Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

July 8, 2009

To All,

Mr Hari Malla is deliberately distorting things. He says :

<<< " When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha,

for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans

of mathematics, it can mean something else too. " >>>

It is a lie he is spreading. Vedanga Jyotish says Sun and Moon simultaneously

enter into Dhanishthaa at the time of uttarayana on Maagha Shukla Pratipada. Mr

Malla and all his predecessors beginning from Colebrooke delibearately neglect

to mention Maagha Shukla Pratipada and check only the position of Sun. Such a

selective use of facts is intellectual dishonesty. In my view, Colebrooke was

not dishonest, he overlooked the need to check whether Maagha Shukla Pratipada

was possible then or not. But Mr Malla is certainly not sincere when he refuses

to check the full statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and insists on checking only the

position of Sun and not of tithi, just because checking tithi 3400 years ago is

a time consuming task which those cannot undertake who poke fun at " over

zealous fans of mathematics " . Mathematical problems cannot be solved by

rhetoric, which Mr Malla is trying to do. If we overlook the fact that Vedanga

Jyotisha talked of Maagha

Shukla Pratipada at the onset of uttarayana when Sun and Moon entered

Dhanishthaa, why Mr Malla refuses to accept this statement of Vedanga Jyotisha

and quotes it selectively merely to misinform members here ?

I do not feel any need to show further proofs to Mr Malla because he has started

quoting Vedanga Jyotisha selectively, deliberately omptting the mention of

tithi. But those who may be misinformed by his neglect of tithi computation

needed to understand the conditions in Vedanga Jyotisha are requested to read my

previous mail in which I gave the details.

If tithi as mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha is neglected, then Mr Hari Malla is

correct. But why tithi should be neglected ? Around 1400 BCE, Maagha Shukla

Pratipada was impossible (error of 21 tithis) at the conditions mentioned in

Vedanga Jyotisha. By burying mathematics, Mr Malla is not harming me but

himself.

-VJ

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

________________________________

" harimalla " <harimalla

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 7:30:26 PM

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

Dear Jhaaji,

Sorry I cannot say, Lahiri's calculations are more authentic than the version of

vedanga jyotish who are talking with first hand knowledge, about their own

epoch.Please forgive me.

When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for

me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of

mathematics, it can mean something else too.

From the beginning of dhanistha to the beginning of makar rashi, it is seven

padas.If uttarayan occurred at the beginning of makar rashi, in 285 AD, simple

calculation says sun in dhanistha was seven ninth of 2150 years or 1672 YEARS

BEFORE 285 AD, which is 1387 BC or approximately 1400 BC. Only simple people

can get such simple answer, but the answer for exta-ordinary persons seems also

to be extra ordinary.I actually don't know what that is and I am not interested

to learn any extraordinary mathematics by going to extra ordinary schools? Sorry

to disappoint you.

But I do not mind if you have some educative comments for this simple

calculation I have presented above.If you can show where I have erred in the

above calculation, please do not hesitate to teach me, but please without

bringing new factors into your calculations out of your own fancies.Then after

settling the above calcualtions, perhaps we can talk further about tithi

fluctuations etc.First thing first please. Thank you.

Regards,

Hari Malla

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

>

> Malla Ji,

>

> 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and

10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in

Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter

Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer.

Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years.

The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625

days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall

(chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on.

In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than

one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla

Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before

putting forth absurd claims.

>

> I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is

fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled

every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days.

>

> I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE.

Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and

Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE

(Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of

whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and

Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of

shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days

the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately.

Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters

Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha.

>

> The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and

not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may

repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait

for 1800000 years to see same conditions.

>

> Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it

is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives,

but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month

Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have

time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no

right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of

Colebrooke said something.

>

> Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

> get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

> corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

> been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

>

> You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

> mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

> are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

> correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

> learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

> together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

> Vedanga Jyotisha mentions.

>

> Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs

sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your

anti-mathematical opinions, because you are incapable of devoting somne time on

actual computations. Computing lunar month for 5000 years is a great task which

needs the knowledge of panchanga making as well as computer programming, because

manually one cannot do this job even if one knows the method. Colebrooke did not

possess a computer and therefore erred. But had he possessed a computer, he

would have computed lunar month before arriving at any decision. A computer is

basically made for computing, but you are using it for spreading

anti-computational purposes, for spreading wrong ideas against mathematical

proofs.

>

> Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I

> get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their

> corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have

> been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views.

>

> You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or

> mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you

> are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept

> correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for

> learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit

> together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as

> Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Eithe show your computations proving the

possibility of Magha Shukla Pratipada when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa

during uttarayana around 1400 BCE, or stop your wrong messages without backing

your statements with computational evidence.

>

> -VJ

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

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

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

>

> Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:37:44 AM

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

nakshatras

>

> Dear Jhaaji,

> Namaskar! Sorry,I admit it was my mistake to think of maagha sukla pratipada

occurring 864 times in 72 years,but then since you agree that it occurs 72

times, and thus sun and moon together residing in dhanistha during that period

is 72 times.Then why do you think it is not possible for the event to occur even

once?

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

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

> >

> > Sunil Da,

> >

> > Mr Hari Malla says :

> >

> > <<< " So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the

undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in

dhanistha as uttarayan. " >>>

> >

> > One Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa occurs in one average luni-solar year. In 72

years, there will be 72 occurrences of Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa, and not 72 x

12. All 12 months are not Maagha. this is one pitiable mistake of Mr Malla.

Secondly, Sun and Moon do not reside in Dhanishthaa always. Mr Malla is adamant

on refuting me, by means of distorting some facts and neglecting others. Which

Dharma-shaastra is he supporting by distorting facts ??

> >

> > Mr Hari Malla says :

> >

> > <<< " I do not know why he (Vinay Jha) thinks like that. " >>>

> >

> > Should I reproduce my past messages to Mr Malla in which I explained in

detail why I " thinks like that " ?? I wasted much of my my time in explaining

to him that lunar Maagha was impossible around 1400 BCE, and he simply ignored

to discuss that point. But it is unethical to deny that I explained my point to

him.

> >

> > Mr Malla makes much hue and cry about purity of lunar months and wants to

change even ayanamsha and nirayana solar year for preserving the supposed

sanctity of lunar month ; now, he thinks " we should first think of the sun in

dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details. " What

a " scientific " way to make a selective study of facts !!! Discard those facts

which do not fit into your prejudices, and thus prove your prejudices to be true

!!

> >

> > -VJ

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

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> >

> > Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:40:21 PM

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

nakshatras

> >

> > Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

> > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not

know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That

first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in

dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These

repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72

years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take

only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is

mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but

864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even

with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun

in dhanistha as uttarayan.

> > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only

33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many

zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you,

> > sincerely lyours,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Harimallaji,

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contribute to that only if possible.

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

> > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

> > >

> > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

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

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

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

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

time I will explain in short.

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

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

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

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

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

in this context is pactically useless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan

> tithi

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

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

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

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

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

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

are.May I think so?

> > > thank you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > casued thereby.

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is

involved there.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > SKB

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Sinil Da,

> > > >

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

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

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da,

> > > >

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

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

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

entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible

during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr

Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described

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

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

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

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a

@>

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

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

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

months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal

month immediately after the Uttarayana.

> > > >

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

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

shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one

cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da,

> > > >

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

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

that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always

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

> > > >

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

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

terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New

Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after,

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

Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during

much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it.

Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas.

> > > >

> > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who

believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them,

" advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude

presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided

material possessions.

> > > >

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

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

I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation

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

prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the

humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji

said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of

Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was

populated by uncultured peoples.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

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

Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred

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

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

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

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

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

month related to Uttarayana.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > SKB

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are

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

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

unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large.

> > > >

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

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

siddhantas.

> > > >

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

to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar.

> > > >

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

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

> > > >

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

Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is

defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr

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

computations and predictions.

> > > >

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

this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to

earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us

believe.

> > > >

> > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has

no knowledge of astrology :

> > > >

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

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

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

efficiency. "

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

> > > >

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

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

computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes,

this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was

originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It

cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion

of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of

Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble.

> > > >

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

which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of

Ayanamsha.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

being within the Bhachakra.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

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

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

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

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

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

something so we meet somewhere.

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

shift the rashis appropriately.

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

improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be

welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the

sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa

even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness

is the middle path compromise.

> > > >

> > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do

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

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

years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

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

other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the

12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh

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

efficiency.

> > > >

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

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

seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is.

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

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

> > > >

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

re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be

changed, according to SB Dixit.

> > > >

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

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

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

> > > >

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

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

sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I

am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar

sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct.

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

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

of people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> > > > Sincerely yours,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > NShri Harimallaji,

> > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > > > > with Pausha month.

> > > > >

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

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

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

understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody

should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please

incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made.

Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like

Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I

prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of

opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original

Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even

Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra.

> > > > >

> > > > > I summarise the above as follows:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) Show precedents,

> > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira,

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

opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your

assertions and reassertions.

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

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

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

> > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras.

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

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

Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda?

> > > > >

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

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

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

unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this

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

and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the

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

> > > > >

> > > > > thank you,

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear friend,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

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

nirayan.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unauote

> > > > > >

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

on this point.

> > > > > >

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

Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different

times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana

rashwallas should take a lesson from them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear sir,

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

nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear members,

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > >

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

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

as the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > >

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

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

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

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

good future be fulfilled!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji,

> > > > > > > >

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

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

become the norm in some places :-(

> > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations.

> > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > > > > >

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

in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > > > > >

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

also affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > > > > >

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

only those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont

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

that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Love you all

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > > > > >

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

a@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji,

> > > > > > > > >

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

ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > >

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

in the ecliptic

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

use if other

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

be of having any

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

reasserted that.

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

cared to

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

chosen in the first

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

band. Do you

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

choice of the

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

is ignorant of

> > > > > > > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > >

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

me that he

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

ecliptic band have no

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

also would not

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

involves these useless

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

does not know in

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

were chosen

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

merit?

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying.

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

exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it

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

it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the

rashis when actually it is not.

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

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

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

you,

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > >

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

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji ,

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that

physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter

of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard

( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie,

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

following :

> > > > > > > > > >

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

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > > > > >

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

One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology,

because it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me

off as an outdated person.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -VJ

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji,

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the same?

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

.in> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

as below:-

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

example:-

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from

ecliptic will affect in same way

> > > > > > > > > >

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

many works present between us

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

you,

> > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours,

> > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

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

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji,

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

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

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

from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare

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

same..

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

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

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

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

stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

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

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

assure you that I will start learning from you.

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

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

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

appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific

knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward.

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

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

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

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

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

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

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

earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to

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

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

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

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

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

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > & g

> > > >

July 8, 2009

Sunil Da,

All three recensions of Vedanga Jyotisha say that the 5-samvatsara yuga begins

with Maagha Shukla Pratipada, which starts just after New Moon. I have already

stated this in many messages.

But Vedanga Jyotisha does not say that lunar month began with New Moon. Hence,

lunar month began and ended with what is the literal and Vedic meaning of the

term " Poorna-maasi " .

It was New Moon at the beginning of creation according to all siddhantas.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 4:27:50 AM

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

nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following :

Quote

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to.

Unquote

How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific

reference anywhere?

Best wishes,

SKB

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

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

Sunil Da,

You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say

that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM

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

nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the

year as1800 BCE

Best wishes,

SKB

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

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

Sunil da,

The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1,

Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of

month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon

..

But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start

of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in

actual practice.

Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning

of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha

also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and

social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality

is Vedic and is still preserved.

As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by

millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better

to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text)

than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the

latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month

yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those

who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend :

scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art)

because it never cheats.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM

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

nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the Tapa.

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

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

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

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

some of those groups also

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

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

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

Sunil Da,

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

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

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

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

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

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

:

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

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

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

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

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

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

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

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

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

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

supports them.

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

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

But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neglected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ignores.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

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

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

nakshatras

Harimallaji,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contribute to that only if possible.

SKB

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

wrote:

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

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

Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM

Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

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

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

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

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

will explain in short.

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

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

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

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

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

in this context is pactically useless.

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

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

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