month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as

the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving)

Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good

future be fulfilled!

> > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth

changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path

and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the

annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth.

> > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the

earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the

earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150

years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due

to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one

full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the

rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the

bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than

good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become

the norm in some places :-(

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature

forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for

Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of

those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now

being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really

created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the

apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN

has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the

notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar

wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the

long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in

mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also

affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so

only those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation

itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars

which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont

go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad

that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL....

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready

reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in

the ecliptic

> > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use

if other

> > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to

be of having any

> > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he

reasserted that.

> > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never

cared to

> > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was

chosen in the first

> > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic

band. Do you

> > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential

choice of the

> > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he

is ignorant of

> > > > > > > > the same?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to

me that he

> > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the

ecliptic band have no

> > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band

also would not

> > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which

involves these useless

> > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in

> > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were

chosen

> > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com>

> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji,

> > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is

truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no

problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us

concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying.

> > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

> > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees

if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and

Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you,

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for

ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following

:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice.

One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology,

because it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this

point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me

off as an outdated person.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -VJ

> > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = =========

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM

> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras)

in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use

if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of

having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted

that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to

understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first

place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you

think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the

constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of

the same?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to

me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic

band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also

would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves

these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he

does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band

were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in>

> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as

below:-

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9

degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything)

means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific

constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below

example:-

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is

in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji

himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic...

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations

but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means

+8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are

affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from

ecliptic will affect in same way

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many

works present between us

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology

will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== ==

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM

> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who

wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside

that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic>

> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you,

> > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside

that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the

constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any

theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings

in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are

at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive

from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare

their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the

same..

> > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us

then the other stars too will effect us in the same way.

> > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment

if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other

stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised

since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any

assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some

questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I

assure you that I will start learning from you.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising

more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on

earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to

say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of

effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > & g

> > >

> > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Vinay,

 

Can you please quote the relevant verse fron the Suryasiddhanta, which says

that the month was Amanta?

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:28 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

I fail to understand why you insist on Vedic and post Vedic lunar months ! I

have already told you that for mathematical computations lunar months are

computed from New Moon and for all religiousand social purposes lunar months

begin and end with Full Moon. Both methods are Vedic and are still in vogue. You

insist on the Poornimaanta month because it is popular, and the Amaanta month is

used only in siddhanta.

 

Creation began with sun, Moon and all other planets at the beginning of Mesha,

according to all Indian siddhantas. Hence, it was New Moon at the beginning of

Creation. Therefore, counting of synodical month must start from the start of

Shukla Pratipadaa, ie from New Moon. But the first month of Creation was only a

half month, because lunar month ends with Full Month. there is no difference in

both systems. Lunar months are counted by New Moons, but recognized and named

with reference to Full Moons. There is no contradition and no disagreement. All

panchanga makers accept this system. Why you are inventing a disagreement

surprising.

 

You are raising a wrong point by putting Vedanga Jyotisha within Vedic

literature and Siddhanta Jyotisha outside it. As I already showed with reference

to Divya Varsha, Suryasiddhanta is 100% in conformity with the Puranic

tradition, and everyone knows that Puranic tradition is based on Vedic. There is

no need of creating a Vedic and non-Vedic division in the fielf of siddhanta of

Jyotisha on flimsy grounds, which was a clever ploy of Westerners in order to

prove a foreign origin of Siddhanta Jyotisha, as AKK also wants to prove.

Jyotisha cannot exist without Siddhanta, and Siddhanta is Vedanga because

Jyotisha is Vedanga. There were 18 apaurusheya siddhantas, of which only

Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other socalled siddhantas are not siddhantas on

two counts : they are tantra and karana texts and do not fulfill the basic

criterion of a siddhanta text that siddhanta must show computations from the

beginning of Creation, whereas texts like

Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shoromani compjute from some nearby era ; and they are

man-made unlike original siddhantas which have vanished excepting

Suryasiddhanta. Any opposition to Suryasiddhanta is opposition to Vedic-Puranic

tradition of Jyotisha, which is shown in all ancient texts.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= = ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was

Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is

directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic

convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the

verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to

the Shukla paksha.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today

to Mr Hari Malla :

 

<<<

" 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar

year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit

together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun

will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11

days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next

year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year,

the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an

intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of

pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years,

there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one

day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla

Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make

computations before putting forth absurd claims.

 

I

said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla

Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this

condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average

condition now-a-days.

 

I also said that this condition was

impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha

Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry

into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri

because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say

so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and

Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one

rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two

months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are

being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in

Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described

in Vedanga Jyotisha.

 

The

conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years,

and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions

arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after

that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions.

 

Either

Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it

is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these

alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE,

because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into

Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during

entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false

opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said

something.

 

Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

 

You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions.

 

Please

do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs

sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to

your anti-mathematical op

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Vinay,

 

As regards the Divya Varsha you are yet to read the Chapter 57 of the Vayu

purana.

 

SKB

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:28 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

I fail to understand why you insist on Vedic and post Vedic lunar months ! I

have already told you that for mathematical computations lunar months are

computed from New Moon and for all religiousand social purposes lunar months

begin and end with Full Moon. Both methods are Vedic and are still in vogue. You

insist on the Poornimaanta month because it is popular, and the Amaanta month is

used only in siddhanta.

 

Creation began with sun, Moon and all other planets at the beginning of Mesha,

according to all Indian siddhantas. Hence, it was New Moon at the beginning of

Creation. Therefore, counting of synodical month must start from the start of

Shukla Pratipadaa, ie from New Moon. But the first month of Creation was only a

half month, because lunar month ends with Full Month. there is no difference in

both systems. Lunar months are counted by New Moons, but recognized and named

with reference to Full Moons. There is no contradition and no disagreement. All

panchanga makers accept this system. Why you are inventing a disagreement

surprising.

 

You are raising a wrong point by putting Vedanga Jyotisha within Vedic

literature and Siddhanta Jyotisha outside it. As I already showed with reference

to Divya Varsha, Suryasiddhanta is 100% in conformity with the Puranic

tradition, and everyone knows that Puranic tradition is based on Vedic. There is

no need of creating a Vedic and non-Vedic division in the fielf of siddhanta of

Jyotisha on flimsy grounds, which was a clever ploy of Westerners in order to

prove a foreign origin of Siddhanta Jyotisha, as AKK also wants to prove.

Jyotisha cannot exist without Siddhanta, and Siddhanta is Vedanga because

Jyotisha is Vedanga. There were 18 apaurusheya siddhantas, of which only

Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other socalled siddhantas are not siddhantas on

two counts : they are tantra and karana texts and do not fulfill the basic

criterion of a siddhanta text that siddhanta must show computations from the

beginning of Creation, whereas texts like

Aryabhatiya or Siddhanta-shoromani compjute from some nearby era ; and they are

man-made unlike original siddhantas which have vanished excepting

Suryasiddhanta. Any opposition to Suryasiddhanta is opposition to Vedic-Puranic

tradition of Jyotisha, which is shown in all ancient texts.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= = ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:15:12 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Dear Vinay,

 

Let us agree to desagree. I have to insist that the month of Magha in VJ was

Purnimanta. Why should VJ follow Amanta month for the Lunar month? VJ is

directly linked to the Veda and for this reason it has to follow the Vedic

convention. VJ would not disturb the regular Lunar month of Magha. From the

verse in VJ it also appears to me that the month of Tapa was only connected to

the Shukla paksha.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:35 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Impossible, Magha was impossible. I am sending a copy of the reply I send today

to Mr Hari Malla :

 

<<<

" 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar

year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit

together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun

will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11

days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next

year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year,

the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an

intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of

pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years,

there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one

day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla

Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make

computations before putting forth absurd claims.

 

I

said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla

Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this

condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average

condition now-a-days.

 

I also said that this condition was

impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha

Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry

into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri

because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say

so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and

Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one

rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two

months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are

being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in

Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described

in Vedanga Jyotisha.

 

The

conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years,

and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions

arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after

that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions.

 

Either

Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it

is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these

alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE,

because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into

Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during

entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false

opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said

something.

 

Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

 

You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions.

 

Please

do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs

sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to

your anti-mathematical op

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sunil da,

 

Why you ignore the computational proofs which show that Maagha, Shukla or

Krishna, Amaanta or Poornimaanta, was impossible during entire Kaliyuga under

the conditions described in VJ ? Such a condition is being met now-a-days, but

there was an error of one month per 2459 years as we go into past, error of two

months if we go 4917 years into past, and so on.

 

Rudra becoming Shiva is a modern myth created by mlechchhas posing as Vedic

experts. Rudra means one who causes to weep (Rud), while Shiva is auspicious.

Yajnavalkya says in Brihat-aranyaka-upanishada that 11 indriyas are 11 rudras

because they run after external things and foster desires, leading to sorrow.

when all 11 indriyas are restrained them Mind, the ultimate Rudra, becomes Shiva

by sublating all indriyas, ie it merges into Shiva. Maitrayani Samhita (ie,

Yajurveda) has detailed mantras for Shiva, Gauri, Ganesh, Kartikeya, etc , yet

mlechchhas say Shiva is a post-Vedic deity !

 

Sunil da,

 

i already sent you report of thorogh scan of Adi and Sabha parvas of MBh about

" yavana " . Now, I have finished checking Vanaparva, here is the report :

 

Verse- in ch-48 of maharishi edition includes yavanas among the western nations

" paschimmani cha raajyaani.... " .

 

Verse-30 of ch-86 includes yavanas among ethically nefarious peoples ruling the

world in Kaliyuga. No eastern tribe or nation is listed, only western and

southern peoples are listed with yavanas.

 

Sabhaparva has only two occurrences of " yavana " .

 

-------

 

Viraata-parva does not mention the word " yavana " even once.

 

-------

 

Udyog-parva has two references :

 

Verse-21 in ch- 19 lists yavanas among western tribes (Kaamboja, Yavana, Shaka).

 

Verse-7 in ch-196 again includes yavanas among " Shakas, Kiraatas, Yavanas,

Shibis, Vasaatis " . even once.

 

-------

 

Bhishma-parva :

 

Verse-64 in ch-10 includes yavanas with Kambojas among mlechchhas. Kambojas

lived in west of India.

 

-VJ

========================= ==

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

 

Cc: ; vedic astrology ;

vedic_research_institute ; WAVES-Vedic ;

indiaarchaeology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:00:26 PM

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Rohini and Vinay,

 

I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta

month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic

convention.

 

The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even

Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess

what was the Vedic name of Shani.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the

nakshatras

 

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM

 

Rohini Da,

 

Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava

(Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of

Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small

hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> May be 1400 BCE then.

>

> SKB

 

Hey Dada-bhai,

 

Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the

earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all

ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of

Hydrogen ;-)

 

Love your sense of humour ;-)

 

Rohini

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The converse is also true : invisible dark matter is 9 times more weigthy than

normal matter, and black holes can contain more than we can give into them.

 

-VJ

 

========================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani

 

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:06:27 PM

Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil da,

 

Even the densest of atoms has more space than substance. The Universe is full of

holes!

 

RR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...