Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Shri Avtar Krishenji, Namaskar, You have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in the Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order to prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. 1) I have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the puranas including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest of the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the date of the start of the Kaliyuga. 2) I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. 3) You very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence of Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows that Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. My earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and Astrology Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from the vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. Dhanyavad SunilK. Bhattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This is the very meaning of Raashi. -VJ ================ ================ , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > Namaskar, > > You > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in the > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order to > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > 1) > I > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the puranas > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest of > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the date > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > 2) > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > 3) > You > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence of > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows that > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > My > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > Astrology > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from the > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > Dhanyavad > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no response came from them, for obvious reasons. Bhaskar. , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This is the very meaning of Raashi. > -VJ > ================ ================ > , Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote: > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > Namaskar, > > > > You > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in the > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order to > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > 1) > > I > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the puranas > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest of > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the date > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > 2) > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > 3) > > You > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence of > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows that > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > My > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > Astrology > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from the > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no response came from them, for obvious reasons. Bhaskar. , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This is the very meaning of Raashi. > -VJ > ============ ==== ============ ==== > , Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > Namaskar, > > > > You > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in the > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order to > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > 1) > > I > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the puranas > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest of > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the date > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > 2) > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > 3) > > You > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence of > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows that > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > My > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > Astrology > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from the > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray......... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate,). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ________________________________ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Thanks. This is informative though my area of interest lies in other areas, but none the less, this is some information. Though I may not agree to all of the same, due to either personal view points in some points raised, or else due to not having knowledge or understanding of some parts of your mail. Bhaskar. , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same > spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. > > Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate,). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . > > According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. > > Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? > > That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. > > These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. > > > -VJ > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > > Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > > > Dear Sunilji, > > Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not > Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. > " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " > > regards/Bhaskar. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the > divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at > that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of > Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the > meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma > rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then > Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit > Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat > purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an > allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of > Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from > which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha > rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the > beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of > these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha > or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve > divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups > of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true > meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to > those > > > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. > I > > > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ > ...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. > These > > > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is > also > > > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > > > > > You > > > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > > > the > > > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in > order > > > > to > > > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > I > > > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > > > puranas > > > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the > highest > > > > of > > > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was > the > > > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > > > date > > > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the > Veda. > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > You > > > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > > > of > > > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > > > that > > > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > > > > > My > > > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers > from > > > > the > > > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for > all > > > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Dear Vinayji, You said Quote Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. Unquote Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. Specifically, do you consider, for example, the counting of 4 quarters each of Ashwini and Bharani and the first quarter of Krittika in the Mesha rashi to be wrong. Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:48 AM Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate, ). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Sunilji, You question is clearly a sign of your displeasure. Otherwise you would not have asked : " Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. " If you think I do not know these fundamentals, it is useless to talk anything. Please do not take my statement as an attack upon you. I have a habit from early boyhood to define terms strictly. Since Raashi is not composed of integral number of Nakshatras, it is unscientific to define Raashi as a collection of Nakshatras. Moreover, Raashi defined as a collection of Nakshatras is your personal opinion, having no basis in ancient literature. Nakshatras are related to Moon and are translated rightly as lunar asterisms. Raashi, on the other hand, was derived from 12th division of heavenly orbit having 360 spokes (degrees or solar days). Raashi in its origin, therefore, was related to the Sun ather than to the Moon. Etymologically, Raashi is deduced from Raa + ash which can be explained only as I have done. Vedic terms are to be derived on the basis of rules of Vedic grammar and not on the basis of modern non-Vedic sensibility. Raatri is also derived from raa, which means to donate. What is donated at night ? out of 360 kshanas in 24 hours, one ought to sleep for 108 kshanas, going to bed 54 kshanas before midnight . Why ? Read the scriptures and try to find out what a yogi gets during yoga-nidra. unconscious persons " look down " (ni + dr) and do not get the gift which yogis receive at night. Your second question is : " Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? " It was elaborated in detail in my speech at Kalidasa Academy on 13 Apr 2008. It is about to be published. The theme was origin of the concept of Dvaadasha-bhaava. -VJ ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:55:27 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Vinayji, You said Quote Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. Unquote Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. Specifically, do you consider, for example, the counting of 4 quarters each of Ashwini and Bharani and the first quarter of Krittika in the Mesha rashi to be wrong. Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:48 AM Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate, ). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ .....> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Every term must be defined with the precision of mathematics, along the rules of etymology. Consciousness is sharpened by this practice. Definition of " definition " : Definition is the precise statement of essential features which are crucial for the term and at the same time distinguish it from morphologically or semantically similar terms. Every definition must have two limits( de-finis), transcending which on one side the term may be confused with other terms even if the characteristics stated are correct, and transcending which on other side the term ceases to be itself. -VJ ________________________________ Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:14:22 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Sunilji, You question is clearly a sign of your displeasure. Otherwise you would not have asked : " Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. " If you think I do not know these fundamentals, it is useless to talk anything. Please do not take my statement as an attack upon you. I have a habit from early boyhood to define terms strictly. Since Raashi is not composed of integral number of Nakshatras, it is unscientific to define Raashi as a collection of Nakshatras. Moreover, Raashi defined as a collection of Nakshatras is your personal opinion, having no basis in ancient literature. Nakshatras are related to Moon and are translated rightly as lunar asterisms. Raashi, on the other hand, was derived from 12th division of heavenly orbit having 360 spokes (degrees or solar days). Raashi in its origin, therefore, was related to the Sun ather than to the Moon. Etymologically, Raashi is deduced from Raa + ash which can be explained only as I have done. Vedic terms are to be derived on the basis of rules of Vedic grammar and not on the basis of modern non-Vedic sensibility. Raatri is also derived from raa, which means to donate. What is donated at night ? out of 360 kshanas in 24 hours, one ought to sleep for 108 kshanas, going to bed 54 kshanas before midnight . Why ? Read the scriptures and try to find out what a yogi gets during yoga-nidra. unconscious persons " look down " (ni + dr) and do not get the gift which yogis receive at night. Your second question is : " Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? " It was elaborated in detail in my speech at Kalidasa Academy on 13 Apr 2008. It is about to be published. The theme was origin of the concept of Dvaadasha-bhaava. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:55:27 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Vinayji, You said Quote Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. Unquote Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. Specifically, do you consider, for example, the counting of 4 quarters each of Ashwini and Bharani and the first quarter of Krittika in the Mesha rashi to be wrong. Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:48 AM Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate, ). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ......> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Every term must be defined with the precision of mathematics, along the rules of etymology. Consciousness is sharpened by this practice. Definition of " definition " : Definition is the precise statement of essential features which are crucial for the term and at the same time distinguish it from morphologically or semantically similar terms. Every definition must have two limits( de-finis), transcending which on one side the term may be confused with other terms even if the characteristics stated are correct, and transcending which on other side the term ceases to be itself. -VJ ________________________________ Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:14:22 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Sunilji, You question is clearly a sign of your displeasure. Otherwise you would not have asked : " Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. " If you think I do not know these fundamentals, it is useless to talk anything. Please do not take my statement as an attack upon you. I have a habit from early boyhood to define terms strictly. Since Raashi is not composed of integral number of Nakshatras, it is unscientific to define Raashi as a collection of Nakshatras. Moreover, Raashi defined as a collection of Nakshatras is your personal opinion, having no basis in ancient literature. Nakshatras are related to Moon and are translated rightly as lunar asterisms. Raashi, on the other hand, was derived from 12th division of heavenly orbit having 360 spokes (degrees or solar days). Raashi in its origin, therefore, was related to the Sun ather than to the Moon. Etymologically, Raashi is deduced from Raa + ash which can be explained only as I have done. Vedic terms are to be derived on the basis of rules of Vedic grammar and not on the basis of modern non-Vedic sensibility. Raatri is also derived from raa, which means to donate. What is donated at night ? out of 360 kshanas in 24 hours, one ought to sleep for 108 kshanas, going to bed 54 kshanas before midnight . Why ? Read the scriptures and try to find out what a yogi gets during yoga-nidra. unconscious persons " look down " (ni + dr) and do not get the gift which yogis receive at night. Your second question is : " Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? " It was elaborated in detail in my speech at Kalidasa Academy on 13 Apr 2008. It is about to be published. The theme was origin of the concept of Dvaadasha-bhaava. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:55:27 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Vinayji, You said Quote Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. Unquote Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. Specifically, do you consider, for example, the counting of 4 quarters each of Ashwini and Bharani and the first quarter of Krittika in the Mesha rashi to be wrong. Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:48 AM Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate, ). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ......> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 ll HARE RAM ll Dear Mr.Vinay & Sunil, I do highly appreciate both of you for very healthy and informative discussion. Please keep it continue in a very polite manner with out having any prejudice or rigidness as it is quite useful to others and this is really a proper way to reach any fruitful conclusion. God bless Shashi Shekher " Shaaswat " Shashi S.Sharma [Vedic Astrologer & Gems Advisor] [Member-Planetary Gemologists Association,Bangkok,Thailand] www.freewebs.com/astroremedies,Blog:www.shaaswatjyotish.blogspot.com Delhi,Cell-09818310075, E-mail: polite_astro --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 5:14 PM Sunilji, You question is clearly a sign of your displeasure. Otherwise you would not have asked : " Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. " If you think I do not know these fundamentals, it is useless to talk anything. Please do not take my statement as an attack upon you. I have a habit from early boyhood to define terms strictly. Since Raashi is not composed of integral number of Nakshatras, it is unscientific to define Raashi as a collection of Nakshatras. Moreover, Raashi defined as a collection of Nakshatras is your personal opinion, having no basis in ancient literature. Nakshatras are related to Moon and are translated rightly as lunar asterisms. Raashi, on the other hand, was derived from 12th division of heavenly orbit having 360 spokes (degrees or solar days). Raashi in its origin, therefore, was related to the Sun ather than to the Moon. Etymologically, Raashi is deduced from Raa + ash which can be explained only as I have done. Vedic terms are to be derived on the basis of rules of Vedic grammar and not on the basis of modern non-Vedic sensibility. Raatri is also derived from raa, which means to donate. What is donated at night ? out of 360 kshanas in 24 hours, one ought to sleep for 108 kshanas, going to bed 54 kshanas before midnight . Why ? Read the scriptures and try to find out what a yogi gets during yoga-nidra. unconscious persons " look down " (ni + dr) and do not get the gift which yogis receive at night. Your second question is : " Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? " It was elaborated in detail in my speech at Kalidasa Academy on 13 Apr 2008. It is about to be published. The theme was origin of the concept of Dvaadasha-bhaava. -VJ ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:55:27 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Vinayji, You said Quote Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. Unquote Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. Specifically, do you consider, for example, the counting of 4 quarters each of Ashwini and Bharani and the first quarter of Krittika in the Mesha rashi to be wrong. Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:48 AM Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate, ). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ .....> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Vinayji, Yes it is. But I am more surprised than getting displeased by thinking how a person with a very high self-esteem can make such a wrong statement. You are not defining the term " rashi " correctly. Rashi in astrology means a group of nakshatras. Sanskrit abhidhaans support that. You claim to know Indian astrology yet you are questiong how a nakshatra can be quartered. Nakshatra also has several stars in it. Hope you are aware of the term " Yogatara " . Though the nakshatras are named after the Yogatara they contain more stars. Our ancient masters knew Jyotisha thoroughly and that is why they divided the nakshatras into quarters. You very frequently talk about spiritual significance in astrology but here you fail to see that there could be some significance in the number 108. Your contention that the Sun has connection with rashi is wrong. Why then Bhanu (the Sun) in Makar (rashi) is important? As regards the nomenclature you just cannot evade the issue by referring to some paper of yours in Hindi presented in a conference in Ujjain. As you know that most of the members of this forum were not there in that conference you cannot send the members on a wild-goose hunt to get the paper and then read it and then understand what you wanted to say. Better please come out with your reply in a paragragh here. -SKB --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 4:44 AM Sunilji, You question is clearly a sign of your displeasure. Otherwise you would not have asked : " Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. " If you think I do not know these fundamentals, it is useless to talk anything. Please do not take my statement as an attack upon you. I have a habit from early boyhood to define terms strictly. Since Raashi is not composed of integral number of Nakshatras, it is unscientific to define Raashi as a collection of Nakshatras. Moreover, Raashi defined as a collection of Nakshatras is your personal opinion, having no basis in ancient literature. Nakshatras are related to Moon and are translated rightly as lunar asterisms. Raashi, on the other hand, was derived from 12th division of heavenly orbit having 360 spokes (degrees or solar days). Raashi in its origin, therefore, was related to the Sun ather than to the Moon. Etymologically, Raashi is deduced from Raa + ash which can be explained only as I have done. Vedic terms are to be derived on the basis of rules of Vedic grammar and not on the basis of modern non-Vedic sensibility. Raatri is also derived from raa, which means to donate. What is donated at night ? out of 360 kshanas in 24 hours, one ought to sleep for 108 kshanas, going to bed 54 kshanas before midnight . Why ? Read the scriptures and try to find out what a yogi gets during yoga-nidra. unconscious persons " look down " (ni + dr) and do not get the gift which yogis receive at night. Your second question is : " Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? " It was elaborated in detail in my speech at Kalidasa Academy on 13 Apr 2008. It is about to be published. The theme was origin of the concept of Dvaadasha-bhaava. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:55:27 PM Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Vinayji, You said Quote Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. Unquote Firstly do you mean that you do not accept the division of 108 quarters from the 27 nakshatras distributed among 12 rashis in astrology, such that each rashi has 9 quarters. Specifically, do you consider, for example, the counting of 4 quarters each of Ashwini and Bharani and the first quarter of Krittika in the Mesha rashi to be wrong. Secondly how do you think the names of the Rashis such as Mesha and Vrishabha were arrived at, ie what was the principle of the nomenclature of the rashis? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:48 AM Sunilji rightly says that Rashi means a group.In RV, it occurs four times in mandalas 4,6,8 and 9, always in the sense of " a collection " , once as " collections " (in mandala 8), e.g., collections of wealths (vasus) or of cows. MW regards its derivation as doubtful, because traditional derivation of a lot of archaic terms could not be explained on the basis of evolutionism. For instance, no IE language has any root for the word 'brother' which can have any semantic relation to 'btother'. In RV, bhratr and its derivatives occur 33 times, always in the sense of Sun and once for Yama who was a son of Sun as well as a brother of Yami. In 32 instances of RV, bhratr cannot be related to brother. That is why ancient grammarians reduced it from bhraash root which means " to shine " . The root bhr means to bear ; but a bhartaa (husband) bears and not a brother. Hence, brother is purely a Laukika term having no root at all and is a laukika usage of the Vedic term of same spelling. It also means that laukika meanings were not in vogue when Vedic words were being formed out of roots. Does it imply Loka did not exist when Veda was being written down ?? Ancients really believed so, but moderners leave aside such such evidences and superimpose their materialist and evolutionist common sense over hard linguistic facts. Raashi and Nakshatra pose similar problems. Traditional gramarrians give such derivatives of these terms which are meaningless to modernists. MW says Raashi has a doubtful derivation and does not even cite traditional view which says it was derived from Ash root (ash means to reach/pervade ; anothe meaning of ash is to eat which is not related to Raashi according to traditional grammarians, raa means to give/donate, ). Nakshatra also has a similar derivation, which means to approach/reach. MW also says so and adds that " in the Vedas the Nakshatras are considered as abodes of gods or of pious persons after death " . According to modern view, Nakshatras are groups of stars, but according to original derivation, it was the final abode of gods where liberated souls approached after death. Vedic terms were formed in a period which was highly religious , and if we impose our modern sensibility upon these terms we will fail to understand the original (i.e., Vedic) meanings. Sunil Jee is wrong in saying that " in Jyotish it (Raashi) means a group of Nakshatras. No Raashi is composed of any integral number of Nakshatras. But Raashi is certainly " a collection " of something. What is that something? That something must not be fractional. Vyaasa.bhaashya of Yoga-darshana says that there are 108 kshanas in one ahoraatra(24 hours). There are 108 navaamshas of 3 degree 20 minutes in a circle. The importance of a ksana is made explicit in praanaayama of liberated souls, which is of one praanaayaama per kshana of 240 seconds. Geeta says that Saamaveda is the highest of all Vedas, but its meaning is made clear in Brahma-sootra which says that a brahma;jnaani is transported (= naksh) by verses of Saamaveda to Brahmaloka (240 seconds per saamani of gaayatri). Nakshatras make the final abode of such souls. The circle of Nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru once per 60 years according to Suryasiddhaanta. There is no material body at the distance of 60 astronomical units. Hence, no planet or star revoles there, only the orbit revolves !! Sun takes one extra year to reach at any fixed point on the Bhachakra, which makes a 61-year meteorological cycle. These things cannot be explained in public forums. Raashi is not a collection of Nakshatras andNakshatra is not a collection of stars. Modern views must not be allowed to bury original meanings of terms. -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:10:07 AM Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda Dear Sunilji, Yes I agree with you, which is why I used the word " divisions " and not Raashis when talking of the 12 divisions known by our ancients. " Dwadasharam na hi tajjaray.... ..... " regards/Bhaskar. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Bhaskarji, The twelve divisions are mentioned in the Rigveda is the divisions of the ecliptic but these were not called rashi rightfully at that time. Rashi means a group, and in Jyotish it means a group of Nakshatras. If Vinayji opens a Sanskrit dictionary he will see the meaning of Rashi. The Mahabharata makes the first mention of Brahma rashi, which included the Abhiji nakshatra, whose ruler is Brahma. Then Bhagavat purana mentions these rashis and Brahma rashi, sans the Abhijit Nakshatra, of the Mahabharata becomes the Makara rashi in the Bhagavat purana. In Veda we find that Sun met the Brishabha and that is an allusion to Vrishabha rashi as it refers to the Vrishava group of Nakshatras One can have dispute as what is the accepted point from which a particular rashi starts, ie. for example, whether the Mesha rashi starts from the midpoint of Revati and Aswini or from the beginning of Ashwini but the fact that Ashwini, Bharani and a quarter of > Krittika constitute the Mesha rashi is not disputable as shape of these nakshatras have been identified and that resembles that of a Mesha or Ram. Rigveda also speaks of 360 spokes or degrees. When the twelve divisions of the ecliptic are so superimposed on the particular groups of nakshatras then they becomes the particular rashis. This is the true meaning of the twelve different rashis. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > Re: Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha and Veda > > Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:41 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a good observation which was given by me, a long back, to those > > who say that the ancient indians did not know about the 12 divisions. I > > had also mentioned the shloka ,reference, meaning,etc. to them but no > > response came from them, for obvious reasons. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ .....> > > wrote: > > > > > > The very mention of twelve solar months based upon seasons in Vedic > > texts themselves prove that Sun's path was divided into 12 parts. These > > 12 months were not lunar but solar, although use of lunar month is also > > explicitly mentioned in the Vedas, eg, Darsha (New Moon) and > > Poorna-maasi. Taittiriya Samhita (4.4.11, 4.4.11) names the 12 solar > > months. Rgveda (1.164.48) mentions 12 solar months and 360 solar days, > > which make it clear that 12 solar months were of 30 degrees each. This > > is the very meaning of Raashi. > > > -VJ > > > ============ ==== ============ ==== > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Avtar Krishenji, > > > > > > > > Namaskar, > > > > > > > > You > > > > have been repeating from time to time that Rashis are not there in > > the > > > > Vedas and theseare imported from Babylonia and Greeks etc. in order > > to > > > > prove that the Hindus learnt astrology from the Greeks. > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > I > > > > have told you a number of times that Rashi is mentioned in the > > puranas > > > > including Bhagavata purana, which the Padma purana calls the highest > > of > > > > the puranas. Bhagavata Purana was recited toParikshita, who was the > > > > grandson of Arjuna and Parikshita was born immediately after the > > > > Mahabharata war. This puts the date of Bhagavata Purana around the > > date > > > > of the start of the Kaliyuga. > > > > 2) > > > > I have also told you that Vrishabha Rashi is mentioned in the Veda. > > > > 3) > > > > You > > > > very well know that Vedanga Jyotisha mentions about the occurrence > > of > > > > Uttarayana with Bhanu (the Sun) in the Makar Rashi. This shows > > that > > > > Makar Rashi is very much mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > > > > > My > > > > earnest request to you is that you should stop forthwith all your > > > > statements saying that the rashis are not mentioned in Vedanga > > > > Jjyotisha and Veda. Jyotisha Shastra includes both Astronomy and > > > > Astrology > > > > > > > > Let the truth prevail. If you wish to reply to this > > > > mail please do it to the point but do not try your usual tactic of > > > > writing mile-long reply to divert the attention of the readers from > > the > > > > vital point. You have to accept the facts. This proves once for all > > > > that the Indians used the Rashi much before the Greeks. > > > > > > > > Dhanyavad > > > > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.