Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 This is same old wine in new bottle which u always says i am waiting anything new u can giv to establish it ?astrolologicaly ? waiting for ur comments . also Revelations frm exalted scientific soul of this grp too regrds prashanth nair if u all dont know bow out and clear off ,same arguemnts i find 1000 times ur intentions are doubtful ( some one frm hindu grps shown u all proof that yavanas not greeks and u agreed too ,then u asking same question 10000 times to all new ppl what is ur stupid intention ,make all new comer to type everything for new matter for ur books ?? i realy doubts ur intentions Mr Kaul ji also u dont answer me till my question on messge 870 ( because u r afraid ) Dont u ppl dont know astrology is not only seasons ?? U simply dont even knows sanskrit and just reading some europeans and asking all this questions ,u dont know how even vedic ppl used diffrnt calenders than ask all new comer to confuse them . U ppl cant demonstrte it how greek or baby Lonian used it for astro purpose ,u dont Know even history of india .Now u ppl r just abusing and mocking because we giv this knowledge to others , "jyotirved" <jyotirved wrote:>> The zodiac and the signs: > > Links between the names of constellations and astrological signs:> > Here also an interesting question arises as to why did astrologers "bestow"> such names of equal divisions to unequal constellations! > > In this regard we quote the actual words verbatim from pages> 192-194 of the Report of the Calendar Reform Committee, under the heading> The zodiac and the signs> > "The early astronomers must have found that the sun's path in the heavens> was almost fixed, while that of the moon, and of the planets, which acquired> for astrological reasons great importance from about 1200 BC, strayed some> degrees to the north and south of the ecliptic.> > `In case of the moon the deviation from the ecliptic was found to> be not much greater than 5 degrees, but some of the planets strayed much> more; in the case of Venus, her perpendicular distance from the ecliptic> rises as high as 8 degrees. So a belt was imagined straying about 9° north> and 9° south of the ecliptic, in which the planets would always remain in> course of their movement. This belt came to be known as the `Zodiac'.> > `The complete cycle of this belt was divided into 12 equal sectors> each of 30° and each sector called a `Sign'. The signs started with one of> the points of intersection of the ecliptic and the equator, and the first> sign was called `Aries' after the constellation of stars within it. The> names of the succeeding signs are given in Table No.8 on the next page, in> which:> > The first column gives the beginning and ending of the signs, the vernal> equinoctial point being taken as the origin.> > The second column gives the international names which are in Latin> with the symbols used to denote the signs.> > The third column gives their English equivalents.> > The fourth column gives the Greek names. They are synonymous with> the international names.> > The fifth column gives a set of alternative names for the signs> given by Varahamihira.> > The sixth column gives the Indian names.> > The seventh column gives the Babylonian names.> > Table 8 --- Zodiacal> Signs> > > Different names of zodiacal signs> > > 1> > 2> > 3> > 4> > 5> > 6> > 7> > > Signs from to> > Latin name> > English equival.> > Greek name> > Varaha-Mihira> > Indian name> > Babylonian names & meaning> > > 0 - 30> > Aries> > Ram> > Krios> > Kriya> > Mesha> > Ku / Iku (Ram)> > > 30 - 60> > Taurus> > Bull> > Tauros> > Taburi> > Vrishabha> > Te-te (Bull)> > > 60 - 90> > Gemini> > Twins> > Didumoi> > Jituma> > Mithuna> > Masmasu(Twins)> > > 90 -120> > Cancer> > Crab> > Karsinos> > Kulira> > Karkata> > Nangaru (Crab)> > > 120-150> > Leo> > Lion> > Leon> > Leya > > Simha> > Aru (Lion)> > > 150-180> > Virgo> > Virgin> > Parthenos> > Pathona> > Kanya> > Ki (Virgin)> > > 180-210> > Libra> > Balance> > Zugos> > Juka> > Tula> > Nuru (Scales)> > > 210-240> > Scorpio> > Scorpion> > Scorpios> > Karupa> > Vrischika> > Akrabu(Scorpion> > > 240-270> > Sagittarius> > Archer> > Tozeutes> > Tauksika> > Dhanuh> > Pa (Archer)> > > 270-300> > Capricorn> > Goat> > Ligoxeros> > Akokara> > Makara> > Sahu (Goat)> > > 300-330> > Aquarius> > Water Bearer> > Gdroxoos> > Hrdroga> > Kumbha> > Gu (Water carrier)> > > 330-360> > Pisces> > Fish> > Ichthues> > Antyabhya> > Mina> > Zib (Fish)> > It can be easily inferred from the (above) Table that the names> are of Babylonian origin, but their exact significance is not always known.> ….> > It is seen that Varahamihira's alternative names given in column> (5) are simply the Greek names corrupted in course of transmission and as> adopted for Sanskrit; with the exception of the name for Scorpion, which is> given as `Kaurpa'. This has phonetic analogy with the corresponding> Babylonian sign names Akrabu for Scorpion. The purely Sanskrit names given> in column (6) are all translations of Greek names with the exceptions of:> > (3) Twin which become Mithuna or `Amorous Couple'.> > (9) the Archer, which becomes the `Bow',> > (10) the Goat, which becomes the `Crocodile'> > (11) Water bearer, which becomes the `Waterpot'.> > Some of them appear to have been translations of Babylonian names.> > The Babylonian names, as interpreted by F. K. Ginzel (in his book—published> in 1906--Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen Chronologie, Bd. I.> Leipzig) are given in the seventh column, with their meanings.> > It is thus seen that the names of the zodiacal signs are originally of> Babylonian origin. They were taken over almost without change by the> Greeks, and subsequently by the Romans, and the Hindus, from Graeco-Chaldean> astrology…..> > "These signs were taken up by almost all nations in the centuries before the> Christian era on account of the significance attached to them by> astrologers. In Greece, they were first supposed to have been introduced by> the early Greek astronomer Cleostratos, an astronomer who observed about 532> BC in the island of Tenedos off the Hellespont who introduced the> designation `Zodiac' to describe the belt of stars about the ecliptic. The> twelve `Zodiacal Signs' are not known in older ritualistic Indian literature> like the Brahmanas. They appear to have come to India in the wake of the> Macedonian Greeks or of nations like the Sakas who were intermediaries for> transmission of Greek culture to India…..> > "The hesitation of medieval astronomers in accepting precession can be> easily understood. Most of them earned their livelihood by practising the> `Astrological Cult' which was reared on the basis that the signs of the> zodiac are fixed, and coincident with certain star-groups; but this> assumption crumbles to the ground if precession is accepted. But as> historical records now show, though astronomers had clearly recognised that> the initial point should be the point of intersection of the equator and the> ecliptic, there was no unanimity even amongst ancient astronomers of> different ages regarding the locationof this point in the heavens because it> was not occupied by any prominent star at any epoch and the ancients were> unaware of the importance of its motion" > > > > Rashichakra was imported into India from Babylon via the Greeks:> > We have seen that the so called Mesha etc. Rashichakra cannot be linked to> any so called sidereal i.e. constellational zodiac. So the only alternative> left for the Vedic Rishis was to have "invented" or discovered" a> Rashichakra linked to the seasonal months! Let us try to understand as to> how sheepish our Vedic Rishis would have looked today if they had really> done so! We know that the first month of the Vasanta Season is known as> Madhu and the month of Vernal Equinox as Madhav as per the Vedas. Let us> suppose that these months were also named Mina and Mesha by our Vedic> Rishis! But then Mina means a "Fish" and Mesha a "Ram" in Sanskrit and the> question arises as to why they would have named the months like that? Even> our "extraordinarily intelligent Vedic astronomers" cannot discern any> resemblance between the Spring season and "Fishes" or "Rams"!! Similarly,> according to our "Vedic astronomers" like Subhas Kak they had named Shukra> as Vrisha (a Bull!) and Shuchi as Mithuna i.e. "an amorous couple"! We> know that these two months are of "Grishma" i.e Summer --- hardly having> any resemblance to either a "Bull" or "an amorous couple". By the same logic> why should they have named Summer Solstice --- Nabhah -- as Karkata since> it does not at all look like a "Crab" nor does the month of Nabhasya (rains)> resemble at all a Simha - a "Lion!". Simlarly, the month of Isha of Sharad> Ritu has no resemblance to a Kanya – " a Virgin". The second month of Sharad> Ritu viz. Urja---the Autumn Equinox--- is the only month – rather the only> day when it can be said to resemble a Tula -"Scales" since the day and> night are equal then throughout the globe! The month of Sahas of Hemant> Ritu has nothing to do with "Vrishchika" – "A Scorpion" unless it is to get> a sting in our hands by trying to erect a Rashichakra! The month of Sahasya> is supposed to have been named Dhanu – a bow or an Archer! The most ironic> part of it is that the months of Tapa and Tapasya – the latter also being> the Winter Solstice – are supposed to resemble "Makar" and Kumbhaa> goat"– when actually Makar means a Crocodile and Kumbha a Pitcher!> Unfortunately for these "Vedic astronomers" our Vedic Rishis did not invent> any such Racshichakra with such fantastic names, and that is what is> bothering them and that is why they are hell-bent to "prove" that they did> do so -- which actually proves the ignorance of these "Vedic astronomers"> and of course, Kaliyugi Jyotishis" who call themselves Vedic Jyotishis.> > We have thus proved conclusively that the Vedic Rishis did not> either "invent" or "discover" a Rashichakra named Mesha etc. Rashis because> they were not that "illiterate" to have done so and make a fool of> themselves. It is only our "modern Vedic astronomers" besides "Vedic> astrologers" who are ascribing a Rashichakra to our Vedic Rishis! It> eludes one's imagination as to why they are hell-bent to make a laughing> stock of our "Vedic Rishis" by way of ascribing to the Rishis an invention"> which they never did just to belittle the claim that the Rashichakra with> the nomenclature of Mesha (Ram) etc. rashis was invented by Babylonians! If> we are the real followers of our Vedic Rishis, even if they had "invented"> such a Rashichakra, we should have tried to undermine that "invention" since> it brings hardly any credit to anyone to ascribe a discovery to our exalted> Rishis which would have made a mess of everything!> > > > "Vedic astrologers/astronomers" in a Catch-22 situation: The real tragedy> with "Kaliyugi Jyotishis" is that they were already making a fool of the> general public by making "correct predictions" in the name of "Hindu> astrology". However, "under the guidance of" some avaricious "overseas> Vamadevas" out of sheer greed to mint more and more money they tried to> ride the tiger of "Vedic astrology" with the pious hope that they would be> able to somehow befool the common man. They succeeded to a great extent but> unfortunately for them, they have been caught on the wrong foot ultimately.> Out of sheer frustration they are now trying to rope in some real scholars> also to "prove" that not only the so called nirayna Rashichakra (that is the> actual meaning of sidereal zodiac according to these Kaliyugi Jyotishis) but> even predictive astrology and even the Chaldean names of Mesha, Vrishabha> etc. did exist in the Vedas! Fie on such "Vamadevas", "Parasharas" and> "Varahamihiras" who are a slur on the name of all those whose namesakes they> are trying to be. Also fie on those "scholars" who, Just out of fear of> losing their crumbs which these "Vamadevas" throw on them, try to wag their> tails like street-dogs by changing their stances just at the drop of hat!> > > > "Vedic astrology" --- the greatest hoax being played on an unsuspecting> gullible Hindu majority: We have seen that there are not --- in fact there> cannot be --- any Rashis – astrological signs --- in the Vedas. There are> no planets like Mercury, Mars and Saturn – much less Uranus, Neptune and> Pluto in the Vedas. Obviously, predictive astrology, whether "Vedic" or> "anti-Vedic" -- is based on these very "cornerstones" viz. rashis and> planets! And both are absent in the Vedas! So long live "Vedic astrology"> sans the Rashis and planets!> > > > "Vedic astrology" has no legs to stand upon:> > Now that we have seen that there are no "Rashis" – not even> Sayana, not to speak of so called Nirayana --- in the Vedas, obviously> "Vedic Astrology" has no legs to stand upon as no "Vedic Astrologer" has as> yet claimed to be able to make successful predictions without resorting to> the Rashis in the birth chart or any other chart for that matter!> Therefore, if any "Vedic scholar" prophesises the existence of not only> Rashis and that also "Nirayana" besides "Astrology (Jyotish)" in the Vedas,> he is either not a Vedic scholar at all or he is just kowtowing the line of> swarming "Vedic Astrologers" out of ulterior motives. Fie on such scholars> and their scholarship!> > > > Rashis have to be Sayana: If at all we have to live with Mesha, Vrishabha> etc. Rashis, we must choose the lesser of two evils, viz. a Sayana> Rashi-chakra and de-link it completely from the constellational belt as is> done by "Western astrologers". It is better to admit that it is a Chaldean> "discovery/invention" and we are using it only because everybody else is> using it, instead of ascribing it to our Vedic Rishis. If at all we have to> link the so called nakshatra division of 27 nakshatras, it is better to link> it to these very seasonal rashis as was done in the time of Alberuni (Please> see page 99 of my Shri Krishen Universal Ephemeris for 2001). For that> matter, even Vishnudharmotara has done the same thing, i.e. linked the> nakshatras to Sayana Rashis which have been made inseparable from Ayanas and> Vishuvas etc. Acharya Abhinavgupta has linked the Rashis to seasons and> cardinal points and his commentator Jayaratha has explicitly explained the> same thing vide his commentary on Tantraloka --> > > > Om Tat Sat Brahmarpanam Astu> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Shri Prashanth Nairji, Namaskar! <This is same old wine in new bottle which u always says> What is the " new wine " according to you? <( some one frm hindu grps shown u all proof that yavanas not greeks and u agreed too ,then u asking same question 10000 times to all new ppl what is ur stupid intention ,make> I wish you had read the Surya Sidhanta yourself, before advocating indigenous status to Maya the mlechha of that work! Once you understand as to how absurd and monstrous the fundamental arguments in that wrok are, for which Maya has claimed direct " revelation " from Surya Bhagwan, you would have felt ashamed of anyone who pleaded that Maya be awarded " NRI " status! Garga, who is supposed to have said " mlechha hi yavnas... " is not the same Garga Rishi who is supposed to have " prepared " the horoscope of Bhagwan Krishna---which also appears to have vanished into thin ai! It is a Garga Rishi of around second century BCE, who has been quoted by Varahamihira in his Brihat Samhita, which you have not read yourself, in any case, but for which you are pleading for the status of " Divine work " . Dhanyavad. AKK , " prashanthnair999 " <prashanthnair999 wrote: > > > > > This is same old wine in new bottle which u always says > > i am waiting anything new u can giv to establish it ? astrolologicaly ? > > waiting for ur comments . > > also Revelations frm exalted scientific soul of this grp too > > > > regrds prashanth nair > > > > if u all dont know bow out and clear off ,same arguemnts i find 1000 > times ur intentions are doubtful ( some one frm hindu grps shown u all > proof that yavanas not greeks and u agreed too ,then u asking same > question 10000 times to all new ppl what is ur stupid intention ,make > all new comer to type everything for new matter for ur books ?? > > i realy doubts ur intentions Mr Kaul ji > > also u dont answer me till my question on messge 870 ( because u r > afraid ) > > Dont u ppl dont know astrology is not only seasons ?? U simply dont even > knows sanskrit and just reading some europeans and asking all this > questions ,u dont know how even vedic ppl used diffrnt calenders than > ask all new comer to confuse them . > > U ppl cant demonstrte it how greek or baby Lonian used it for astro > purpose ,u dont Know even history of india .Now u ppl r just abusing and > mocking because we giv this knowledge to others > > > , " jyotirved " <jyotirved@> > wrote: > > > > The zodiac and the signs: > > > > Links between the names of constellations and astrological signs: > > > > Here also an interesting question arises as to why did astrologers > " bestow " > > such names of equal divisions to unequal constellations! > > > 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.