Guest guest Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 --- On Sun, 11/1/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Fwd: Re: FW: Pingree -- yavanajataka etc. Sunday, November 1, 2009, 5:39 PM Mr. Krishen, 1) You said as follows: /// But it is some of our " friendly Vedic astrologers " who are claiming that there is a mantra of " mina rashi... " --fifth mantra in the Yajur Jyotisham--- trying to prove thereby that even the Vedanga Jyotisha talked about Mina etc. Rashis! They are doing so under the impression that by trying to prove that Rashis have been mentioned in the VJ, they will be able to estblish the antiquity of Rashichakra in the Indian ethos, including the VJ, /// Whoever believes that the fifth mantra in the Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha (Y-VJ) believes in truths and facts and come what may the consequences. The opinion of the people, who believed in AIT chronology, does not remain valid anymore. Luckily for him David Pingree passed away. Otherwise today he would have had to commit suicide by seeing all his non-sense exposed. Now have the boldness to agree to the fact that the Rashi mantra is there in Y-VJ and you have no proof against the genuineness of the Mantra 2) You also said /// as everybody knows by now, prior to the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the melchha, there were no Mesha etc. rashis in India, much less in the VJ! /// The ball is in your court now to prove the date of Mayasura. You are caught now, Mr. Krishen. Everybody also knows that the Rashis are there in the Puranas. Don't forget that. Everybody also knows that the Rashis are there in the Puranas. Don't forget that.When you say " prior to the Suryasiddhanta " you have to give the date of Suryasiddhanta. So you have to agree to what everybody knows that Mayasura learnt astrology from Vivaswat in the Trteta yuga. One can allow you leeway only to the extent that you can tell us whether you choose the Vivaswat rishi, who was the father of Manu or the second Vivaswat, who was descendent of Manu. Please do not try your usual tricks of diverting or drowning the issue by writing a lot of irrelevant matter. You have to reply to the above in short. Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 11/1/09, Krishen <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> wrote: Krishen <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> Fwd: Re: FW: Pingree -- yavanajataka etc. Sunday, November 1, 2009, 4:45 AM Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " Krishen " <jyotirved@. ..> wrote: Dear Astroveda, Jai Shri Ram! It appears you are either not reading my posts fully or are just ignoring the relevant points deliberately! You have said, " Kaulji,article which u passed says VJ was written in 5th cent BCE, and nks came fm mesopotamia. SS came india in 1st cent BCE means after 400 yrs after VJ than why we shud listen u,even we didnt find clepsydera in indus,IF THERE IS ANYTHING OFF TRACK LET ME KNOW " Why have you overlooked my following point in the post " Re: Vedic Origins of Zodiac by Dr. David Frawley " and I quote " Regarding the date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, it was certainly a work of at least around 1400 BCE, whatever authors like David Pingree may say. This I am going to prove scientifically in a separate post. The Vedanga Jyotisha gives the duration of a solar year as 366! " I had made it clear in my PS to David Pingree link that it did not mean that I disagreed with him totally, nor did it mean that I agreed with him totally! If someone has said/written something, whether it is David Pingree or David Frawley, we must evaluate those statements and then only we can say as to whether we agree with them or not. I have pondered on the the Vedanga Jyotisha a great deal and taken into account all the points raised by David Pingree and others. Only after being convinced myself first that the VJ is not of 5th century BCE but much older than that---at least 14th century BCE---I had said categorically " Regarding the date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, it was certainly a work of around 14th century BCE ....... " as quoted above. Now that you have touched the topic of the date of VJ, I do not have any doubt that astronomically it is at least of 14th century BCE. This I have checked through Vasishtha.exe program in Hinducalendar forum, which gives the position of Junction stars from 10000 BC to 12030 AD in a jiffy. But it is some of our " friendly Vedic astrologers " who are claiming that there is a mantra of " mina rashi... " --fifth mantra in the Yajur Jyotisham--- trying to prove thereby that even the Vedanga Jyotisha talked about Mina etc. Rashis! They are doing so under the impression that by trying to prove that Rashis have been mentioned in the VJ, they will be able to estblish the antiquity of Rashichakra in the Indian ethos, including the VJ, but actually they are doing the maximum damage to that very VJ that way---i.e. they are making their own indigenous Vedanga Jyotisha of 14th century BCE a work of post introduction of Rashi-chakra in India---which means they are making it a work of not even fifth centry BCE, but maybe even first century BCE/AD, since, as everybody knows by now, prior to the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the melchha, there were no Mesha etc. rashis in India, much less in the VJ! So here also the ball is not in the court of David Pingree or your or my court! It is again in the court of " Vedic astrologers " . Jai Shri Ram A K Kaul Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " Astro " astro.vedas@ wrote: > > > Why we shud follow ur calendar which is nothing bt influenced by mesopotamians, why we shud listen to vedas instead of ss if both r of foreign origin,this i learnt fm ur passed article,tx to ur dirty abusive tactics > > > > Kaulji,article which u passed says VJ was written in 5th cent BCE, and nks came fm mesopotamia. SS came india in 1st cent BCE > > means after 400 yrs after VJ than why we shud listen u,even we didnt find clepsydera in indus,IF THERE IS ANYTHING OFF TRACK LET ME KNOW > > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " Krishen " <jyotirved@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Astroveda, > > > > > > Jai Shri Ram! > > > > > > <Kaulji if i can stand with you than tell me can i lie ??> > > > > > > Who told you that you were lying? At least not me! > > > > > > If you see my PS to the post suggesting the Pingree link, I have made it > > > clear that it is being sent just for information so that everybody can > > > form his/her opinion, and it does not mean that either I agree or > > > diasgree with what Pingree has said! > > > > > > There are certain points in Pingree's article with which one has to > > > agree and there are quite a few points in the same article with which I > > > can never agree. My main search right now is for the origin of Mesha, > > > Vrisha etc. rashis---wherefrom did they originate and how were they > > > transposed to other countries and when. > > > > > > I have a request, however. When you say somthing like " The Vedas say so > > > ... " , pl. do give the exact references so that I do not have to look for > > > a needle in a haystack. Pl. donot be like the gentleman keeps on > > > repeating that the Manu has asked the kings to appoint astrologers, but > > > whenever he is asked to quote the exact shloka from the Manusmriti, he > > > says that I must go through that shastra to find it out for myself! > > > Which means as if I have not gone through it already but found that the > > > Manu has actually castigagted " nakshatra-soochis " insead of advising a > > > king to employ them. I even quoted all those references in several > > > posts, but still that gentleman goes on harping on the same tune " the > > > Manu has advised a king to appoint astrologer " . Perhaps he is confusing > > > Varahamihira with the Manu! > > > > > > Then again he goes on repeating that Shani and Mangal are in the Vedas > > > but when asked to quote the exact referencesl, instead of quoting the > > > references he goes on repeating that very statement on the shoulders of > > > his " parokshya knowledge " . But when it comes to calculating horoscopes, > > > he has to take recourse to NASA data instead of his > > > " parokshya-knolwege " ! > > > > > > Let us take the case of Metonic cycle. about which you have said, " Do > > > you want the proof that Metonic cycle doesnt predate to Alexandrain > > > invasion?? Sun and Moon cycle was stolen from ancient Indo- Hitties(This > > > is also mentioned in VEDAS read it) " but you have not given any > > > references as to which Veda has talked about it. > > > Metonic cycle is a 19 year cycle afer which the new moon occurs on the > > > same day of the year as at the beginning of the cycle. Meton was an > > > Athenian astronomer of fifth cetury BC. He is supposed to have > > > " discovered " it. Athens is a city of Greece. It is possible that he > > > " pilfered " that theory from some other country, including India, but at > > > least it goes to prove that there was some sort of astronomy in Greece > > > in fifth century BCE, which predates Alexander's invasion in about 330 > > > BC. And if Meton used it for calculating lunar New Moons/Full Moons > > > more accurately, I have no complaints about him. But what I have > > > complaint against is that if it had originated in India, why did our > > > acharyas like Maya the " great " and Aryabhata and Brahmagupta and even > > > Bhaskara-II not discuss it in their treatises? > > > > > > There is also a Saros cycle for eclipses. It is an astronomical cycle > > > of about 6585 days and 8 hours. It is actually supposed to have been > > > confused with the Babylonian cycle of 3600 years----of which it is a > > > misnomer. There is every possibility that that cycle was known in India > > > either to start with or even simultaneously with other countries. But > > > why don't we find any references to the same at least in the later > > > sidhantas if not in the Vedanga Jyotisha? > > > > > > Who is responsible for that? At least not Meton or even Greece or > > > Babylonia for that matter! You are saying Metonic cycle is in the > > > Vedas! It may be, but why don't you give the exact reference where you > > > find it. > > > > > > You havesaid, " there is loop hole inMax Muller, Romila, Pingree and > > > Witzel's theory " . > > > > > > Regarding Max Muller, Romilla Thapar and even Pingree etc., we must not > > > forget that the are all " videshis " or semi-videshis! They do not have > > > any cultural attachmentaffinity to the Vedic culture which you and I > > > have. Some > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Mr. Krishen,1)You said as follows:But it is some of our "friendly Vedic astrologers" who are claiming that there is a mantra of "mina rashi..."--fifth mantra in the Yajur Jyotisham--- trying to prove thereby that even the Vedanga Jyotisha talked about Mina etc. Rashis! They are doing so under the impression that by trying to prove that Rashis have been mentioned in the VJ, they will be able to estblish the antiquity of Rashichakra in the Indian ethos, including the VJ,Whoever believes that the fifth mantra in the Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha (Y-VJ) believes in truths and facts and come what may the consequences. The opinion of the people, who believed in AIT chronology, does not remain valid anymore. Luckily for him David Pingree passed away. Otherwise today he would have had to commit suicide by seeing all his non-sense exposed. Now have the boldness to agree to the fact that the Rashi mantra is there in Y-VJ and you have no proof against the genuineness of the Mantra 2)You also saidas everybody knows by now, prior to the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the melchha, there were no Mesha etc. rashis in India, much less in the VJ!The ball is in your court now to prove the date of Mayasura. You are caught now, Mr. Krishen. Everybody also knows that the Rashis are there in the Puranas. Don't forget that. Everybody also knows that the Rashis are there in the Puranas. Don't forget that.When you say "prior to the Suryasiddhanta" you have to give the date of Suryasiddhanta. So you have to agree to what everybody knows that Mayasura learnt astrology from Vivaswat in the Trteta yuga. One can allow you leeway only to the extent that you can tell us whether you choose the Vivaswat rishi, who was the father of Manu or the second Vivaswat, who was descendent of Manu.Please do not try your usual tricks of diverting or drowning the issue by writing a lot of irrelevant matter. You have to reply to the above in short.Sincerely,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 11/1/09, Krishen <jyotirved wrote:Krishen <jyotirved Fwd: Re: FW: Pingree -- yavanajataka etc. Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 4:45 AM Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "Krishen" <jyotirved@. ..> wrote: Dear Astroveda, Jai Shri Ram! It appears you are either not reading my posts fully or are just ignoring the relevant points deliberately! You have said, "Kaulji,article which u passed says VJ was written in 5th cent BCE, and nks came fm mesopotamia. SS came india in 1st cent BCE means after 400 yrs after VJ than why we shud listen u,even we didnt find clepsydera in indus,IF THERE IS ANYTHING OFF TRACK LET ME KNOW" Why have you overlooked my following point in the post "Re: Vedic Origins of Zodiac by Dr. David Frawley" and I quote "Regarding the date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, it was certainly a work of at least around 1400 BCE, whatever authors like David Pingree may say. This I am going to prove scientifically in a separate post. The Vedanga Jyotisha gives the duration of a solar year as 366!" I had made it clear in my PS to David Pingree link that it did not mean that I disagreed with him totally, nor did it mean that I agreed with him totally! If someone has said/written something, whether it is David Pingree or David Frawley, we must evaluate those statements and then only we can say as to whether we agree with them or not. I have pondered on the the Vedanga Jyotisha a great deal and taken into account all the points raised by David Pingree and others. Only after being convinced myself first that the VJ is not of 5th century BCE but much older than that---at least 14th century BCE---I had said categorically "Regarding the date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, it was certainly a work of around 14th century BCE ......." as quoted above. Now that you have touched the topic of the date of VJ, I do not have any doubt that astronomically it is at least of 14th century BCE. This I have checked through Vasishtha.exe program in Hinducalendar forum, which gives the position of Junction stars from 10000 BC to 12030 AD in a jiffy. But it is some of our "friendly Vedic astrologers" who are claiming that there is a mantra of "mina rashi..."--fifth mantra in the Yajur Jyotisham--- trying to prove thereby that even the Vedanga Jyotisha talked about Mina etc. Rashis! They are doing so under the impression that by trying to prove that Rashis have been mentioned in the VJ, they will be able to estblish the antiquity of Rashichakra in the Indian ethos, including the VJ, but actually they are doing the maximum damage to that very VJ that way---i.e. they are making their own indigenous Vedanga Jyotisha of 14th century BCE a work of post introduction of Rashi-chakra in India---which means they are making it a work of not even fifth centry BCE, but maybe even first century BCE/AD, since, as everybody knows by now, prior to the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the melchha, there were no Mesha etc. rashis in India, much less in the VJ! So here also the ball is not in the court of David Pingree or your or my court! It is again in the court of "Vedic astrologers" . Jai Shri Ram A K Kaul Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "Astro" astro.vedas@ wrote: > > > Why we shud follow ur calendar which is nothing bt influenced by mesopotamians, why we shud listen to vedas instead of ss if both r of foreign origin,this i learnt fm ur passed article,tx to ur dirty abusive tactics > > > > Kaulji,article which u passed says VJ was written in 5th cent BCE, and nks came fm mesopotamia. SS came india in 1st cent BCE > > means after 400 yrs after VJ than why we shud listen u,even we didnt find clepsydera in indus,IF THERE IS ANYTHING OFF TRACK LET ME KNOW > > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "Krishen" <jyotirved@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Astroveda, > > > > > > Jai Shri Ram! > > > > > > <Kaulji if i can stand with you than tell me can i lie ??> > > > > > > Who told you that you were lying? At least not me! > > > > > > If you see my PS to the post suggesting the Pingree link, I have made it > > > clear that it is being sent just for information so that everybody can > > > form his/her opinion, and it does not mean that either I agree or > > > diasgree with what Pingree has said! > > > > > > There are certain points in Pingree's article with which one has to > > > agree and there are quite a few points in the same article with which I > > > can never agree. My main search right now is for the origin of Mesha, > > > Vrisha etc. rashis---wherefrom did they originate and how were they > > > transposed to other countries and when. > > > > > > I have a request, however. When you say somthing like "The Vedas say so > > > ...", pl. do give the exact references so that I do not have to look for > > > a needle in a haystack. Pl. donot be like the gentleman keeps on > > > repeating that the Manu has asked the kings to appoint astrologers, but > > > whenever he is asked to quote the exact shloka from the Manusmriti, he > > > says that I must go through that shastra to find it out for myself! > > > Which means as if I have not gone through it already but found that the > > > Manu has actually castigagted "nakshatra-soochis" insead of advising a > > > king to employ them. I even quoted all those references in several > > > posts, but still that gentleman goes on harping on the same tune "the > > > Manu has advised a king to appoint astrologer". Perhaps he is confusing > > > Varahamihira with the Manu! > > > > > > Then again he goes on repeating that Shani and Mangal are in the Vedas > > > but when asked to quote the exact referencesl, instead of quoting the > > > references he goes on repeating that very statement on the shoulders of > > > his "parokshya knowledge". But when it comes to calculating horoscopes, > > > he has to take recourse to NASA data instead of his > > > "parokshya-knolwege "! > > > > > > Let us take the case of Metonic cycle. about which you have said, "Do > > > you want the proof that Metonic cycle doesnt predate to Alexandrain > > > invasion?? Sun and Moon cycle was stolen from ancient Indo- Hitties(This > > > is also mentioned in VEDAS read it)" but you have not given any > > > references as to which Veda has talked about it. > > > Metonic cycle is a 19 year cycle afer which the new moon occurs on the > > > same day of the year as at the beginning of the cycle. Meton was an > > > Athenian astronomer of fifth cetury BC. He is supposed to have > > > "discovered" it. Athens is a city of Greece. It is possible that he > > > "pilfered" that theory from some other country, including India, but at > > > least it goes to prove that there was some sort of astronomy in Greece > > > in fifth century BCE, which predates Alexander's invasion in about 330 > > > BC. And if Meton used it for calculating lunar New Moons/Full Moons > > > more accurately, I have no complaints about him. But what I have > > > complaint against is that if it had originated in India, why did our > > > acharyas like Maya the "great" and Aryabhata and Brahmagupta and even > > > Bhaskara-II not discuss it in their treatises? > > > > > > There is also a Saros cycle for eclipses. It is an astronomical cycle > > > of about 6585 days and 8 hours. It is actually supposed to have been > > > confused with the Babylonian cycle of 3600 years----of which it is a > > > misnomer. There is every possibility that that cycle was known in India > > > either to start with or even simultaneously with other countries. But > > > why don't we find any references to the same at least in the later > > > sidhantas if not in the Vedanga Jyotisha? > > > > > > Who is responsible for that? At least not Meton or even Greece or > > > Babylonia for that matter! You are saying Metonic cycle is in the > > > Vedas! It may be, but why don't you give the exact reference where you > > > find it. > > > > > > You havesaid, " there is loop hole inMax Muller, Romila, Pingree and > > > Witzel's theory". > > > > > > Regarding Max Muller, Romilla Thapar and even Pingree etc., we must not > > > forget that the are all "videshis" or semi-videshis! They do not have > > > any cultural attachmentaffinity to the Vedic culture which you and I > > > have. Some > --- End forwarded message --- 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.