Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I am surprised at your language. I told you I have placed order for Vayu Purana, yet you are levelling wrong charges against me. Moreover, I am conviinced that Vayu Purana cannot contradict other Puranas and MBh, which were all works of a single person (Vyasa Ji). As for your following charge, should I reproduce my previous postings quoting verses from all those puranas and MBh which you first quoted for your wrong value of Divya Varsha ? You should not deny so much evidences already sent to you. -VJ ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:21:52 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras I told you that you have to read the Chapter 57, particularly the verse 17. It now appears to me that it would probably have been better if I would not have asked you to read it. If you think that you don't need to read the Vayu purana then please don't read it. With your attitude towards the Vayu purana it will be better that you don't read it. For your information what I have said is from a major purana and that has not been contradicted by any other purana. You are living in your imaginary world. You have not quoted any verse from any of the four Vedas or from the fifth veda where the Divya varsha is said to be 360 human years. ... SKB. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 AM Sunil da, <<<Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha >>> Bhagavata Purana defines Divya Vasha, and I have already sent verse number. I sent you clear definitions of Divya Varsha from many Puranas and MBh and siddhantas, but now you rely on Vayu purana, without citing the verse which defines Divya Varsha in Vayu Purana. There is no ancient text which equates Divya Varsha with normal solar/lurar/ human varshas. Everywhere, it is said to be of 360 years, and I have sent many proofs, while you have not sent a single proof. The view you propogate is a modern myth created to placate evolutuonists & c who cannot digest Indian yuga system. But such persons should call Indian system False, instead of misinterpreting ancient texts. -VJ ============ ====== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 10, 2009 6:19:10 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Vinay, You have misunderstood the statement. Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha like the Vayu purana does. When you read the Vayu purana then only you will realise it. Please hold your horses till then. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 10, 2009, 5:14 AM Sunil Da, I am surprised at your statement : " Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha " . Should I reproduce your earlier statement about the primacy of Bhagavata Purana in this regard ? Do not worry about Vayu Purana. All Puranas have stories about Sargas. I have placed an order for it. But I am really surprized ober your adamant refusal to reject all evidences from Puranas, epics and Siddhantas, and now Vayu Purana is the ONLY true book ! Within a month or two, my college ( a private Sanskrit college funded by central govt and recognized by Sanskrit universities) library will contain almost the whole ancient Indian literature which money can buy. I am also planning to digitize it for easy referencing. I have teachers and students in the college to search for the references. -VJ ============ ========= ====== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 9, 2009 7:24:31 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha. The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada . You know this . Why then is the confusion? Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15 days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month was Magha. I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400 BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or not. Besyt wishes, SKB. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM Sunil Da, Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. -VJ ============ ========= ===== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. However the VJ says as follows: << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. Sincerely SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM Dear Bhattachajyaji, I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ==================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly. Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of iceberg. I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden. Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have purified themselves and are above Maayaa. Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world is relative to the observer " . No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist. Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji should learn it properly. I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha. I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology. -VJ ======================================== === ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point. My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists. Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok? I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you ..Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also agree with me with the details. I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > Good write-up. > > A few clarifications please. > > 1) > Quote > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa > vadanti " . > > Unquote > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya? > > 2) > Quote > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are > estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > Unquote > > Are these your own computations? > > 3) > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern science > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God. > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and all other material properties. > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara). > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji. > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa- bhootas. > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?>>> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " ) and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13 > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical " categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A > supercomputer > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence. > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinayji, > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the witnessed. > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)? > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > .. > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World. > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees? > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Shri Harimallaji, You have misunderstood my mail. What I said in my last mail is what I have been telling you umpteen times that you assume that you know everything and you have many absurd ideas. You equated all the Nakshartras with the Nakshatras in the ecliptic from the Jyotish point of view. You also want to change the names of the Nakshatras and the Rashis. There are several such absurd ideas you expressed time to time. I understand that you even propose to consult scholars like Dr. Karan Singh for calendar reform. On top of it ypu do not believe in astrology. Do you really think that that your ideas on calendar reform will help the fora on Indian astrology. Now that you say that you have your own forum you can concentrate in your own forum. You can invite Kaul and Darshaney if you like. You can leave me alone. Thanks --- On Sun, 7/12/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 7:45 AM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Thank you for the suggestion.Hence, please join 'Parvasudhar forum'. I am sending a separate invitation to you.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > If you know everything then why are you wasting your time here. Go ahead and prepare your calendar and write your books. Open your own Calendar group as Kaul and Darshaney also do not agree with your ideas. > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 6:07 AM > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and punimanta months are also known as krishnadi. > There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after the purnimanta month. > Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima. > The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada. > Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > Hari Mallaji, > > > > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi " (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga) > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > > > > > However the VJ says as follows: > > > > > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > > > > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > > > > > Sunil da, > > > > > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > > > tithi > > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AM Vinay, Please do not make vague statements. 1) Quote Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. Unquote Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what a serious scholar will make. 2) Quote Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars. Unquote You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the latter a special purusha. Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated on that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that. 3) Quote Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies. Unquote Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue. 4) Quote There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset. Unquote Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking about these big subjects. 5) Quote Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many. Unquote Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that. 6) Quote Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements Unquote Yes an ignorant person will say so: 7) Quote The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires. Unquote These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita. By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara Upanishad. 8) Quote Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu. Unquote Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi? 9) Quote 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one. Unquote As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of sex so often that it borders on prversity. 10) Quote Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions. Unquote It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then took his decision. 11) Quote Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus. Unquote One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack of regard for truth.only. -SKB --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM To All, Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. " >>> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars. <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. " >>> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies. <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset. Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many. Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements : <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires. <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu. <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi " >>> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa. <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one. Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions. <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus. -VJ ============ ========= ===== ===== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear friends, Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly. Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of iceberg. I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden. Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have purified themselves and are above Maayaa. Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world is relative to the observer " . No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist. Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji should learn it properly. I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha. I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology. -VJ ============ ========= ========= ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point. My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists. Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok? I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you ..Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also agree with me with the details. I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > Good write-up. > > A few clarifications please. > > 1) > Quote > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa > vadanti " . > > Unquote > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya? > > 2) > Quote > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are > estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > Unquote > > Are these your own computations? > > 3) > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern science > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God. > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and all other material properties. > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara). > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji. > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa- bhootas. > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?>>> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " ) and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13 > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical " categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A > supercomputer > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence. > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinayji, > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the witnessed. > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)? > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > .. > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World. > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees? > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well said Sunil Da, Malla Ji will feel fine among like minded persons. -VJ ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, July 13, 2009 8:24:22 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Shri Harimallaji, You have misunderstood my mail. What I said in my last mail is what I have been telling you umpteen times that you assume that you know everything and you have many absurd ideas. You equated all the Nakshartras with the Nakshatras in the ecliptic from the Jyotish point of view. You also want to change the names of the Nakshatras and the Rashis. There are several such absurd ideas you expressed time to time. I understand that you even propose to consult scholars like Dr. Karan Singh for calendar reform. On top of it ypu do not believe in astrology. Do you really think that that your ideas on calendar reform will help the fora on Indian astrology. Now that you say that you have your own forum you can concentrate in your own forum. You can invite Kaul and Darshaney if you like. You can leave me alone. Thanks --- On Sun, 7/12/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 7:45 AM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Thank you for the suggestion.Hence, please join 'Parvasudhar forum'. I am sending a separate invitation to you.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > If you know everything then why are you wasting your time here. Go ahead and prepare your calendar and write your books. Open your own Calendar group as Kaul and Darshaney also do not agree with your ideas. > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 6:07 AM > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and punimanta months are also known as krishnadi. > There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after the purnimanta month. > Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima. > The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada. > Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > Hari Mallaji, > > > > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi " (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga) > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > > > > > However the VJ says as follows: > > > > > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > > > > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > > > > > Sunil da, > > > > > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > > > tithi > > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Dear friends, Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly. Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of iceberg. I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden. Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have purified themselves and are above Maayaa. Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world is relative to the observer " . No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist. Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji should learn it properly. I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha. I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology. -VJ ============ ========= ========= ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketmai l.com " <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point. My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists. Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok? I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you ..Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also agree with me with the details. I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > Good write-up. > > A few clarifications please. > > 1) > Quote > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa > vadanti " . > > Unquote > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya? > > 2) > Quote > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are > estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > Unquote > > Are these your own computations? > > 3) > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern science > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God. > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and all other material properties. > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara). > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji. > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa- bhootas. > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?>>> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " ) and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13 > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical " categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A > supercomputer > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence. > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinayji, > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the witnessed. > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)? > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > .. > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World. > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees? > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Please just give one verse only where it clearly says " Divya Varsha = Solar year X 360 " -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:17 AM I am surprised at your language. I told you I have placed order for Vayu Purana, yet you are levelling wrong charges against me. Moreover, I am conviinced that Vayu Purana cannot contradict other Puranas and MBh, which were all works of a single person (Vyasa Ji). As for your following charge, should I reproduce my previous postings quoting verses from all those puranas and MBh which you first quoted for your wrong value of Divya Varsha ? You should not deny so much evidences already sent to you. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:21:52 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras I told you that you have to read the Chapter 57, particularly the verse 17. It now appears to me that it would probably have been better if I would not have asked you to read it. If you think that you don't need to read the Vayu purana then please don't read it. With your attitude towards the Vayu purana it will be better that you don't read it. For your information what I have said is from a major purana and that has not been contradicted by any other purana. You are living in your imaginary world. You have not quoted any verse from any of the four Vedas or from the fifth veda where the Divya varsha is said to be 360 human years. ... SKB. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 AM Sunil da, <<<Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha >>> Bhagavata Purana defines Divya Vasha, and I have already sent verse number. I sent you clear definitions of Divya Varsha from many Puranas and MBh and siddhantas, but now you rely on Vayu purana, without citing the verse which defines Divya Varsha in Vayu Purana. There is no ancient text which equates Divya Varsha with normal solar/lurar/ human varshas. Everywhere, it is said to be of 360 years, and I have sent many proofs, while you have not sent a single proof. The view you propogate is a modern myth created to placate evolutuonists & c who cannot digest Indian yuga system. But such persons should call Indian system False, instead of misinterpreting ancient texts. -VJ ============ ====== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 10, 2009 6:19:10 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Vinay, You have misunderstood the statement. Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha like the Vayu purana does. When you read the Vayu purana then only you will realise it. Please hold your horses till then. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 10, 2009, 5:14 AM Sunil Da, I am surprised at your statement : " Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha " . Should I reproduce your earlier statement about the primacy of Bhagavata Purana in this regard ? Do not worry about Vayu Purana. All Puranas have stories about Sargas. I have placed an order for it. But I am really surprized ober your adamant refusal to reject all evidences from Puranas, epics and Siddhantas, and now Vayu Purana is the ONLY true book ! Within a month or two, my college ( a private Sanskrit college funded by central govt and recognized by Sanskrit universities) library will contain almost the whole ancient Indian literature which money can buy. I am also planning to digitize it for easy referencing. I have teachers and students in the college to search for the references. -VJ ============ ========= ====== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 9, 2009 7:24:31 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha. The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada . You know this . Why then is the confusion? Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15 days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month was Magha. I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400 BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or not. Besyt wishes, SKB. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM Sunil Da, Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. -VJ ============ ========= ===== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. However the VJ says as follows: << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. Sincerely SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM Dear Bhattachajyaji, I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 To All, Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. " >>> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars. <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. " >>> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaana is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies. <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset. Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many. Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements : <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires. <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " >>> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya's reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu. <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi " >>> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa. <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one. Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions. <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus. -VJ ========================== ===== ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear friends, Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly. Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of iceberg. I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden. Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have purified themselves and are above Maayaa. Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world is relative to the observer " . No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist. Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji should learn it properly. I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha. I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology. -VJ ============ ========= ========= ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point. My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists. Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok? I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you ..Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also agree with me with the details. I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > Good write-up. > > A few clarifications please. > > 1) > Quote > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa > vadanti " . > > Unquote > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya? > > 2) > Quote > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are > estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > Unquote > > Are these your own computations? > > 3) > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern science > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God. > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and all other material properties. > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara). > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji. > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa- bhootas. > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?>>> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " ) and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13 > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical " categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A > supercomputer > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence. > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinayji, > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the witnessed. > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)? > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > .. > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World. > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees? > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. -VJ ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Sunil Da, Did you not read so many citations already sent by me ?? OK, when I get time, I will collect all those mails and send them again to you in summarized form. I sent you many verses which clearly said what you demand. presently I am in the last stages of updating my Kundalee software. -VJ ==================== === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, July 13, 2009 11:10:57 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Please just give one verse only where it clearly says " Divya Varsha = Solar year X 360 " -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:17 AM I am surprised at your language. I told you I have placed order for Vayu Purana, yet you are levelling wrong charges against me. Moreover, I am conviinced that Vayu Purana cannot contradict other Puranas and MBh, which were all works of a single person (Vyasa Ji). As for your following charge, should I reproduce my previous postings quoting verses from all those puranas and MBh which you first quoted for your wrong value of Divya Varsha ? You should not deny so much evidences already sent to you. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:21:52 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras I told you that you have to read the Chapter 57, particularly the verse 17. It now appears to me that it would probably have been better if I would not have asked you to read it. If you think that you don't need to read the Vayu purana then please don't read it. With your attitude towards the Vayu purana it will be better that you don't read it. For your information what I have said is from a major purana and that has not been contradicted by any other purana. You are living in your imaginary world. You have not quoted any verse from any of the four Vedas or from the fifth veda where the Divya varsha is said to be 360 human years. .... SKB. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 AM Sunil da, <<<Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha >>> Bhagavata Purana defines Divya Vasha, and I have already sent verse number. I sent you clear definitions of Divya Varsha from many Puranas and MBh and siddhantas, but now you rely on Vayu purana, without citing the verse which defines Divya Varsha in Vayu Purana. There is no ancient text which equates Divya Varsha with normal solar/lurar/ human varshas. Everywhere, it is said to be of 360 years, and I have sent many proofs, while you have not sent a single proof. The view you propogate is a modern myth created to placate evolutuonists & c who cannot digest Indian yuga system. But such persons should call Indian system False, instead of misinterpreting ancient texts. -VJ ============ ====== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 10, 2009 6:19:10 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Vinay, You have misunderstood the statement. Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha like the Vayu purana does. When you read the Vayu purana then only you will realise it. Please hold your horses till then. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 10, 2009, 5:14 AM Sunil Da, I am surprised at your statement : " Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha " . Should I reproduce your earlier statement about the primacy of Bhagavata Purana in this regard ? Do not worry about Vayu Purana. All Puranas have stories about Sargas. I have placed an order for it. But I am really surprized ober your adamant refusal to reject all evidences from Puranas, epics and Siddhantas, and now Vayu Purana is the ONLY true book ! Within a month or two, my college ( a private Sanskrit college funded by central govt and recognized by Sanskrit universities) library will contain almost the whole ancient Indian literature which money can buy. I am also planning to digitize it for easy referencing. I have teachers and students in the college to search for the references. -VJ ============ ========= ====== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 9, 2009 7:24:31 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha. The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada . You know this . Why then is the confusion? Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15 days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month was Magha. I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400 BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or not. Besyt wishes, SKB. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM Sunil Da, Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. -VJ ============ ========= ===== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. However the VJ says as follows: << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. Sincerely SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM Dear Bhattachajyaji, I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Vinay, Please do not make vague statements. 1) Quote Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. Unquote Tell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what a serious scholar will make. 2) Quote Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars. Unquote You have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you mention. He said that Ishvara is " Asiddha " and then left it at that. He never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the latter a special purusha. Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated on that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that. 3) Quote Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies. Unquote Sankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue. 4) Quote There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset. Unquote Had you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking about these big subjects. 5) Quote Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many. Unquote Sankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that. 6) Quote Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements Unquote Yes an ignorant person will say so: 7) Quote The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires. Unquote These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita. By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara Upanishad. 8) Quote Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu. Unquote Those falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi? 9) Quote 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one. Unquote As you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of sex so often that it borders on prversity. 10) Quote Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions. Unquote It is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then took his decision. 11) Quote Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus. Unquote One wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack of regard for truth.only. -SKB --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM To All, Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. <<< " Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. " >>> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is " Jna " which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular " Jna " as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars. <<< " Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. " >>> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the " Jna " in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means " One Who Knows " . Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies. <<< " Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. " >>> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset. Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says " There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. " which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many. Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements : <<< " Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. " >>> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires. <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. " > >> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu. <<< " He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi " >>> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa. <<< " It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one. Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions. <<< " A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. " >>> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the " Dharma- " -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus. -VJ ============ ========= ===== ===== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear friends, Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of " Ishvara " cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly. Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of iceberg. I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden. Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have purified themselves and are above Maayaa. Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : " everyting in the world is relative to the observer " . No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist. Before trying to " to put Jyotisha, on sound footings " Mr Malla Ji should learn it properly. I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha. I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology. -VJ ============ ========= ========= ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point. My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists. Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok? I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you ..Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also agree with me with the details. I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > Good write-up. > > A few clarifications please. > > 1) > Quote > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term > " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa > vadanti " . > > Unquote > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya? > > 2) > Quote > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are > estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > Unquote > > Are these your own computations? > > 3) > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough " Anima siddhi " that two yogis observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern science > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God. > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and all other material properties. > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara). > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji. > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa- bhootas. > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?>>> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ( " Na hi Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam. " ), but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term " Jna " for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " . > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of " I " ) and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13 > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But " How " these three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are " mathematical " categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A > supercomputer > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence. > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinayji, > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the witnessed. > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)? > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > .. > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World. > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@ " <harimalla@> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees? > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " John " <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 3:59 AMVinay,Please do not make vague statements. 1)Quote Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. UnquoteTell me which statement can be called state-sponsored with parallel example.Where did I mention about majority. Your statement is not what a serious scholar will make. 2)Quote Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is "Jna" which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular "Jna" as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars.UnquoteYou have not read kapila Muni's work and yet you talk about that to one who read both the works of Kapila. Kapila never said like you mention. He said that Ishvara is "Asiddha" and then left it at that. He never said the purusha is Ishvara. Neither Patanjali called purushas as Ishvara rather he distinguished the puruhas from Ishvara by calling the latter a special purusha.Lord Buddha rejected the Sankhya teachings of Allara Kalama as te latter could not resolve the issue as to what happens to the souls once freed from the clutches of Prakriti. Lord Buddha then meditated on that and found the answer. Your reply shows your ignorance of that.3)Quote Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the "Jna" in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means "One Who Knows". Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies.UnquoteSankhya gives the knowledge of prakriti and the purursha becomes free from the Prakriti. But it does not give the ultimate Vedantic knowledge as that do4es not come under4 the purview of Sankhya. Yoga asks one to to do Ishvara pranidhana and does not say bthat Purusha and Ishvara are the same rather it differentiates between purusha and Ishvara. With your qzero knowledge of these yoiu are trying to argue.4)Quote There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset.UnquoteHad you read the Mundaka Upanishad you would not have made your wothless comments. You do not know the distinction between para-vidya and apara-vidya. You are also not aware of what Veda constitut5es according to Sayana. Moreover Lord Krishna himself said that he is the originator of Veda and he is the knower of Vedanta too. Please make your conception clear on the scope of sankhya and Yoga it before talking about these big subjects.5)Quote Neither Samkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says "There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta." which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many.UnquoteSankhya does not talk about any relation of purusha and Brahman as it says that Ishvara is Asiddha. You must first5 understand that.6)Quote Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements UnquoteYes an ignorant person will say so:7)Quote The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires.Unquote These subjects are beyond your comprehension. Lord Krishna did not discover later that Advaita was better than Dvaita. Both are correct at different levels of teaching. Beginning with sankhya Lord Krishna took Arjuna step by step from Sankhyta to yoga to Veda and finally to Vedanta. It is beyond your comprehension and Lord krishna tells us not to teach Gita to people like you who ridicule Bhagavad Gita.By saying that Svetasvatara does not talk about Sankhya you are showing your utter ignorance as you have not read Svetasvatara Upanishad. 8)Quote Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu.UnquoteThose falke sanyashis and brahmacharis only boast that they have access to secret knowledge and they6 are definitely not Hindus. Lord Krishna says one who renounces the karmaphal is a sanyashi. ramana maharshi did not take initiation from any guru and would anybody say that he was not a Brahmachari and also not a sanyashi?9)Quote 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one.UnquoteAs you do not know what a Brahmachari itruly means I am 100 % sure you are not a real Brahmachari at all. You talk about wine more often any of the members without any context and you bring in the subject of sex so often that it borders on prversity.10)Quote Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions.UnquoteIt is wrong to say that Lord asked Arjuna to follow Karma and not Jnana. If that would have been that case the Lord would not have talked about Jnana. Lord told the essence of the entirte Indian philosophy by taking Arjuna in steps from Sankhya to its practical aspects Yoga and then to the Veda and finally the Vedanta. Lord then asked what the latterwanted to do. Arjuna remembered all that he knew earlier and then took his decision. 11)Quote Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the "Dharma-" -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus.UnquoteOne wqho says that thewre is no mention of Sankhya in Svetasvatara has to be an idiot as all scholars know that Svetasvatara upanishad speaks about Sankhya. You false statement shows your utter ignorance and lack of regard for truth.only. -SKB--- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:39 PM To All, Sunil Da is just repeating statements which a majority of state-sponsored scholars have been issuing for long. And if truth is decided by means of votes among those who do not practixe it, then he is in the right. I have no intention of any adverse comment against him or anyone, but I must oppose some of his wrong ideas which are actually not his and tharefore he cannot be blamed for the wrong textbooks of philosophy. <<< "Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that.">>> Saamkhya never states Purusha is manyfold . Its term for Purusha is "Jna" which is expressed in singular and not in plural in Saamkhya-kaarikaa which is the most detailed version of Saamkhya (but it is not the original Saamkhya of Kapila Muni). dualists interpret the singular "Jna" as multiple Jeevas. Jeevas are manifold, but Jeeva is mixture of purusha and Prakriti. Both Prakriti and Purusha are one each, but Jeevas are many. The very fact that Jna is not plural in Saamkhya is a proof that its pluralistic interpretation is a creation of later scholars. <<< "Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of "Ishvara" cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic." >>> Putting Saamkhya and Yoga among theist philosophies is a favourite pastime of atheists. Yoga says Ishvara-Praanidhaan a is a shortcut of yoga, yet many misguded scholars put it among atheist philosophies. Sunil Da acknowledges Ishvara in Yoga, but denies the "Jna" in Saamkhya Who is interpreted as Purusha by interpreters. Literally, Jna means "One Who Knows". Hence, it implies both the Supreme Being and the Soul. since the topic of Saamkhya is not a description of Brahman but attainment of Knowledge, Jna may be taken to be individual Soul, but Saamkhya never says individual soul is different from the universal, nor does it say that the universal exists or does not exist. On this basis, it is too much to conclude that Saamkhya is atheistic. If Gita says Saamkhya to be Supreme Knowledge, we must include Saamkhya aming theistic philosophies. <<< "Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman.">>> There are many statements in ancient texts which call use the term Veda for Karmakaandic part of Veda. But there are countless references to Jnaanakaandic portions of Veda too. Sunil Da wrongly differentiates between Veda and Vedanta as Apara and Para Vidyaas on this misunderstood basis, because Vedanta is the name of the last portion of principal Veda, the Yajurveda, whose last chapter was later named as Ishopanishada and is regarded as the first upanishada. Literally, Veda means (spiritual-) Knowledge, and Veda is meaningless without Jnaanakaanda. The purpose karmakaandas was to perform worldly duties without being tarnished with fruits, so that we might embark upon jnaanakaanda with a proper charater and mindset. Neither Saamkhya nor Yoga nor any other Vedic philosophy says individual soul is qualitatively different from The Brahman. The question whether emancipated souls retain their separateness from Brahman or merge into the latter is elaborated in detail in Brahmasutra which is famous as Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says that liberated souls can merge into the Brahman and can also keep their separate identities as per their choices. But this multiplicity of choice does not mean Purusha or Jna or Atmaa is many. Water from a pond may be put in many buckets, which does not make it Many Waters instead of One Water : this is the logic of Adi Shankar. Sunil Da says "There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta." which is an over-simplification of Vedanta. Vedanta clearly says even souls in moksha can retain their separate identity if they like. But still Vedanta is advaita, because only One is in Many. Sunil Da makes a mess of Saamkhya, Vedanta and Gita by means of following statements : <<< "Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge." >>> The first six chapters of Gita were delivered by a Lord Krishna who believed in Dvaita and then Lord Krishna discovered that Advaita was better !!! This transformation in Lord Krishna came abrubtly midway his srmon at Kuruksetra !! Svetasvatara Upanishad does not mention Saamkhya even once. Kapil Muni is mentionsed once, but not his philosophy. And Sunil Da is proving the inferiority of Saamkhya with respect to Vedanta on the basis of WRONG citations !! Svetasvatara Upanishad (ch-1, verse-9) differentiates Ajna (ignorant) from Jna, and in the latter is used for God. After liberation, individual soul can also be called Jna. that is the meaning of Jna in Saamkhya. Saamkhya is not for dualists, who should not read it. Even Svetasvatara Upanishad says that Vedantic knowledge should not be inparted to a soul restless with desires. <<< " Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge."> >> Sunil Da is trying to downplay the role of sanyaasa and brahmacharya by means of wordplay. Sanyaasa is not attained by mere initation, but initiation has same role which Vivaaha-samskaara has for matrimony. One can beget children without marriage. Similarly, Yaajnavalkya attained Brahmajnaana before he took sanyaasa !! Yaajnavalkya' s reason was that he had no need of initiation into sanyaasa since he attained Brahmajnaana without it, but he took it because he did not want others to say that Yaajnavalkya did not take sanyaasa and therefore sanyaasa is unnecessary for Brahmajnaana. Those who downplay the value of sanyaasa are not Hindus, because one may not have the guts to take sanyaasa and one may have guts to attain Brahmajnaana without sanyaasa, but if one downgrades sanyaasa then one is not a Hindu. <<< "He (Lord Krishna) means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi" >>> In effect, not in exact meaning of the term sanyaasa. <<< "It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. ">>> 100% WRONG ! A non-brahmachari means one who rejoices in vaasanaa (libido). Sunil Da does gives a meaning of brahmacharya. I have told in many past messagews that Ashvatthaamaa was unmarried but kept dancers in his tent even during war and Lord Krishna said Ashvatthaamaa was not a brahmachaari, while Lord Krishna said Arjuna was a brahmachaari and was therefore capable of retracting brahmaastra. Brahmacharya means Charyaa in Brahmaa, and complete control of seminal ejaculation for one year is the entry point into Brahmacharya. One who has not not ejaculated for a month or two is not a brahmachaari. One year is the minimum qualification. And real gurus know how to distinguish a real brahmachaari from a fake one. And God knows how to differentiate a fake sanyaasi from a real one. Gita has described Saamkhya in detail : in ch-2 verse-39 it is said that preceding verses describe Saamkhya. Bujt Arjuna was asked to follow Karma and not Saamkhya, and further details of Saamkhya were not given. Following verses in Gita mention Saamkhya : Chapter Verse 2 : 39 3 : 3 5 : 3, 4 13 : 24 18 : 13 Following verses in Gita mention Sanyaasa :: Chapter Verse 5 : 1, 2, 3, 6 6 : 1, 2, 4 9 : 28 18 : 1, 2, 7, 49 I am not interested in discussing these things in detail because it is not a philosophical forum, and shaastras forbid to discuss Brahman before non-brahmachaaris. All four ashramas rest on Brahmacharya, all grihasthaas must be brahmachaaris, even DURING garbhaadhaana samskaara. But I have never met a single grihastha, although I have met many brahmachaaris and many sanyaasis. There is not a single karmayogi, because it was easy for Arjuna but difficult for kaliyugi grihasthas who cannot detach themselves from the fruits of their actions. <<< "A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit." >>> Should I become a non-brahmachaari for claiming the superiority of Brahmacharya ??? Even Freud said all great works in science and arts emanate from sublimation of libido. I laud the superiority of Brahmacharya, because without it Brahman cannot be apprehended, which is the very meaning of the term Brahma-charya, and without brahmacharya so-called grihasthas will beget only lascivuous asuras kicking their parents after growing up. Sanatana Dharma needs grihasthas who sublimate libido and beget offsprings without relation of vaasanaa with the "Dharma-" -patni. I did not marry because I found it not possible for me to become a Vedic grihastha. If adherents of Vedic Dharma do not marry, Vedic Dharma will vanish. Sunil Da is misled by some strange concepts about brahmacharya ansd sanyaasa to call me egoist & c. I never said I am superios to others. It is his wording. I said and still say that everyone must become a brahmachaari, including all grihasthas. Brahmacharya is not destroyed by raising a family, provided vaasanaa is totally absent. But it is not easy. Sunil Da quotes Svetasvatara Upanishad (wrongly, there is no mention of Saamkhya literally in it), when he will actually read this text instead of quoting it from some second hand spurious book, he will fiond that self purification is impossible without withholding the Praana through Praanaayaama according to Svetasvatara Upanishad. Spiritual Knowledge is not attained by watching TV shows of five star gurus. -VJ ============ ========= ===== ===== ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:07:50 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear friends, Sankhya is Dvaita and there is no doubt about it. Sankhya is supreme Vedic knowledge and there is no doubt about it. Mundaka Upanishad says that the Veda is Apara-vidya. Sankhya tells us that Purusha is eternally free and only it does not realise its free nature as long as it is attached to Prakriti. So by realising that the prakriti is the real doer the individual purusha becomes free from the clutches of Prakriti and gets released. Sankhya believes in the multiplicity of purushas and it leaves it at that. Thus Sankhya has the bound purushas and the releasaed purushas.There is no doubt that Sankhya is dualistic and Bhagavad Gita did not contradict it. Any scholar of Sankhya knows that Sankhya does not talk about Brahman as the existence of "Ishvara" cannot be proved. Yoga sutra says that Ishvara is the Puruhsa, who is beyond the influence of Prakriti. Thus both Sankhya and Yoga are dvaitic. It is the Vedanta which teaches us next the Vedantic knowledge or Para-vidya, that which says that purusha is not different from Brahman. The individual existence of Purusha is overcome with the advaitic Vedantic knowledge. There are no multiplicity of purushas in advaita Vedanta. Svetasvatara Upanishad says that the knowledge of Brahman is given only to the highest students of Sankhya. This means who have attained the knowledge of Sankhya fully he is given the nest higher Vedantic knowledge that purusha is none other than Brahman and there is no multiplicity of purusha. This means Sankhya students have to have the next higher knowledge of Vedanta. The first six chapters of Bhagavad Gita teaches Dvaita. It is only later that the Bhagavad Gita takes us to the next higher stage of Advaitic knowledge. Lord Krishna did not say that one has to get initiated into sanyasha to get the highest knowledge. He means that a niskaama karmayogi is also a sanyashi. Arjuna was not an initiated sanyashi. Adi Sankaracharya was an initiated sanyashi and that does not mean that every initiated sanyashi is equal to Adi Sankaracharya. There can be fake initiated sanyashis too, who may have taken formal initiation to sanyasha only to claim superiority. King Janaka was not an initiated Brahmajnani and he gave the final lessons to the sage Ashtavakra, who was a life-long ascetic. It is quite possible that a non-brahmachari may have higher spiritual knowledge than a brahmachari. Just by initiation into monkhood one does become omniscient. A brahmachari who claims superiority of a brahmachari is an egoist and cannot be a true brahmachari in spirit. Adi Sankaracharya did not tell Mandana Mishra that he was superior by virtue of his being a sanyashi. They had a long debate and Mandana Mishra became a sanyasahi as that was the condition before the debate that he would become a Sanyashi if he got defeated. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:37 AM <<< If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait. >>> Swami Vivekananda cannot contradict the words of Gita which openly declares Saamkhya to be the culmination of Knowledge, and if someone thinks Gita to be dualist than I should better get out of such discussions. Whole work of Swami Vivekananda is on internet. Mr Malla should cite Swami Vivekanand correctly. Sankhya does not end up with the purush and prakriti, the written text is just the beginning of Saamkhya. The term Saamkhya is often used as a synonymn for sanyaasa, and Gita also uses it in the sense of Jnaana-yoga, different from karma-yoga. Gits says Saamkhya is the culmination of Spiritual Knowledge, and such a knowledge cannot be summed up in few kaarikaas of Ishwarchandra, which is just a tip of iceberg. I do not want to discuss Saamkhya with those non-sanyaasis who have not taken an oath of brahmacharya & c. Some topics are forbidden. Saamkhya is not for university professors, but for those who have purified themselves and are above Maayaa. Mr Malla speaks like an omniscient who is the ultimate word in everything, from religion, astrology, & c to science, etc, but errs every now and then, Now he is mis-quoting Einstein : "everyting in the world is relative to the observer". No, everyting in the world is relative to the frame of reference. It is Einstein's view. The statement by Mr Malla is called solipcism in philosophy and is generally regarded as the worst possible school of philosophy. It is an insult to Einstein to call him a solipcist. Before trying to "to put Jyotisha, on sound footings" Mr Malla Ji should learn it properly. I keep away nonp-sanyaasi FANS of Adi-Shankarachrya. A real follower of Adi-Shankarachrya must take sanyaasa and should not attack Jyotisha as Mr Malla is doing. Adi-Shankarachrya did not attack Jyotisha. I have already posted the meaning of three colours in quantum chrolorodynamics, and I am sure if I start discussing equations of Quantum Chrolorodynamics here, the moderator will ban me. It is an astrological forum, and Mr Malla has no interest in astrology. -VJ ============ ========= ========= ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ "harimalla@rocketma i l.com" <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:50:41 PM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Jhaaji, I would like to acknowledge your learned nature.There is no doubt about it.If I am not mistaken,Vivekanand a says that Sankhya darshan is dwaita and vedanta is adwait.Sankhya ends up with the purush and prakriti, it does not say the two are one and the same.Adwait vedanta says both are one and the same.Perhaps Shri Bhattacharjyaji wants to clarify this point. My intentions are slightly different.I want to gradually bring everything to the religious astrology and affirm that when correctly interpreted, religous astrology is capable to explain all our vedantic philosophy.Before I reach there I want our whole group to know what our religion says.I feel you are quite competant to express what our religious philosophy says.Then we shall discuss how our religius philosophy is scientific.All that I want you to tell us is how does our philosophy fit into the scientific theory of the scientists. Thus my question is what are the three gunas in the scientific terminology. What is the meaning of the white, red and the dark qualities in scientific terms? Also what is the Purush in scientific terminology. Eistein says,in his theory of relativity, 'everyting in the world is relative to the observer'.Then who is this observer? where is he situated? Does he have a place, a home? Some say PARALOK IS HIS HOME,.where is this paralok? I feel we should discuss these things and clarify to our future generations, so they do not become athiests and get confused by science.Thus my quories to you .Let us try to search for the truth, which in my view has already been explained by our shastras and especially more clarified by the religius jyotish shastra.Please do not think I am trying to destroy our jyotish shastra. I am trying to put it on sound footings, which you will soon discover, and hopefully also agree with me with the details. I am specially a fan of Adi-Shankarachrya, who established the four dhams at the four corners of Bharat varsa.What do they imply astrologically? This has been my craze for a long time now.I want to share with you these things.So let us discuss in humility without the sense of pride or egoism all these things.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > Good write-up. > > A few clarifications please. > > 1) > Quote > > but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not > differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term > "Jna" for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy > expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa > vadanti". > > Unquote > > Would you not like to give the relevant verses from Sankhya? > > 2) > Quote > > Due to linear arrangement of these 13 elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even > one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are > estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > Unquote > > Are these your own computations? > > 3) > > If I remember correctly. it was hrough "Anima siddhi" that two yogis observed the quarks and the relevant sketches with colour were made in the early 20th century, which was somewhat before the nuclear structure was known to the modern science > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > Pure Consciousness (God) is Absolute, Constant, without any motion or change because it is omnipresent and there is no place without God and therefore there is no place where God needs to go. Hence, the idea of contraction and expansion cannot be imposed on God. > > > > Contraction and expansion need the categories of Space and Time, which are attributes of Matter. Pure Consciousness is beyond Space, Time and Matter and all other material properties. > > > > Prakriti is Adi Shakti which is the Active Agency of Inactive Pure Consciousness. Prakritiitself does not contract and expand. The panchbhautika material world is merely a manifestation of Taamasika part of Ahamkaara of Moola Prakriti. The latter is Unknowable and it is even sinful to try to know Her. We must strive to Know Him, which is same as Knowing Ourself, because Pure Consciousness in indivisible and One, and it is our mistake that we differentiate between the water in a bucket and water in a sea, or between Consciousness in an individual and Absolute Consciousness (this argument is from Adi Shankara). > > > > It is the Panchbhautika World which expands after Kalpa is Kalpita by Brahmaa Ji, and contracts during the night of brahmaa Ji. > > > > This Panchbhautika World is sensory world. five senses have five subjects : Roopa, Rasa, Gandha, Sparsha, Shabda, which are called five Tanmaatraas (Tat + Maatraa), and these five Tanmaatraas get manifest as Agni, Jala, Prithvi, Vaayu, and Aakaasha respectively. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are perceived by senses or jnaanendriyas. These pancha-mahaa- bhootas are not elements of modern science, each element of modern science is made from different mixtures of pancha-mahaa- bhootas. > > > > <<<What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms?>>> > > > > The three qualities of Moola Prakriti are Sat, Raj and Tama gunas, which get mixed in varying proportions to give rise to the manifest material world on the one hand (as described above) and to the 13 constituents of Kaarana-Shareera on the other. These 13 constituents, plus 5 Tanmaatraas, 5 Mahaabhootas, and the Moola Prakriti make up the 24 basic elements of original Saamkhya philosophy which was called culmination of Knowledge by Lord Krishna in Gita ("Na hi Saamkhya samam jnaanam, na hi Yoga samam balam."), but was declared to be atheistic by dualists because Saamkhya did not differentiate individual soul from the universal and used a single term "Jna" for both, which fits well into the Advaita Vedic Philosophy expressed by the famous Rgvedic Richaa "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti". > > > > Guna means that which can be increased or reduced. Pure Consciousness is Nir-guna, because it is Absolute and unchanging. Mortals have mixed consciousness, a Pure Consciousness covered with a false consciousness which is made up of Triguni Prakriti and this False Consciousness is not a part of Self but a part of Prakriti. This False Consciousness is known as Kaarana Shareera, because it is the cause of rebirth and hinders moksha. False Consciousness or Kaarana Shareera has 13 karanas : 3 antah-karanas and 10 baahya-karanas. Three antah-karanas are Buddhi (the deepest layer of Chitta), Ahamkaara (the feeling of "I") and Mana (which takes Samkalpas). Buddhi is not modern intelligence, but original meaning of in-telligence, the agency which is based on inner tuition or intuition from God and teaches us truth and not wicked intelligence of kaliyugi dhoortas. 10 baahya karanas are 5 karmendriyas and 5 jnaanendriyas. Due to linear arrangement of these 13 > > elements, human population cannot exceed 13! or 6227 millions by even one million (current estimates are of 6.8 billions, but these are estimates based on trends of century which have changed). > > > > The three Gunas (Sat, Raj and Tama gunas) are described as White, Red and Black in Chhaandogya Upanishada (which uses the term Shabala-Brahma or Coloured-Brahma for Prakriti). Modern Quantum-chlorodynam ics has reached upto the level of three coloured quarks, having mathematical colours termed White, Red and Black quarks by scientists, which combine is various proportions to make hundreds of sub-atomic particles like electrons and protons. But "How" these three coloured quarks combine to make particle is still a mystery (and will always remain a mystery because Moola Prakriti in Unknowable). These coloured quarks are differentiated as White, Red and Black , but these colours should not be confused with the colours perceived by our sensory organ Eye which perceives merely the Agni tanmaatraa manifest as Roopa-mahaabhoota, while the three colours of quarks are "mathematical" categories in science and attributes of Moola Prakriti in Saamkhya. A > supercomputer > > takes three months to compute the attributes of a sub-atomic particle out of three coloured quarks, and only God can decipher the intermediate processes through which a supercomputer makes so many hit-and-trial computations through fuzzy logic which have proved the quantum chlorodynamics to be true but inexplicable for mortal faculty of socalled intelligence. > > > > The complexity of this problem can be visualized by the fact that modern supercomputers make thousands of billions of floating point operations per second and these supercomputers need 8 million seconds or 3 months to compute the eqyuations of three quarks. The number of individual computations required in this process is nearly twenty zeroes after one !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > "harimalla@rocketma i l.com" <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:30:46 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinayji, > > I expected so much knowledge from a tapaswi like you.What you say is quite true.God or the Purush as the witness and Nature or Prakriti as the the witnessed. > > One or two more questions more question to you.When we think of the alternately contracting and the exanding universe, is that the witness(Purush , the observer) or the witnessed(Prakriti , the observed)? > > What are the three qualities of the witnessed nature in scientific terms? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > .. > > > > , "Rohiniranjan" <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Beautiful post, visibly from deep within your soul, Vinay Ji! Excellent!! > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > God is not Matter. Matter is deduced from Maatr (Mother), the Triguni Adi Shakti or Mother Goddess or PRAKRITI whose constituent is Panchbhautika World. God is Pure Consciousness, a Witness of the Material World. > > > > > > > > Without God, there will be no perceiver or Creator of Matter. Prakriti is a Kriti, there must be a Creator. The Kalpa is a Kalpana of its Creator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > "harimalla@" <harimalla@> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 1:11:43 PM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > May I ask both Jhaaji and Mr.John if this universal phenomenon discussed has any relevance to the 'Universal form of God' shown by Shri Krishna to Arjun in the Gita? or What would that be since it is said the universal form can be seen with the third eye or divine vision and achieved with devotion and entered into by the devotees? > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , "Rohiniranjan" <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm...! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 One single verse will do. One verse is adequate but it must be clear. -SKB --- On Mon, 7/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Monday, July 13, 2009, 12:02 AM Sunil Da, Did you not read so many citations already sent by me ?? OK, when I get time, I will collect all those mails and send them again to you in summarized form. I sent you many verses which clearly said what you demand. presently I am in the last stages of updating my Kundalee software. -VJ ============ ======== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 13, 2009 11:10:57 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Please just give one verse only where it clearly says " Divya Varsha = Solar year X 360 " -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:17 AM I am surprised at your language. I told you I have placed order for Vayu Purana, yet you are levelling wrong charges against me. Moreover, I am conviinced that Vayu Purana cannot contradict other Puranas and MBh, which were all works of a single person (Vyasa Ji). As for your following charge, should I reproduce my previous postings quoting verses from all those puranas and MBh which you first quoted for your wrong value of Divya Varsha ? You should not deny so much evidences already sent to you. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:21:52 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras I told you that you have to read the Chapter 57, particularly the verse 17. It now appears to me that it would probably have been better if I would not have asked you to read it. If you think that you don't need to read the Vayu purana then please don't read it. With your attitude towards the Vayu purana it will be better that you don't read it. For your information what I have said is from a major purana and that has not been contradicted by any other purana. You are living in your imaginary world. You have not quoted any verse from any of the four Vedas or from the fifth veda where the Divya varsha is said to be 360 human years. .... SKB. --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 1:24 AM Sunil da, <<<Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha >>> Bhagavata Purana defines Divya Vasha, and I have already sent verse number. I sent you clear definitions of Divya Varsha from many Puranas and MBh and siddhantas, but now you rely on Vayu purana, without citing the verse which defines Divya Varsha in Vayu Purana. There is no ancient text which equates Divya Varsha with normal solar/lurar/ human varshas. Everywhere, it is said to be of 360 years, and I have sent many proofs, while you have not sent a single proof. The view you propogate is a modern myth created to placate evolutuonists & c who cannot digest Indian yuga system. But such persons should call Indian system False, instead of misinterpreting ancient texts. -VJ ============ ====== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Friday, July 10, 2009 6:19:10 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Vinay, You have misunderstood the statement. Bhagavata purana is the highest of the puranas. There is no doubt about it. However it does not define the Divya-varsha like the Vayu purana does. When you read the Vayu purana then only you will realise it. Please hold your horses till then. Best wishes, SKB --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Friday, July 10, 2009, 5:14 AM Sunil Da, I am surprised at your statement : " Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha " . Should I reproduce your earlier statement about the primacy of Bhagavata Purana in this regard ? Do not worry about Vayu Purana. All Puranas have stories about Sargas. I have placed an order for it. But I am really surprized ober your adamant refusal to reject all evidences from Puranas, epics and Siddhantas, and now Vayu Purana is the ONLY true book ! Within a month or two, my college ( a private Sanskrit college funded by central govt and recognized by Sanskrit universities) library will contain almost the whole ancient Indian literature which money can buy. I am also planning to digitize it for easy referencing. I have teachers and students in the college to search for the references. -VJ ============ ========= ====== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Thursday, July 9, 2009 7:24:31 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha. The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada . You know this . Why then is the confusion? Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15 days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month was Magha. I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400 BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or not. Besyt wishes, SKB. --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM Sunil Da, Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. -VJ ============ ========= ===== === ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Harimallaji, No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. However the VJ says as follows: << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. Sincerely SKB --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM Dear Bhattachajyaji, I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Shri harimallaji, Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. Sincerely, SKB --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM Dear sirs, Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Please just give one verse only where it clearly says " Divya Varsha = Solar year X 360 " > > -SKB > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Shri Harimallaji, 1) First you said: Quote Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. Unquote 2) Now you say: Quote In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. Unquote You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. Sincerely, SKB --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > Shri harimallaji, > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > Dear sirs, > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > Regards > > Hari Malla > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Sunil Ji, I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. -VJ ========================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 1) Shri Vinay Jha, 1) Quote but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Unquote What a judgement ! Why are you obsessed witrh Chemistry? 2) No scientist has ever approved your paper. Please stop your false claims. Show me one scientific review of your paper. 3) Quote because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. Unquote No. I disapprove your obsession for wine and woman. 4) I said that certain remarks only and idiot will make. it is upto you to ndecide whether you want to make such remarks. 5) Quote Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. Unquote Fake claim of Brahmachari with frequent mention about wine do make a dangerous combination. -SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 4:06 AM<<< Sunil Ji, I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. -VJ ============ ========= ===== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Shri Harimallaji, You may read the chapter 57 of the Vayu purana, if you wish. You will have to procure the book yourself. You can take your own time. Sincerely6, Sunil K. Bhattacxharjya Vayupurana Chapter 57 --- On Tue, 7/14/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 8:20 PM Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Rohini Da, Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. -VJ ===================== === ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:43:44 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sadhu Sadhu! If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Sunil Ji, > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > -VJ > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > -SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > Jihn Ji, > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > John <jr_esq > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Namaste Sunilji, > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > Regards, > > John R. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > science > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > universe > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid... From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA.. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Ravindramani ji, It is really miserable that no one was advising SKB (Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya) while he was needlessly abusing me in many fora fir seven months (without a single foul word from me till now) and advising me about benefits of wine (just because I happened to be a lifelong brahmachaari), but when I started exposing him some members are feeling uneasy. Here is my answer to RR Ji : =================== == Do I need to reproduce SKB's past mails in which he used abusive remarks for me , without similar terms used by me till now (but no one ever asked him to behave) ?? Now I see he is carelessly misquoting ancient texts and callikng me names, I must either leave all fora as you once suggested and SKB also wants, or refute his falsehood. He poses as an expert in indology and needs to abuse me for imroving his " image " ; it is his style of gaining stature. One member informed that SKB earns by going to lecture about indology. He advised me twice over these fora that two tolas of wine per day is good for health. He destroyed an astrological topic on Medini Jyotisha by diverting the discussion to wine. He has no interest in astrology, and is always raising irrelavant topics. I had requested him not to discuss unrelated topics in astrological fora. but he insists, and when he lacks arguments he recompses by taking a recourse to abusing, for which no one has any advice to him, which prompted me to react strongly NOW. >>> If someone starts advertising wine wigth a view to destroy an astrological discussion about Medini Jyotisha, should not such a person be called a drunkard ?? It is not an abuse. But calling someone " idiot " without any cause for provocation is abusive. And what about those who equate abuser with the abused ?? SKB is not an astrologer, which he accepts, yet he disrupts astrologuical fora with unrelagted topics and abuses. -VJ =================== == ________________________________ ravindramani <ravindramani Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:03:37 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Right you are. it is really miserable. CS Ravindramani , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > Sadhu Sadhu! > > If I were the moderator here, this is when I would have packed off both of you 'boys' to the private email room to discuss and metaphorically " dismember " one another and thereby find your similarities as opposed to suffering your differences in public and making the public suffer as well! > > But I am not the moderator, so I would not do it ... :-) > > RR > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Sunil Ji, > > > > I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. > > > > Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. > > > > I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ===== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. > > > > --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM > > > > The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. > > > > Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. > > > > -VJ > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum.. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. > > > > -SKB > > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ..com> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM > > > > Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Johnji and Vinay, > > > > Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. > > > > From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM > > > > Jihn Ji, > > > > Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. > > > > Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe.. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= = === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Namaste Sunilji, > > > > Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? > > > > There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference.. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. > > > > After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. > > > > From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. > > > > Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. > > > > Regards, > > > > John R. > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Johnji, > > > > > > > > > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq@> > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< > > > > > > > > > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > > > > > > > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder > > > > science > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > > > > > Effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies.. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the > > > > universe > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > > > > > due > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Malla Ji, SKB (Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya) is taking a recorse to blatant lies. Initially, he quoted Mahabharata for his wrong definition of divya varsha being equal to a solar year. When I sent correct citations from MBh (together with all ancient Jyotisha Siddhantas) , he quoted Vishnu Purana out of context. When I sent him relevant verses from Vishnu Purana, he said Bhagavata Purana is the highest Purana. When I sent verses from Bhagavata Purana, he said Vayu Purana is the only proof of Divya Varsha, because Vayu Purana is not available on internet and I do not possess Vayu Purana ( I have ordered for it, which he knows ). Although I do not possess Vayu Purana, I am sure he is deliberately quoting it falsely, taking a verse out of context without referring to preceding verses, which he did in the case of other yexts mentioned above. Should I reproduce all past messages which will convince you that this fellow is not sincere, and he is deliberfately quoting scriptures falsely for proving his wrong ideas. Recently, he cited Saamkhya wrongly, and called me names ( " idiot " & c) just because I produce correct citations from ancient texts. You have never cited any scripture FALSELY, although I have differences of opinions with you. Academic discussion cannot be carried out with insincere and false persons like SKB. -VJ =================== ==== ________________________________ " harimalla " <harimalla Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:50:08 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Bhattacharjyaji, You said, quote <Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu Purana says.> unquote May we know what the Vayu Purana says,please quote the verse and chapter.thank you. Regards Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Shri Harimallaji, > > 1) > First you said: > > Quote > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this > imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary > cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in > nature. > > Unquote > > 2) > Now you say: > > Quote > > In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four > cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas > mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be > true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four > yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping. > > Unquote > > You seem to be pretty confused. Nobody an remove your confusion just by sending a couple of mails. If you wish you can read the Vayu purana. However I would not insist. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 6:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > I have no intention to contest with any one or any shastras.What you tell me I will accept.May I know what it says there. > > If it says it is only one year, it is also acceptable.In fact even the four yugas are limited to only one year, at the four cardinal points, because at various points of the year, panchangas mention as satya yugadi, treta yugadi, dwapar yugadi etc.This must be true only for real siddhas,since Rohit was told by Indra that the four yugas are nothing but the act of walking,standing, sitting and sleeping.This is quoted by Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in his Bharatiya jyotish. > > For the common men,the year is just a year,but for siddhaas it is the whole history of humanaity.if we add ten zeros to one year,which is perfrectly OK if zeros have zero values, it will be the whole history of humanity from pralaya to pralaya. > > When sidhantas speak of millions of years, I feel they are only symbolic figures not to be taken literally,only to undertstand their parokshya meanings. > > For example, the 12 years of jupiter's orbit is multiplied by 36o (or 365 just to denote the year) then again by 1000 to denote the sidereal nature or the vision of the star world.365 and 1000 are symbolic figures and not to be taken literally, but with special meanings.Even 12 is not to be taken as 12 years, but as the 12 months of the year, as indicated in Ramayan and Mahabharat. > > Thus the puranas are vedas for those who understand the porakshya meanings.Ror others they are fantastic stories.The sidhantas are also written many places in the same spirit as the puranas.Thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > Shri harimallaji, > > > > > > Please quote reference from the scriptures before contesting what the Vayu purana says. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/13/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 13, 2009, 9:05 AM > > > > > > Dear sirs, > > > > > > Divya varsha costumarily is 360 years.I have also asked what is this imaginary cycle of 360 years? None of us ever knows what this imaginary cycle of 360years is.Thus this is just a symbolic cycle, not existig in nature. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 SKB, <<< " I disapprove your obsession for wine and woman. " >>> Now I have got rid of you. I have been relieved of the duty of answering to a false and impolite person. Go on abusing me , I will not care. -VJ ========================= === ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:03:38 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras 1) Shri Vinay Jha, 1) Quote but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Unquote What a judgement ! Why are you obsessed witrh Chemistry? 2) No scientist has ever approved your paper. Please stop your false claims. Show me one scientific review of your paper. 3) Quote because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. Unquote No. I disapprove your obsession for wine and woman. 4) I said that certain remarks only and idiot will make.. it is upto you to ndecide whether you want to make such remarks. 5) Quote Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. Unquote Fake claim of Brahmachari with frequent mention about wine do make a dangerous combination. -SKB --- On Tue, 7/14/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 4:06 AM<<< Sunil Ji, I sent you link to opinions of renowned astrophysicists, but you think astrophysics is a branch of chemistry ! Do you know how to solve the differential equation of True Moon ??? You are a cipher in these things. Ignorance can be remedied , but there is no cure for insincerity and dishonesty. Earlier, you dismissed weather scientists' approval of my paper, although you are a cipher in weather science. Now I conclude it was due to jealousy, because you are refuting all statements from me irrespective of proper substantiation and referencing by me. You have dofferences with some other members too, but you use abusive words ONLY for me, because of my hatred for wine and women, for which you hate me. I all fields, I have found you hate substantiation of your grotesque remarks with reference to facts. Now, you have have also forgot the basic rules of civilized behaviour and have started calling me names ( " idiot " & c). That is why I asked you to give up daily dose of wine. Senility mixed with liquor is one of most dangerous combinations. -VJ ============ ========= ===== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Monday, July 13, 2009 4:51:07 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Neither you are aware of the latest developments nor you are aware of the opinion of majority of the renowned astrophysicists. --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Sunday, July 12, 2009, 11:44 PM The socalled " latest developments " have not be supported by the mainstream. Personally, I am not in favour of this Big Bang in its present form, but unfortunately it is still the favourite of the majority of astrophysicists. type Big Bang in any search engine, and open sites of renowned astrophysicists who decleare that it is still the favourite of most of them. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @..com> Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18:03 AM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Right. That is why I do not want to discuss the latest thinking on the reasons for the " Red-shift " , which are other than due to the expanding universe, here in this forum. one . If one is interested can read up the latest developments in astrophysics. -SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:20 AM Lord Vishnu is infinite in His true form and cannot be confined to this material universe. Moreover, if Sunil Da wants to refute the theory supported by a majority of scientists presently, he should argue it at proper forums and not here. I have already posted links to sites of reputed astrophysicists where one can be informed that expanding universe is not my view but is the majority view of experts. -VJ ============ ======== == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:42:20 PM Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Johnji and Vinay, Our own galaxy has a black hole at the centre. The stars, including our own Sun, around it are moving and that is why they have not yet been consumed by the black hole. From our shastras we know that Lord Vishnu pervades the entire universe. If the universe is expanding then Lord Vishnu must also be expanding. I feel this difficult to accept particularly more so when I read it sometime ago that the scientists have found that the Red-shift is not necessarily due to the expansion of the universe. Sincerely, SKB --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:14 AM Jihn Ji, Some scientists speculate that black holes steal matter from one point of Universe to pump it into white holes at other points. Some scientists believe these white holes may be in other universes, and black and white holes may be mechanisms through which matter passes from one universe to another. Current scientific wisdom is in favour of an expanding universe. But there is a great flaw in this theory : when we observes galaxies 5 or 10 billion light years away, it is wrong to assume that those galaxies are present there, because we see light STARTING from those galaxies 5 or 10 billion years ago and reachinh us now. We see the past and not the present of Universe. The present geometry of Universe can NEVER be known EMPIRICALLY due to finite speed of light and we must rely on hypotheses. -VJ ============ ========= = === ____________ _________ _________ __ John <jr_esq > Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:29:30 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Namaste Sunilji, Thanks for the observation. These are all theoretical ideas which only a few people can know in detail. Who knows what nature can come up with to find the loopholes? There was book a few years ago written by scientists from India. They stated several theories which supposedly came from the verses of the Rig Veda. One of their ideas is that the universe is expanding and is rotating. It is supposed to be in the shape of a slightly flattened egg in circumference. Perhaps the apparent red shift of the far away galaxies is due to the spin of the universe. After reading some of the ideas in the vedic literature, I am in a daze to think that there could be millions of other universes like and dissimilar from ours. From these ideas, I've come to speculate that our universe could be inside of a black hole, as one of you mentioned in this thread, which originated from another universe. Similarly, the black holes that we see in our universe could be the source of materials needed to start another universe from the singularity or the inside of the black holes. I believe some physicists have already thought of these ideas. Regards, John R. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Namaste Johnji, > > I shall only add that whenever the velocity of the particle is to exceed that of light, at that very point of time the excess energy is shedded by way of Cerenkov radiation so that the limit of the velocity of light is not violated. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, John <jr_esq wrote: > > John <jr_esq > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 10:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Vinayji, > > > > Thank you for the answer and explanation. It was more than I expected.. > > > > JR > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > To All, > > > > > > When it is said that speed of light is the maximum speed for any particle with mass, speed in light in vacuum is meant. > > > > > > No particle having some rest mass has ever been found to travel with greater than c > > > > > > Here c means speed of light (in vacuum). > > > > > > Cherenkov Radiation does not violate this rule.. For laymen, Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Cherenkov_ radiation is a good reference about it, which says : > > > > > > <<< > > > Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or ÄÅ'erenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. > > > >>> > > > > > > Mark the clause " in that medium " . Cherenkov Radiation is name of radiation emitted by particles like electron which are forced to travel at speeds exceeding that of light in a particular medium other than vacuum, but c (ie, speed of light in vacuum) is not surpassed by electrons either in vacuum or in any medium. > > > > > > Those interested in faster than speed of light can read the following http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= === > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 3:42:47 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed > > > of light, because it would have infinite mass which is impossible. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > When the particle exceeds the velocity of light it emits Cerenkov radiation. > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009, 1:08 AM > > > > > > To All Concerned, > > > > > > About my previous message, Mr John wrote : > > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In > > > > > > another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons > > > > > > for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes > > > > > > infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back > > > > > > to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of > > > > > > light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their > > > > > > masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the > > > > > > masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > My reply is : > > > > > > Particle accelerators have already created speeds marginally less than the speed of light. Even schoolboys are now building particle accelerators ! The rest mass of electron is equivalent to 0.000511 GeV and that of proton is equivalent to 0.93825 GeV, whereas modern accelerators have succeeded in accelerating particles to 200 GeV for millimeter ranges and 1 GeV for greater ranges. Einstein's equations about correspondence between rest mass and relativistic mass is ; Mr / Mv = Sqrt ( 1- [v^2 / c^2] ) , in which Mr is rest mass, Mv is relativistic mass, v is particle velocity, and c is speed of light. Since protons rest mass is 0.938 GeV, for adding extra 1.214 GeV into it through acceleration, one needs to speed it upto 90% of speed of light. But modern accelerators have 200 times more capacities, which means particles have already achived speeds 99.999 % of speed of light. Hence, following statement from Mr John is unsupported by moder science > : > > > > > > " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " it is true no particle having any rest mass can ever attain the speed of light, because it would have infinite mass which is ompossible. But speeds almost approaching the speed of light have already been achieved in synchrotrons , and due to radiation loss in circular colliders now gigantic linear accelerators are under construction which will achieve even greater speeds for particles. > > > > > > Mr John's point is " I stated that > > > > > > it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light > > > > > > and beyond " . This statement is contradicting his own statement : " " it would be impossible for any objects to > > > > > > reach the speed of light or even near its speed. " He should state his stand in clearer and non-- contradictory terms (I know he is not in the wrong, but he is too precise which makes his statements confusing for the general readers). > > > > > > Some people talk of beyond the speed the light, but even after > > > > > > Einstein's declaration of speed of light being the ultimate limit of > > > > > > speed in material universe, no one has been advance any proof of beyond > > > > > > the speed of light during one hundred years. Hence, Mr John's statement > > > > > > about beyond the speed of light is unsupported by evidence ; it is > > > > > > impossible for any material particle because the equation cited above suggests that for particles having greater than the speed of light, we must imagine an IMAGINARY mass for them having mass expredded in therms of complex numbers (real numbers multipliked with square root of minus one, which does not make any sense for MASS). Moreover, before attaing a beyond the speed of light, a particle must attain the speed of light, at which it will acquire infinit mass and therefore infinite gravitational pull will cause it to instantly attract entire universe into itself. Hence, we must rule out such possibilities for any particles having real masses. Faster than light speed also means travel into the past according to Einstein's special theory of relativity !! Following wikipedia article beautifully sums up various hypotheses about faster than light speeds : http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Faster-than- light but all approaches are mere hypothetical. > > > > > > I first read Big Bang theory in 1973 through George Gamov's book, but it > > > > > > was merely a hypothesis till the Nobel Prize winning work on background > > > > > > radiation, first discovered in 1964, has tilted the balance in the favour of this theory. Mr John > > > > > > should argue with the proponents of this theory and not with me > > > > > > because I did not propounded this Big Bang theory.But I think I may answer his > > > > > > remarks here because his comments are about my statement. > > > > > > For evidence about Big Bang, Mr John should go to this site : http://www.astro. ucla.edu/ ~wright/cosmolog y_faq.html# DN This link contains a lot of related questions and answers ( it is from a professor of UCLA, the Los Angeles campus of the University of California : his email ID is wright (AT) astro (DOT) ucla.edu). > > > > > > Mr John will find apparent speeds greater than the speed of light at above link, but such apparent speeds do not violate the special theory of relativity which says speed of light is the ultimate speed for all real particles. Moreover, greater than light's speed for real particles is hypothetical, never attested empirically. > > > > > > Let me here show in simplest terms the question asked by Mr John about greater than speed of light. It is impossible for any particle having any real rest mass. In the case of Big Bang model, for a universe expanding with some real speed, radius of the spherical (not proven) universe may be supposed to increase at a constant speed, but galaxies lying at the surface of universe, ie at its frinze will recede from one another at speeds which will accelerate with time. a time will come when they will recede from each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, which will cause them to attract each other with tremendous gravitational pull due to their relativistic masses, causing an eventual contraction. This is the explanation of Oscillating Universe Model. A continuous Big Bang is impossible for a spherical or semi-spherical spherical universe finite in mass, time and space. A continuous Big Bang is possible only for a flat universe, but Doppler > Effect > > > > > > rules out a flat universe : it proves greater velocities for galaxies which are farther, which means near the speed of light may be attained by farthest galaxies, in future at least due to continuing expansion if not now. > > > > > > But there is a problem : speed of such frinze area galaxies will be very near the speed of light woth respect to neighbouring galaxies, but NOT so with respect to the centre of the universe in case of a uniformly expanding spherical universe. Which of the two speeds will be effective ? The answer is : with respect to neighbouring galaxies, all frinze area galaxies will have relativistic speeds while with respect to centre of the spherical universe relativistic speeds will never be attained by frinze area galaxies. Both speeds with be real and relative to their own frames of references, because no frame of eference is Absolute in this material universe according to the theory of relativity. It leads to a paradox : the galaxies at the frinze will start collapsing towards each other with respect to neighbouring galaxies at its frinze, but will never collapse and will continue expanding with respect to its centre. what does it mean ? It means the universe > is > > > > > > not spherial in fact, and has two locii : one from which expansion starts and is measured which is the geometrical centre of a hypothetical spheroid, and another from which contraction starts which is the surface of this gigantic spheroid.. From the frinzes of universe, galaxies collapsing into each other will be pumped towards the centre. It leads to a special type of steady state theory which takes into account the Big Bang. > > > > > > Such topics should not be discussed in detail in astrological forums. Since Mr John had refuted some proven theories, I was compelled to answer. There is no final view about shape and design of the universe, but concrete evidences about Dark Matter shows that the universe in not a simple spheroid, while evidences about expansion & c suggest it is not flat and not infinite : there is possibility of a moving-spiral universe, something like a tornado in shape, attested empirically nine years ago by NASA. Datrk Matter overwhelms visible mnatter by 9 times perhaps, which is explained in terms of black holes by some scientists, but so many black holes have not been observed. Thus, the only plausible explanation is a tornado like moving-spiral shape in which we cannot see galaxies outside the curved space-time in which we reside and therefore imagins those invisiblew galaxies and stars to be dark matter, while they are normal matter outside the line of sight > due > > > > > > to curved space. This possibility is based on the concept of a spinning Universe moving spirally along a circular axis. It is a new possibility and I am not going to discuss such topics in an astological forum, more so because a finite universe needs another non-material and non-sensory external universe to prove its existence according to Godel's Theorem. An expanding universe must be finite in past and therefore cannot start from Infinity, as Mr John suggests. > > > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > > > ============ ========= === === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > John <jr_esq > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 10, 2009 9:08:51 AM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, > > > > > > This is an astute observation which took me a while to digest. In another forum, we talked about the expanding universe and the reasons for the acceleration of the galaxies' expansion outwards. I stated that it is possible these galaxies will eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. It can be assumed that at this stage everything becomes infinite. Thus, what started from the infinite eventually returns back to the infinite. It is a form or oscillation. > > > > > > Nonetheless, can you explain how the galaxies can reach the speed of light or near it and then be overburdened by the increase of their masses? It would appear that as objects reach the speed of light, the masses increase. Therefore, it would be impossible for any objects to reach the speed of light or even near its speed. > > > > > > JR > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.