Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras

July 9, 2009

Sunil Da,

Not only me but entire world thinks 19 year cycle gives the best possible

correspondence of solar year to lunar months. There is one adhimaasa in

2.711292533 years as I showed in previous mail. Hence, there are 7 adhimaasa in

18.979047733811324 years, which leaves a small residue of just

0.02095226618867583485216 years. You will find a better correspondence in a

122 year cycle of 45 adhimaasas which leaves a smaller residue of only 0.008114

years, but 122 year cycle is unweildy for panchanga makers because it is longer

than normal human life. That is why 19 year cycle was chosen by adherents of

Vedanga Jyotisha in India as mentioned by NC Lahiri in advance Ephemeris (page

92) and by Meton in 432 BCE in Athens.

This 0.02095226618867583485215924325 year residue for an adhimaasa in each 19

year cycle accumulates to one extra adhimaasa in 2.711292533 /

0.020952266189 = 129.4033069734 cycles of 19 year each, which equals

2458.66 years. Hence, there is one-month shift in name of the month at

Mesha-Samkraanti after every 2458.66 years.

Now, there is a great problem which remains to be solved. Is this extra month a

normal month, or is it an intercalary month (adhimaasa) ? If it is a normal

month, then Kaliyuga began with mean Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, but if this extra

month once per 2459 years is an adhimaasa then Kaliyuga began with Chaitra

Shukla Peratipadaa.

Raamaachaarya, the author of muhurta Chintaamani, cites an old tradiction of

Kaliyuga beginning with Maagha Shukla Pratipada. But this view does not tally

with Suryasiddhantic theory of naming of lunar months on the basis of nakshatra

near which full moon occurs, because Mesha Samkraanti in the beginning of Moon

in Ashvini means full moon will have Moon in or around Chitra, and it should be

Chaitra and not Maagha. Bhaskara-ii supports second view and believed that

Creation began with Chaitra, but the former view suggests that Creation began

with Agrahaayana.

Thus, we have two divergent traditional views in this field and both views are

accepted by all panchanga makers who fail to see we must accept only one of the

both views, both views cannot be correct.

But the problem is that we need detailed panchangas of all 5109 years of entire

Kaliyuga from now going backwards, and must check all adhimaasas in ordewr to

determine manually the name of lunar month at the beginning of Kaliyuga. Unless

this excercize is done sincerely, you will not be able to decide whether Maagha

Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not around 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC at

the juncture described by Vedanga Jyotisha. I made softwares for solving thgis

problem, but I fine people not interested in actual computations are determined

to refute me, hence I say this problem is impossible to solve.

Actually, it is not impossible to solve. Dr Kameshwar Upadhyaya, former editor

of Vishva Panchanga of BHU of Kashi and now general secretary of Akhila

Bhaaratiya Vidvat Parishad, supports Suryasiddhanta since before he knew me, and

now he uses my astrological software which gives accurate astrological results.

he is one of the topmost three astrologers of the astrological capital of the

World : Kashi. He wants to publish the panchanga of entire Kaliyuga, which I

earlier thought to be a wasteful exercize, but now I think it must be done. But

publishing panchangas of 100 years in a single volume results in a voluminous

and costly book, how panchangas of 5100 years can be compressed in a single

volume is a great problem I have not been able to solve. It must exclude many

details. Even 100 year panchanga gives planetary positions after 7 days only,

and daily phenomena of only tithi & c are given. A 5100 year panchanga must give

weekly or fortnightly data

about tithi & c too. it will help in accurate determination of lunar months and

tithis for remote periods. Adherents of physical astronomy will say such a 5100

year panchanga should be based on physical astronomy, but it will serve no

purpose, because dates given in ancient texts must be checked according to

siddhantas used by authors of those ancient texts. For instance, the oldest

temple in my district, which is the oldest proof of the word " mandira' in the

world, has an inscription in Prakrit which says that this temple was built on

Kartika Shukla Pratipadaa in Shaake 125 (again, the earliest evidence of Shaka

era, which comes from east India and not from west !!). This tithi is

auspicious for praana-pratishthaa even today. Hence, we must try to find out

Kulian date on the basis of traditional panchanga making system used in this

region, instead of imposing modern science upon ancients.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:20:06 AM

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

nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

You are right. Would you not think that 7 adhimaasas in 19 years is a better

figure?

Best wishes,

SKB

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 10:54 AM

Sunil Da,

I am amazed at the audacity and self-righteousness with which Mr Hari Malla is

making wrong atatements in the name of Vedanga Jyotisha, and declares like an

expert : " Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. " .

Look at his errors which shows his pitiable knowledge of mathematics and

pitiable respect for ancient texts.

Firstly, VJ never says months should be named from New Moon. Amaanta system is

merely for computations, not for naming of months. VJ is related to Vedas, hence

we must conclude that the Vedic system of Poornamaasi (ch-1, YV) as Poorna of a

Maasa was used in VJ. But Mr Malla makes confusing and wrong statements, showing

both Amaanta and poornimaanta systems used for NAMING of months, which is not

mentioned in VJ. No coherent system can have two different systems for naming

months used simultaneously.

Secondly, VH does not give adhimaasa in the manner Mr Malla is giving. Mr Malla

saw some 5-year period for adhimaasas, and imagined that same order will be

followed for all times, not knowing that adhimaasa cycle cannot be reduced to

5-year cycle. It is because he does not know the DEFINITION of Adhimaasa.

Adhimaasa is the extra number of lunar months with respect to solar months. In

one mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 51840000 Sauramaasas and 53433336

Chaandramaasas, therefore there are 1593336 adhimaasas in 4320000 years. There

is one adhimaasa after each 2.711292533 years. In 5-year VJ yuga, there will be

1.844138888. .... adhimaasas, which is roughly equal to 2 in a short period but

in one thousand such 5-year yugas there will be only 1844 adhimaasas instead of

2000 adhimaasas as suggested by Mr Malla's ludicrous description. Due to this

irrational number (2.711292533 years per adhimaasa), the month which will see

adhimaasa will also keep

changing. Mr Malla wrongly imagines all 5-year yugas to have only Poosha and

Ashadha adhimaasas. He implies that adhimaasas are impossible in other months

!!! Internet has no restriction for such false ideas. No degree or credential is

needed for putting forth such computation, in tha language of an expert !! And

such an " expert " wants to reform our calendar !!

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

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

Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:37:40 PM

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

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that

which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are

defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The

next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is

sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month

ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and

punimanta months are also known as krishnadi.

There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the

two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods

are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after

the purnimanta month.

Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in

the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the

amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima.

The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in

the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in

Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus

completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five

year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of

five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada.

Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay.

Regards,

Hari Malla

, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Hari Mallaji,

>

> You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla

pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the

conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after

Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there

was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal

month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was

a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi "

(ie. the start of the 5-year yuga)

>

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

>

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

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

nakshatras

>

> Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM

>

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can

Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me

it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not?

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > Harimallaji,

> >

> > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ)

then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed

some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and

have it too.

> >

> > However the VJ says as follows:

> >

> > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau .

> > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >>

> >

> > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the

start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the

seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred

on Shukla pratipada.

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > SKB

> >

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

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

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

nakshatras

> >

> > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM

> >

> > Dear Bhattachajyaji,

> > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more

details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is

correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be

purnimanta.

> > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta

and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta.

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Quote

> > >

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

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

Jyotisha also refers to.

> > >

> > > Unquote

> > >

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

specific reference anywhere?

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

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

> > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM

> > >

> > > Sunil Da,

> > >

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

to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating

of VJ.

> > >

> > > -VJ

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

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

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

the year as1800 BCE

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM

> > >

> > > Sunil da,

> > >

> > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna

(chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is

" completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end

with a full moon .

> > >

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

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

in actual practice.

> > >

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

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

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

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

duality is Vedic and is still preserved.

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

because it never cheats.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

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

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Dear Vinay,

> > >

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

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

Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next

day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing

this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the

Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and

Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it

was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day

following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of

Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa.

> > >

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

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

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

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

to some of those groups also

> > >

> > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM

> > >

> > > Sunil Da,

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

:

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as

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

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

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

supports them.

> > >

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

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

> > >

> > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM.

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neglected.

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > >

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

regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence,

which he ignores.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

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

> > >

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > >

> > > Harimallaji,

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contribute to that only if possible.

> > >

> > > SKB

> > >

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

wrote:

> > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > >

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

> > >

> > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji,

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

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

17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days.

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

time I will explain in short.

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

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

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

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

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

in this context is pactically useless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan

> > tithi

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

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

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

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

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

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

are.May I think so?

> > > thank you,

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > casued thereby.

> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is

involved there.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > SKB

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Sinil Da,

> > > >

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

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

about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da,

> > > >

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

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

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

entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible

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

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

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

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

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

month and make computations on selective grounds ??

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

@>

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

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

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

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

month immediately after the Uttarayana.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Sunil Da,

> > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > >

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

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

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

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > >

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

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

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

presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided

material possessions.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the

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

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

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

populated by uncultured peoples.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinay,

> > > >

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

Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred

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

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

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

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

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

month related to Uttarayana.

> > > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > > >

> > > > SKB

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

> > > >

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

> > > >

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

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

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

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

unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large.

> > > >

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

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

siddhantas.

> > > >

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

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

> > > >

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

surprising if someone throws away Raashis.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

computations and predictions.

> > > >

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

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

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

believe.

> > > >

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

no knowledge of astrology :

> > > >

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

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

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

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

efficiency. "

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble.

> > > >

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

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

Ayanamsha.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

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

being within the Bhachakra.

> > > >

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

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

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

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

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

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

> > > >

> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __

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

> > > >

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

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

nakshatras

> > > >

> > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji,

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

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

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

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

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

something so we meet somewhere.

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

shift the rashis appropriately.

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

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

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

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

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

is the middle path compromise.

> > > >

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

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

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

years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness.

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

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

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

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

efficiency.

> > > >

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

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

seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is.

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

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

> > > >

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

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

changed, according to SB Dixit.

> > > >

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

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

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

> > > >

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

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

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

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

sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct.

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

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

of people and compromise for the truth.thank you.

> > > > Sincerely yours,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > NShri Harimallaji,

> > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ie. Tapa should coincide

> > > > > with Pausha month.

> > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even

Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra.

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) Show precedents,

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

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

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

assertions and reassertions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda?

> > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sincerely

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > >

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

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > >

> > > > > thank you,

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear friend,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > > > > >

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

nirayan.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Unauote

> > > > > >

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

on this point.

> > > > > >

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

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

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

rashwallas should take a lesson from them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

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

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > >

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

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you,

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear members,

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > >

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

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

as the new epochal mesh rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > >

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

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

along with the moving Tropical zodiac.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

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

good future be fulfilled!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the festivals in their resbective seasons.

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Hari Malla

> > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan "

<jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

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

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

become the norm in some places :-(

> > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra

<dineshdheengra@ > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

scattered around the ecliptic.

> > > > > > > > >

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

in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying.

> > > > > > > > >

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

also affect on earth like other stars affect us.

> > > > > > > > >

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

only those can affect and others can not.

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) .

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra

> > > > > > > > >

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

a@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Quote

> > > > > > > > >

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

in the ecliptic

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

use if other

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

be of having any

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

reasserted that.

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

cared to

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

chosen in the first

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

band. Do you

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

choice of the

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

is ignorant of

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

me that he

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

ecliptic band have no

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

also would not

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

involves these useless

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

does not know in

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

were chosen

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

merit?

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Unquote

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

<harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying.

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

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

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

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

rashis when actually it is not.

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

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

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

you,

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > HAri Malla

> > > > > > > > >

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

....> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a

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

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

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

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

outdated) for you ?

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

following :

> > > > > > > > > >

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

%26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

because it is an age-old thing.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

off as an outdated person.

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the same?

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

.in> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

as below:-

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

example:-

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

ecliptic will affect in same way

> > > > > > > > > >

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

many works present between us

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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

you,

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

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

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

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

useful for astronomical dating of past events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

same..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

assure you that I will start learning from you.

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<s_dembi@ > wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > & g

> > > >

July 9, 2009

Sunil Da (and Rohini Da),

I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if

you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange

coin.

Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has

conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the

implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state-theory of JV

Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in

time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time

continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in

mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein

future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when

the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the

speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will

eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the

expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in

science, and is known as Oscillating Universe,

which is parallel to Vedic-Puranic-Sddhantic theory of Kalpas and Mahapralayas.

Now, look at the third side of your special coin. A finite Universe must have a

finite space. Hence, no matter or radiation can go out of its finite space. In

other words, our universe must be a special type of Black Hole from which

nothing can escape outside, but which is not densely packed like the physicists'

black holes having dense matter within Schwarzschild Radii.

Will you tolerate a fourth side of your strange coin ?? A universe with finite

space and finit time will not alllow us to see anything outside it. Hence, if

other universes exist outside our own, we will never see them. suppose our

universe has SPIN, as vast majority of stars, planets and sub-atomic partcles

hace shown to possess. Without being able to see anything outside our Universe,

we will never be able to decide empirically whether our Universe rotates or not.

But Suryasiddhanta has Parokshaevidences about periodicity of this physical

Universe.

There are many more sides of your multi-faceted coin, which you may not like to

digest.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:18:35 AM

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

nakshatras

DearRohini and Vinay,

Are you both not referring to the two sides of the same coin? The atoms have

(atomic)space between the orbiting electrons and the nucleus. In the black hole

such atomic space does not exist and there is only dense mass.

Best wishes,

SKB

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:05 AM

The converse is also true : invisible dark matter is 9 times more weigthy than

normal matter, and black holes can contain more than we can give into them.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:06:27 PM

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

Sunil da,

Even the densest of atoms has more space than substance. The Universe is full of

holes!

RR

July 9, 2009

Sunil Da,

all your suggestions and ideas are good. I had no interest in publishing my

papers. I used to send rainfall predictions to weather scientists all over the

world. Thay is why the director of CAOS, IISc asked me to send some paper. One

of your comments is not to the mark : " You have discussed a concept from Jyotish

shastra and people wanted to hear about it. " I did not discuss Jyotisha and

nobody in IISc knows I have any interest in Jyotisha. I merely sent an analysis

of 135 years of data for showing a 61 year periodicity ; that is all I

discussed. I did not explain the causes. The scientists at IISc accepted the

reality of a 61-year cycle, but left its cause ti be explained through future

researches.

This paper was acxtually written at the insistence of Chairman of Royal

Meteorological Society, UK. I want to expand this paper for making it more lucid

and easy to understand, but it needs nearly one month of leisure which I do not

get. Scientists from California also want papers. You are right in suggesting

that without papers people will not understand.

many HODs and professors in many universities have visited my residence and saw

my work in detail, including demonstration of softwares. Four of them sent four

research project to UGC on the basis of synopses prepared by me, but the

screening committee of UGC had just two members who were men of Sanskrit

literature and were annoyed with non-literary type of projects about forecasting

of floods, cyclones, rain and quakes, and rejected the projects (we knew

beforehand that the projects will be rejected, because those two persons were

dead against anything from Bihar, UGC has never accepted any project from Bihar

during 54 years of existence of full-fledged Sanskrit university here).

My research work is over, but it will take a few years to publicize it. That is

being done. KSD Sanskrit University has accepted my proposal of starting a

research magazine in Jyotisha, which is now in press, and contains many articles

on my themes by me and by others. These themes are also being highlited through

seminars.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:42:16 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda

and value of the nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

Thank you for explaining the 61-year cycle. What about the astrological

prediction of annual rainfall in a state or a country using the values of the

latitude and longitude of the central point of that state or country? Can the

rainfall be predicted this way also year by year, ie. as part of the Varshaphal?

Will this be a part of the Medini Jyotish? Just a thought.

Where you presented your paper does not matter to me as all types of papers

are presented in all conferences. Some of them are of the highest quality and

some are of the poorest quality. So the fact that the organisers allowed one to

present one's paper does not mean much. What the paper contains is only

important. You have discussed a concept from Jyotish shastra and people wanted

to hear about it. I appreciate your explanations of the 61-year cycle. You did

not mention that your paper was an invited paper ? Did you present any paper on

that subject anywhere earlier ? Why not publish a paper on the topic, with

particular emphasis on the utility of the concept, in a reputed journal ? You

may even ask your friends in the Sanskrit Universities to undertale some

research in this area. If the results (ie. rainfall predictions) appear reliable

over a priod of time people may accept the idea, at least empirically, to begin

with. You may find it

difficult to convince people about the Nakshatra Kakshaa straightway.

Best wishes,

SKB.

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda

and value of the nakshatras

vedic astrology

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 11:32 PM

Sunil Da,

Suryasiddhanta (ch-12, verse-89) says Nakshatra-kakshaa has an orbit exactly 60

times of solar orbit. in other words, Nakshatra-kakshaa has a period of 60

years.

In comparison, Saturn has a period of 29.47 years and Uranus of 84 years.

Therefore, all bodoes including Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which were farther

than 60 year orbit were regarded as non-planets and astrologically ineffective.

A planet was defined on this basis, and not on the basis of its orbiting Sun

which is a modern definition applicable not to astrology but to physical

astronomy.

Due to Nakshatra-kakshaa being of 60-years, Sun takes 60 years to move to same

point in sky during a period in which the Nakshatra-kskshaa makes one revolution

round Meru. Hence, Sun needs one more year to reach to same point on the

Nakshatra-kakshaa. Since astrological results are reckoned with reswpect to

Nakshatra-kakshaa, we get a 61-year weather cycle which was empirically attested

in my paper. Jovian year is not composed of 50% erratic and 50% predictable

halves. All traditional astrologers believe that Jovian cycle is 100% accurate.

but this 61-year cycle is half erratic and half predictable, because it gives

only the correspondence of Sun with Nakshatra-kakshaa and of planets like

Mercury and Venus which do not move much farther from the Sun in a horoscope,

but other planets like Saturn, Jupiter and Mars do not show any conformity with

this 61 year cycle due to their different periodicities. That is why only half

of this 61-year cycle gives

predictable waveform correspondence. I did not express this explanation in my

paper because an astrological explanation could not be written in a scientific

paper. You say my paper was unscientific, but scientists of IISc thought

otherwise : this 61 year cycle is a fact which they recognized and that is why

they accepted my paper, otherwise a person not ever serving in any institution

and having no degree in weather science would not have been invited there to

present his paper.

Hence, there are two proofs of Nakshatra-kakshaas not being fixed ; ancient

siddhanta, whose saying about Nakshatra-kakshaa being of 60 years was never

refuted by any expert, and empirical evidence deduced from rainfall analysis.

Nakshatra-kakshaa revolves round Meru once per 60 years with respect to Fixed

Sky, which is not the physical space-time continuum of Einstein, the latter is

intrinsically related to matter and cannot exist without matter. The Akasha of

SS and of all Vedic philosophies is God, Who is Absolute, Fixed and Constant.

But astrologically speaking, we may assume Nakshatra-kakshaa to be fixed,

because all astrological computations and predictions are made with respect to

Nakshatra-kakshaa. Since Nakshatra-kakshaa is the frame of reference in

astrology, Nakshatras may be assumed to be fixed. Moreover, mortals cannot see

it moving with respect to the Fixed Absoulute Akasha-Brahma.

You may not digest these " anachronistic " ideas. But cannot say these are my

personal opinions. These ideas are original siddhantic and Vedic-Puranic ideas,

which some zealous reformers are tryinmg to modify for making Hinduism more

" scientific " . i have no interest in such reforms, because these reformers are

neither astrologers nor scientists. Scientists should keep away from a

pseudo-science like astrolgy, and astrologers should first try to understand

siddhantas before trying to reform it with their half baked knowledge of

Siddhanta Jyotisha.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

vedic astrology

Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:09:23 AM

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda

and value of the nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

The Nakshatras do not move. In 1800 BCE the Uttarayana was occurring in the

Dhanistha Nakshatra in the Makar Rashi and the fullmoon occurring at that time

in the Magha Nakshatra is the Purnimanta Magha month.

Secondly please do not forget the episode where Mother Parvati asks Lord Shiva

as to how a great devotee of His can be defeated. Then Lord Shiva said that

Ravana ignored the 11th part of His, ie the 11th Rudra abd that 11th part was

born as Hanuman who was helping Rama to defeat Ravana.

That is why one must read the Purana before reading the Veda. Hope you have read

by now the 57th chapter of the Vayu Purana, where the Divya Varsha is defined.

Best wishes,

SKB

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda

and value of the nakshatras

vedic astrology

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:03 AM

Sunil da,

Why you ignore the computational proofs which show

that Maagha, Shukla or Krishna, Amaanta or Poornimaanta, was impossible

during entire Kaliyuga under the conditions described in VJ ? Such a

condition is being met now-a-days, but there was an error of one month

per 2459 years as we go into past, error of two months if we go 4917

years into past, and so on.

Rudra becoming Shiva is a modern

myth created by mlechchhas posing as Vedic experts. Rudra means one who

causes to weep (Rud), while Shiva is auspicious. Yajnavalkya says in

Brihat-aranyaka- upanishada that 11 indriyas are 11 rudras

because they run after external things and foster desires, leading to

sorrow. when all 11 indriyas are restrained them Mind, the ultimate

Rudra, becomes Shiva by sublating all indriyas, ie it merges into

Shiva. Maitrayani Samhita (ie, Yajurveda) has detailed mantras for

Shiva, Gauri, Ganesh, Kartikeya, etc , yet mlechchhas say Shiva is a

post-Vedic deity !

Sunil da,

i

already sent you report of thorogh scan of Adi and Sabha parvas of MBh

about " yavana " . Now, I have finished checking Vanaparva, here is the

report :

Verse- in ch-48 of maharishi edition includes yavanas among the western nations

" paschimmani cha raajyaani... . " .

Verse-30

of ch-86 includes yavanas among ethically nefarious peoples ruling the

world in Kaliyuga. No eastern tribe or nation is listed, only western

and southern peoples are listed with yavanas.

Sabhaparva has only two occurrences of " yavana " .

-------

Viraata-parva does not mention the word " yavana " even once.

-------

Udyog-parva has two references :

Verse-21 in ch- 19 lists yavanas among western tribes (Kaamboja, Yavana, Shaka).

Verse-7 in ch-196 again includes yavanas among " Shakas, Kiraatas, Yavanas,

Shibis, Vasaatis " . even once.

-------

Bhishma-parva :

Verse-64 in ch-10 includes yavanas with Kambojas among mlechchhas. Kambojas

lived in west of India.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute; WAVES-Vedic;

indiaarchaeology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:00:26 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and

value of the nakshatras

Dear Rohini and Vinay,

I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta

month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic

convention.

The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even

Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess

what was the Vedic name of Shani.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

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

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM

Rohini Da,

Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava

(Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of

Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small

hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM

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

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> May be 1400 BCE then.

>

> SKB

Hey Dada-bhai,

Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the

earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all

ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of

Hydrogen ;-)

Love your sense of humour ;-)

Rohini

July 9, 2009

Dear Vinay,

It is no doubt that Mathematics is important and that it is an exact science but

in the maze of mathematical computations one should not lose sight of the

concepts. Concepts come first and mathematics is after all a tool. My statement

was from the concept point of view. If one looks at it properly one should be

able to realise that the events mentioned by Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) did occur

around 1800 BCE. My intention is not to slight the mathematical computations but

even without rigorous mathematics I can see that the VJ was correct and its date

was around 1800 BCE. A good mathematician may even be able to pinpoint the

particular decade of composition of VJ but my aim is not that. So please do not

take umbrage at my conceptual statement. You seem to have already given up

working on the date of VJ. I consider the Magha in VJ as the purnimanta Magha.

What I said is that one can easily find out the pada of Magha where the Magha

purnima occurred

Thereafter everything falls in line. My interest was to have a ballpark figure

and a few decades here and there may not matter much to counter the Pingrean

chronology.

Best wishes,

SKB

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

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

nakshatras

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 10:22 PM

Sunil da,

I am surprised with your hurried comments, with additional hurry to end

discussions with a wrong statement :

<<< " In Vedanga Jyotisha days the summer solstice occurred in Aslesha and that

tells you the part of Dhanistha where the

Uttarayana occurred and then go ahead with finding the pada of Magha Nakshatra

in which the Punimanta Magha occurred. Then everything will fall in

line. But I know you will not try as you think that it to

be impossible. So let us end the discussions on this topic here. " >>>

Vedanga Yyotisha says uttaraayana occurred in the beginning of Dhanishthaa

( " shravishthaadau " which means beginning of Dhanishthaa) , and in the same

verse-6 it is said that dakshinaayana occured in the " middle of Ashleshaa

( " sarpaardhe " ). Middle of Ashlesha is 113.333 degrees, and just 180 degrees

after is start of Dhanishthaa, ie 293.333 degrees. Thus, why you think the pada

of Maghaa in which FM occurs cannot be computed is surprising. It is very

simple, as you know.

Instead of ending the discussion, you should compute True Sun, True Moon,

elongation or Tithi, and most inportantly name of the lunar month. For

determining the name of lunar month in a remote period, you need a list of

adhimaasas and kshayamaasas. It is not impossible. I made a special software for

computing adhimaasas for any period of entire Kalpa.

The problem with you is that you do not accept the need to compute the ratio of

lunar month to solar year, which suggests that one non-adhimaasa extra month is

generated after each 2459 years according to SS and after 3 millenia according

to physical astronomy. Therefore, two extra months occurred since the onset of

Kaliyuga. That is why all panchanga makers lublish that Kaliyuga started with

Maagha Shukla Pratipada on mesha Samkraanti, and now the same mesha Samkraanti

occurs two months after Maagha Shukla Pratipada. It is not my personal opinion :

read any reputed traditional panchanga of any state of India, the start of

Kaliyuga is declared to be Maagha Shukla Pratipada and I have found it to be

mathematically correct, with a slight difference : Mean Tithi was Maagha Shukla

Pratipada but True tithi on Mesha Samkraanti occurred two days ago on tryodashi

when Kaliyuga started. You do not feel the need to check it because of your

belief in the new theory

which puts entire Mahayuga within 12000 solay years. If you do not want to

check by means of actual computations, then it is indeed better to end the

discussion.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:01:43 AM

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

nakshatras

Dear Vinay,

In Vedanga Jyotisha days the summer solstice occurred in Aslesha and that tells

you the part of Dhanistha where the Uttarayana occurred and then go ahead with

finding the pada of Magha Nakshatra in which the Punimanta Magha occurred. Then

everything will fall in line. But I know you will not try as you think that it

to be impossible. So let us end the discussions on this topic here.

Best wishes,

SKB

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:02 AM

Sunil da,

Why you ignore the computational proofs which show that Maagha, Shukla or

Krishna, Amaanta or Poornimaanta, was impossible during entire Kaliyuga under

the conditions described in VJ ? Such a condition is being met now-a-days, but

there was an error of one month per 2459 years as we go into past, error of two

months if we go 4917 years into past, and so on.

Rudra becoming Shiva is a modern myth created by mlechchhas posing as Vedic

experts. Rudra means one who causes to weep (Rud), while Shiva is auspicious.

Yajnavalkya says in Brihat-aranyaka- upanishada that 11 indriyas are 11 rudras

because they run after external things and foster desires, leading to sorrow.

when all 11 indriyas are restrained them Mind, the ultimate Rudra, becomes Shiva

by sublating all indriyas, ie it merges into Shiva. Maitrayani Samhita (ie,

Yajurveda) has detailed mantras for Shiva, Gauri, Ganesh, Kartikeya, etc , yet

mlechchhas say Shiva is a post-Vedic deity !

Sunil da,

i already sent you report of thorogh scan of Adi and Sabha parvas of MBh about

" yavana " . Now, I have finished checking Vanaparva, here is the report :

Verse- in ch-48 of maharishi edition includes yavanas among the western nations

" paschimmani cha raajyaani... . " .

Verse-30 of ch-86 includes yavanas among ethically nefarious peoples ruling the

world in Kaliyuga. No eastern tribe or nation is listed, only western and

southern peoples are listed with yavanas.

Sabhaparva has only two occurrences of " yavana " .

-------

Viraata-parva does not mention the word " yavana " even once.

-------

Udyog-parva has two references :

Verse-21 in ch- 19 lists yavanas among western tribes (Kaamboja, Yavana, Shaka).

Verse-7 in ch-196 again includes yavanas among " Shakas, Kiraatas, Yavanas,

Shibis, Vasaatis " . even once.

-------

Bhishma-parva :

Verse-64 in ch-10 includes yavanas with Kambojas among mlechchhas. Kambojas

lived in west of India.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute; WAVES-Vedic;

indiaarchaeology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:00:26 PM

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

nakshatras

Dear Rohini and Vinay,

I wish Vinay checks the date 1800 BCE and he will find that what is given in the

Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) is okay. He has to consider the Magha as a Purnimanta

month as was the Vedic practice. VJ cannot follow anything other than the Vedic

convention.

The rishis had the knack of making things interesting through anecdotes. Even

Rudra of Veda became Shiva. Of the grahas Bhauma of Veda became Mangal. Guess

what was the Vedic name of Shani.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

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

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

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

nakshatras

Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:46 PM

Rohini Da,

Velikowsky did not go far enough. There is story about the planet Bhaargava

(Venus) in Kashi-khanda of Skanda Purana that it left its orbit and went out of

Milky Way for 1000 years int othe body of Rudra, and returned through a small

hole in Milky Way after which the planet Bhaargava was renamed as Shukra.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com>

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:22:44 AM

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

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> May be 1400 BCE then.

>

> SKB

Hey Dada-bhai,

Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the

earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all

ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of

Hydrogen ;-)

Love your sense of humour ;-)

Rohini

July 9, 2009

Dear Vinay,

Thank you for a very good write-up. I hope this will clear the confusion

regarding the different expressions for the month in which the Kaliyuga began.

When you find time you may also tell us about the Saros cycle from the

Siddhantic angle.

Best wishes,

SKB

--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

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

nakshatras

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 11:07 PM

Sunil Da,

Not only me but entire world thinks 19 year cycle gives the best possible

correspondence of solar year to lunar months. There is one adhimaasa in

2.711292533 years as I showed in previous mail. Hence, there are 7 adhimaasa in

18.979047733811324 years, which leaves a small residue of just

0.02095226618867583 485216 years. You will find a better correspondence in a

122 year cycle of 45 adhimaasas which leaves a smaller residue of only 0.008114

years, but 122 year cycle is unweildy for panchanga makers because it is longer

than normal human life. That is why 19 year cycle was chosen by adherents of

Vedanga Jyotisha in India as mentioned by NC Lahiri in advance Ephemeris (page

92) and by Meton in 432 BCE in Athens.

This 0.02095226618867583 485215924325 year residue for an adhimaasa in each 19