[WAVES-Vedic] [VRI] An important matter i.e. naked-eyed-jyotishis

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Mallaji,

 

I am not at all against looking at the Calendar again. I really want to see a

Calendar that is accepted throughout India unhesitatingly.

 

I was only against Kaulji's calling Varahamihira a charlatan, his saying that

the Indians learnt Astrology from the Greeks, his saying that Indian Astrology

as unvedic and that rashi is not mentioned in ancient scriptiures and his saying

that Manu considered the astrologers as Chandala (though the cheaters in any

profession can be called Chandala),. With his false claims he wanted to demolish

Indian astrology. But I doubt if he will change overnight or at all. I have seen

that his interest in Calendar reform is conditional, ie. that the Hindus must

accept his false ideas as stated above. In fact Calendar Reform appears to be

just an eyewash and his main aim is to further his aim of derailing Indian

Astrology.

 

You may remain in touch with Kaulji but be prepared to leave him if he does not

cooperate. At the sametime  you can contact other scholars like Sunil Nairji,

Sreenadhji, Gopal Goelji, Robertsonji, Rohiniranjanji, Ajai Katesariyaji and

there are quite a number of other Jyotishi scholars in the itself.

Vinayji  too appears to know astrology but he seems to think that the

subject of astrology is esoteric and can only be fully learnt from a

Brahmachari guru by a Brahmacharim disciple, who observes some strict rules such

as taking one meal a day etc.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Hari Malla <harimalla wrote:

 

 

Hari Malla <harimalla

[WAVES-Vedic] Re: Re: [VRI] An important

matter i.e. " naked-eyed-jyotishis "

 

Cc: , WAVES-Vedic ,

IndiaArchaeology , Abhinavagupta ,

 

Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 8:23 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Bhattacharya,

I am again rebeating my question.Is it not better to come to some

reconciliatory terms.Is it OK if calender reform is done by keebing the rashis

either as they are or shifted to a more abbrobriate bosition.

What is the use always discusssing if it takes us nowhere.Brahma rashi is

bointing to the north star.Makar rashi is also bointing to the north star.Thus

they are both  similiar names.Uttarayan is when the earth comes between the sun

and the north star.There is berfect logic in what you say.but if you are not

ready to face the fact of calender reform all your good logic is of no avail.I

do see you are sharb and intelligent, but to be wise we must also be

bractical.So blease consider my brobosal.Thank you.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

vedic_research_ institute

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; WAVES-Vedic;

IndiaArchaeology; Abhinavagupta;

 

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:43:52 PM

[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: [VRI] An important matter i.e.

" naked-eyed- jyotishis "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shri Avtar Krishen  Kaulji,

 

You have not replied to any of my questions which I posed to you three years ago

in the " Hinducivilization group " . You are aware that Dr. Iyengarji called me a

mole (I think calling a member of a forum is unparliamentary) and then I sent

a strong reply (in parliamentary language only) to him (Iyengarji). It happened

because Iyengarji said that in Mahabharata there is no mention of rashi and I

stated that a paper of his he himself has quoted a passage from Nilakantha,

where it is said that the Sun was in Tula (rashi). Further Brahma rashi is

mentioned in the Mahabharata, though the name of that rashi was changed to

Makara rashi in the Bhagavata purana. At that time I also opposed

Kalyanaramanji' s view that Bhishma died on Shuklashtami as the Mahabharata

clearly states that " Tribhaagashesha (ie, tribhaagaanaam sheshabhaaga or the

last one-third portion of the paksha) was still remaining to become Shukla

paksha.  Then Kalyanaramanji asked me to

apologige to Dr. iyengarji whereas the reverse should have been the case.

Immediately thereafter Kalyanaramanji banned me from his Hinducivilization group

saying that there will be no discussions on astrology in that group. I still do

not know why Kalyanaramanji does not consider astrology to be part of Hindu

civilization. Though I am mentioning these episodes to refresh your memory I

have no bitterness towards Kalyanaramanji or Iyengarji as in this short life of

ours we cannot afford to nourish such bitterness against anybody. If you want to

refresh your memory you can look up the group correspondence of that time. After

I was out of that group I direcly emailed to  you asking for the answers

to my questions.  It is three years now and still you have not replied to my

questions. How much more time you want me to wait for your reply?

 

I have already shown that rashis do appear in the ancient Shastras including

Veda and Purana (the fifth Veda) and it is not anti-vedic if the Indian

astrology is called Vedic astrology. I have shown you to you that Astrology

was referred to by Manu which proves that the Indians knew astrology much before

the Greeks. I also wrote to you about the Sakendra kala and Sakanta kala

vis-a-vis the date of Varahamihira.  I showed to you that at his time the

Winter solstice was beginning to occur in Uttarashadha and this continued

till  around 500 CE. This shows that date of Varahamihira as 505 CE as quoted

by you is not correct. 

 

However if you want me to coach you on any other matter related to Indian

civilization I shall do so to my ability if you send me a short crisp mail (not

a long one as you are habituated in sending) where you give your quesions in

brief. Please do not make any  unnecessary references to personalities like

Sri

 

Dhanyavad

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

--- On Mon, 3/30/09, jyotirved <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

jyotirved <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com>

[VRI] An important matter i.e. " naked-eyed- jyotishis "

waves-vedic

Cc: HinduCalendar, hinducivilization

Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:30 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shri Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

Namaskar!

Thanks for your response (# 2607 of 20.02.09 WAVES-VEDIC forum).  You have

asked very pertinent questions and, as such, pl. bear with me for detailed

replies.  I too expect a point by point response from you.

SKB:1) It is wrong to say rashis are non-Vedic

This is because the " rashis' are mentioned in the puranas including the Bhagavat

purana and the rashis came to be used only towards the end of the Dwapara yuga

i.e. towards the end of the 4th Millennium BCE .>

AKK:

1. Would you pl. give me the chronological dates of different Vedas, Upanishadas

and Puranas, substantiating them with proofs so that we have some idea as to

when Mesha etc. rashis were used in India for the first time.

2. Pl. also let me know as to what type of Rashis are mentioned in which Veda

and which Purana?  Pl. quote the exact shlokas.

3. When did Satya-yuga start and end according to you and what are the pramanas?

4. When did Treta-yuga start and end according to you and what are the pramanas?

5. When did Dwapara-yuga start and end according to you and what are the

pramanas?

6. When did Kali Era start according to you and what are the pramanas?  Any

idea when Kaliyuga is likely to end?

SKB:< You also know from the Chandogya upanishad that purana is considered to be

the fifth Veda.>

AKK: Chhandogya Upanishad is a part of the Talwakar Brahmana of the Samaveda. Do

you mean to say the Samaveda came into existence after the Puranas?  When did

that happen i.e. what is the date of the Samaveda and what are the dates of

Puranas?

SKB:< I am sure you know that the Valmiki Ramayana of the Treta yuga mentions

the position of the Moon in a particular nakshatra at the time of the birth of

Lord Rama. But the Adhyatma Ramayana, composed by Vedavyasa in the Dwapara yuga,

mentions the position of the Sun in Mesha rashi at the time of Lord Rama's

birth..>

AKK: Do you mean to say that while Maharshi Valmiki noted the planetary position

of Bhagwan Rama only vis-à-vis the nakshatras it was only Krishna Dvaipayana

Veda Vyasa who “transposed†them to Mesha etc. rashis?  How have the  Moon

and Brihaspati in Karkata lagna been mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana then? Are

they an interpolation?

SKB: < This is because the rashis have been used in India in the 4th Millennium

BCE .>

AKK: Since the Valmiki Ramayana was written in  8th Millennium BCE according to

you, that means that the mention of Rashis in the VR is definitely an

after-thought according to you. Pl. clarify your stand.

SKB: <Your date of Varahamihira is also wrong as in Varahamihira' s time Saka

kala was not there. Sakakala, which Brahmagupta calls Shakanta kala, came at the

end of the Shaka rule in 78 CE. Varahamihira mentions Shakendra kala, which was

at the beginning of the Shaka rule Therefore my request to you is that kindly

revise your Rotary document immediately.>

AKK: What is the difference between Shaka Kala and Shakanta-kala and

Shakendra-Kala according to you and why? When did Shaka Kala and Shakaanta kala

and Shakendra-Kala start? What are the pramanas? 

SKB: < This is because the " Rashi " by definition means a group. You can check

that in your favourite Monier-Williams. Rashis are a group of Nakshatras. To the

ancient jyotishis the twelve clusters of nakshatras in the ecliptic appeared

like different figures. For example, the Vrashabha rashi appeared like a bull.

This they did that by imagining some lines joining the nakshatras within the

rashi.>

AKK: Astronomically, Zodiac, i.e. Rashi-chakra is an “imaginary beltâ€. So

how can the “animals†in that “Circle of animals†be real?

1. The definition of Rashis you are giving is actually the definition of

Babylonian constellations Aries, Taurus etc. 

According to Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary also, Rashi means “a

sign of the zodiac†and “Rashichakra†means “Zodiacal circle;

zodiacâ€.  So what is new about it?  How is his definition different from

that of Oxford English Dictionary or Webster’s etc.?  As astronomically

zodiac is an imaginary belt, where has Monier-Williams said that it is a “real

belt†and has not been imported from Greece ?  Monier-Williams was not a

Vedic seer of pre-Alexander’s time.  So his talking about Mesha etc. rashis

does not prove them to be of Indian origin!

2.  Wherefrom does the Rashichakra start according to you?  If it is Mesha

Rashi, what is the zero i.e. the starting point of that Mesha Rashi and how has

it been worked out?  What are the pramanas?

3. If the zodiac i.e. the Rashichakra itself is an “imaginary beltâ€, how can

the twelve “animals†like Ram and Bull and Scorpions etc. be real in that

“circle of animals�

4. You have said, “Rashis are group of nakshatrasâ€.  What is the definition

of nakshatra according to you?  Is that also a cluster of stars or is it

something else?  Did those nakshatras resemble some figures or was it just an

arbitrary nomenclature?  If it is the former, which nakshatra resembled which

figure and if not, why were these nakshatra  given those names i.e. why is

Hasta named as Hasta if it did not resemble a “Hasta†(hand) and so on?

5. Besides, are those nakshartas equal to one another i.e. is Ashvini division

equal to Bharni division and so on in dimension or are they unequal?   If the

nakshatras “appeared like different figures in the eclipticâ€, what were

those figures or is it that only rashis appeared like different figures?

6. Why did the nakshatras start from Krittika during the Vedic period and

wherefrom should they start now and why?  What was the starting point i.e. zero

of Krittika nakshatra division?  I mean, did Krittika nakshatra start from some

Star or from some other astronomical body?  What are the starting points of

Asvini, Bharni etc. and why?

7. Are any particular yogataras (Junction Stars) of those nakshatras related to

them or not?  i.e. has the star Beta Arietis anything to do with Ashvini

nakshatra division and the star Alpha Virginis anything to do with Chitra

nakshatra division and so on  or not according to you?  If yes, what should

the position of yogataras vis-à-vis their nakshatras be e.g. should Beta

Arietis be at the beginning of Ashvini nakshatra or at the middle or at the end

of that nakshatra division?  If they are unrelated to yogataras of their names,

how do we determine nakshatras then?

8. You say, “for example, the vrishaba rashi appeared like a bullâ€.  But

that is the Babylonian definition of Taurus!  Do you mean to say that Indian

jyotishis could see that “Bull†only after Babylonian astrologers had seen

it or is it the other way round?  What are the pramanas?  Which “jyotishiâ€

has talked about Vrishaba Rashi in which Veda?

PL DO QUOTE THE EXACT SHLOKAS/MANTRAS AND REFERENCES WHEREVER YOU REFER TO THEM

AS IT BECOMES A FISHING EXPEDITION OTHERWISE.

 Pl. also do enlighten me whether the Bull you are talking about is equal to

Scorpion or Twins or Ram etc. etc. or are they of different sizes?  Pl. quote

the relevant pramanas

9. How do those nakshatras fit into rashis according to you? Is it in

whole-numbers or is it in fractions?  Which astronomical work has clubbed

nakshatras with rashis for the first time?  Pl. quote pramanas.

SKB: < This they did that by imagining some lines joining the nakshatras within

the rashi. It is true that an unimaginative person may not be able to visualise

the shape or form, but the nakshtras within the rashis are very real.>

AKK: Mesha etc. Rashis are imagination run riot!

1. Are you discussing science of astronomy or “science of imaginationâ€, I

mean hallucinations?  If imagination has to run riot, then I think you should

respect the tapasya and yoga of Sushri Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet and also Dr.

Robert E. Wilkinson besides other sayana yogis, tapasvis and astrologers who

visualize, through their tapasya and yoga, a Crocodile (Makara Sankranti!) in

the sky always at the time of Uttarayana i.e. Winter Solstice, and according

to whom, the Vedas invariably refer to a sayana rashichakra. Whereas according

to your hallucination, a “crocodile†appears in the skies only after about

24 days of the Winter Solstice i.e. Uttarayana!

Dr. Wilkinson and the “Thea†have quoted the interpretations of one of the

greatest yogis, Viz. Aurobindo, in support of their hallucinations.  They have

also quoted Vedic mantras from the Rig-Veda and Atharva Veda (Pl. see Sushri

Patrizia’s Q & A article “Secrets of the earthâ€) in support of their

arguments for a sayana rashichakara.  They have, to vindicate their stand,

linked the ten Avataras of Vishnu to the same so called Sayana Rashichakra. 

According to them, it is nirayanawalas like you, who have not done any tapasya

or performed any yoga, and are, therefore, ignorant of the real Vedic ethos and

creating confusion through imaginary nirayana rashis through the wrong

interpretations of the Vedas?  In other words, according to them your

hallucination that there is a “Crocodile†in the skies after 24 days of

Winter Solstice is wrong whereas their hallcinaion is correct! Why should we not

believe their imaginary statements based on their tapasya and yoga that “Makar

Sankranti and Uttarayana are always one and the same thing as against your

imaginary statements that they are two different things now a days, since

jyotishis " imagined some lines joining the nakshtras within the rashis " thus

giving rise to imaginary nirayana rashichakra of nirayanawals?

2. Has any Vedic seer whispered it in your ears that he saw Bulls and Twins and

Scorpions, or are you presuming that the Seers saw them, because you appear to

have a lot of imagination (hallucinations! ?) yourself!

3. Regarding your comment, “nakshatras within the rashis are very realâ€, it

means that they can never be of equal dimensions!  It can be only imagination

that can visualize everything equal to everything else!   Or is that they are

actually equal?  Pl. quote the pramanas.

SKB: <In olden days the seasons occurred in different rashis at different times

due to the precession of the earth.>

AKK: Would u pl. educate me as to what the precession has to do with seasons!

SKB:  <Madhu and Madhava etc. occurred at different nakshatras and rashis at

different times. You know that Varahamihira too indicated this.>

AKK Pl. quote the pramanas as to which season occurred in which different rashi

in the past as per which Purana!  Pl. also quote pramans that Madhu and Madhava

took place in different rashis in the past i.e. pl quote the shlokas from the

Puranas etc. that say that Madhu was not known as Mina/Chaitra but by some other

name in the Puranas.

SKB: <Further the western jyotishis concentrated their attention on the Tropical

Zodiac system and imagined the fake rashis. (Please refer to the definition of

rashi). >

AKK: Imaginary attributes of an imaginary zodiac! “nirayana†Rashis are

neither Vedic, nor Pauranic nor even Greek!  But then so are the sayana rashis

though they are at least Pauranic and Greek!

1. Since zodiac itself is an imaginary belt, how many such “imaginary beltsâ€

are there according to you and why?   What is the definition of Tropical

Zodiac and why?  Pl quote astronomical works that talk of a Tropical Zodiac.

2. What do you mean by fake rashis?  As far as I know, IAU decides the

nomenclature of constellations these days, and they follow a very scientific

system.  Even then those divisions (constellations) are “sight of eyeâ€

effect.  Thus all those constellations are also fake, in a sort of way.   How

can your “constellations†which you call rashis or whatever, be true? The

sun actually “enters†Capricorn constellation these days on January 19 (not

January 14 i.e. Lahiri); Aquarius: February 16 (not February 13); Pisces: March

12 (not March 14), Aries: April 18 (not April 14); Taurus: May 14 (Lahiri Taurus

is almost the same date!); Gemini: June 21 (not June 14); Cancer: July 20 (not

July 16); Leo: August 10 (not August 16); Virgo: September 16 (Lahiri Virgo is

also the same!); Libra: October 31 (not October 16); Scorpio: Nov. 23 (not Nov

15); Sagittarius: Dec. 17 (not December 15). 

Thus if you want to really “celebrate†Greek constellations even today, why

don’t you adjust your Lahiri dates accordingly, as otherwise these “trueâ€

rashis that you claim to be celebrating today are neither Vedic nor Pauranic and

nor even Greek! They are all “almighty†Lahiri imaginary constellations and

nothing else!  

3. Are your Bulls looking like real Bulls and your Twins looking like real Twins

and your Scorpions looking like real Scorpions even today?  If yes, what are

the pramanas? If not, why do you call them Bulls and Twins etc. etc. now?

4.  It is thus evident that the Sayana Rashis being clubbed with Equinoxes and

Solstices in the Vishnu Purana, Shiva Purana, Bhagavata  etc. also are

imaginary, just based on the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha!

SKB: < However the Indian jyotishis did not give up the link between their

jyotish and  the nakshatras>

AKK: “Nakshatra-soochis are Brahmana Chandalasâ€â€”Bhishma!

Yes, that is evident from “Atharva-Veda parishishta†etc. jyotisha works. 

Indian jyotishis tried to link planets with nakshatras ( AND NOT RASHIS, SINCE

RASHIS WERE THEN UNKNOWN IN INDIA !) for hoodwinking the public by pretending

that they could peep into the future of the kings and queens and princes and

maybe even ordinary people!   Those “peeping Toms†were known, as such, as

nakshatra jeevis and/or nakshatra-soochis.  And that is why the real

well-wishers of Bharatavarsha like the Manu, Bhishma Pitamaha, Atri Rishi,

Gautama the Budha and even Chanakya have called such “nakshatra-jeevis†and

“nakshatra-soochis†as “Brahmana-chandalasâ€. 

SKB: <They determined the positions of the grahas and nakshatras through the

naked eye. They could tell which graha was in which nakshatra and rashi.>

AKK: “Naked-eyed-jyotishi sâ€---a joke or what?

What type of a joke is this?  Or are you really serious?  You have said

yourself, " I am sure you know that the Valmiki Ramayana of the Treta yuga 

mentions the position of the Moon in a particular nakshatra at the time of the

birth of Lord Rama. "   Bhagwan Ram is said to have incarnated at exact Noon on

Chaitra Shukla Navmi in Punarvasu nakshatra.  Do you mean to say that the

jyotishi, whosoever he was, at the time of that divine Incarnation, who

" recorded " the positions of planets at Bhagwan Ram's birth, looked at the sky

at exact noon, then saw with his naked eye as to in which nakshatra and rashi

the sun was, and also the moon---even at mid-day, and that also of Chaitra

Shukla  Navmi in Vasanta Ritu---and Mangal, Shani, etc. etc. planets!  Of

course, that jyotishi must have seen, with naked eyes, the mathematical point

(without any dimensions!) known as lunar node, called Rahu in Jyotisha jargon! 

And no doubt that jyotishi must have seen

the counter-part of that Rahu viz. Kethu, that also at the high-noon and with

naked-eyes, and recorded it faithfully in Bhagwan Ram's Janmapatri!  What about

Karkata Lagna of Bhagwan Ram?  Was that also seen with “naked eyes†by that

“naked-eyes-jyotishi�

At least I had not expected that type of a joke from you, my dear

Bhattacharjyaji! 

But, on second thoughts, may be you are serious and telling us truth and nothing

but truth, since there definitely is a lot of confusion in the planetary

position of even Bhagwan Ram as given in the Valmiki Ramayana etc.  That

confusion has gone to the extent of madness without method!  We have about half

a dozen Janma-patris of Bhagwan Ram floating around!  The one prepared by you

is for 7319  BCE and the latest one by the owner-cum-moderator of

ancient_indian_ astrology- forum viz. Shri Sreenadh, is for 157 BCE since

according to him that planetary combination of the Valmiki Ramayana could not

have taken place on any other date!  And both of you claim that you are

reproducing faithfully the planetary position as “recorded by

naked-eyes-jyotishi s†in the Valmiki and Adhyatma Ramayana!

We have also Janmaaptri of Bhagwan Ram by Prafulla Vamana Mendki and that is for

February 7 of 7558 BCE !

Then there is Dr. Vartak, according to whom Bhagwan Ram Incarnated only on

December 4, 73 23 BCE !

What is all the more surprising is that even the Income Tax Commissioner

Bhatnagar has talked of those very planetary positions of Bhagwan Ram as per

Valmiki Ramayana but that Incarnation could not have taken place on any other

date except January 10, 5114 BCE according to him!  And His Holiness Sri Sri

Ravi Shankar has put his “stamp of approval†on that date of 5114 BCE ! 

And Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a name to reckon with, being a yogi and tapasiv of

very high order, as compared to your “imaginary zodiacs†and

“naked-eyes-jyotishi sâ€.

My God!  You are certainly right that some jyotishi had definitely “seenâ€

the planetary position of Bhagwan Ram with “naked eyes†and then “recorded

it faithfullyâ€!  The only difference is that that jyotishi has done it much

later after the birth of Bhagwan Ram, nay even the Valmiki Ramayana, and used

his imagination instead of some real astronomy, since there could not have been

such a plethora of birth charts from 157 BCE to 7558 BCE of one and the same

divine Incarnation otherwise!  And that is what has happened with quite a few

Puranas also like Narada, Vishnu-dharmotara- purana or even the Surya Sidhanta

etc. etc. thanks to those “naked-eyed jyotishis†who must be worshipped for

their jugglery according to “Vedic astrologers†like you!

We have also horoscopes of Bhagwan Krishna floating around! Bhagwan Krishna is

said to have Incarnated at midnight at Mathura jail, when there were torrential

rains!  And as per your asseveration, there must have been some

“naked-eyed-jyotishi†in that prison also. How does it matter that Bhagwan

Krishna Incarnated when everybody in the prison except for Devaki and Vasudev,

were asleep!  The “naked-eyed-jyotishi†must have been alert, after having

got special permission from the King Kansa---who was dead against the eighth

issue of his sister Devaki---to record the planetary position at His birth! 

And that “naked-eyes-jyotishi†must have then, from the prison cell itself,

in that deadly rainy dark night, cast a glance at the skies and visualized as to

in which nakshatra and Rashi the sun was!---how does it matter if it was

midnight--- and where the moon was--how does it matter if it was Krishna paksha

ashtami and the sky was overcast with

clouds!---and Mangal, Shani etc. planets were!  Then of course, the

non-dimensional Rahu and Kethu also must have been “seen†by that

“naked-eyes-jyotishi†with his naked eyes!  Oh, I forgot that the

“naked-eyed-jyotishi†must have even seen the Lagna of Bhagwan Krishna also!

Did every household in India have a “naked-eyed-jyotishi†in the past?

Since there were no astronomical works for calculating planets vis-à-vis

rashis/nakshatras available in India prior to Surya Sidhanta of Maya the

mlechha, i.e. till about second century BCE , and according to you everybody had

to depend on “naked-eyed-jyotishi s†for “seeing the nakshatras and rashis

in which the planets wereâ€.  The “naked-eyed-jyotishi s†had also to be

used for “seeing†the ayanamsha, the nodes and even Delta time! Does it mean

that every household had such a “super-specializedâ€

 “naked-eyed-jyotishi†then?  What a fantastic idea!

“Vedic astrologers†are more than sufficient to make a laughing stock of the

Hindu community!

Obviously, we certainly do not need movies like â€Water†or “Slumdog

Millionaire†or “certificates†from videshis to mock at us with the

comments that India is a land of snake charmers and tantriks and jugglers etc! 

“Naked-eyed-Jyoitish is†like you are more than sufficient to make a

laughing stock of the Hindu community in the eyes of the whole world, all in the

name of “Vedic astrology†(or is it “naked-eyes-astrolog y�).

SKB: < So they wanted the measure of precessional shift, called " Ayanamsha " to

correct the Tropical Zodiac positions of the grahas so that they can relate the

corrected graha positions to the positions of the non-moving nakshatras.>

AKK: A red-herring of Ayanamsha vis-à-vis precession! And “shifting†and

“non-shifting†zodiacs galore!

That piece really takes the cake! What are non-moving nakshatras and what are

moving nakshatras?  And what about this Ayanamsha “factor�  Was it a wild

card entry or is it something planted by some “foreigners�  When do we

find that word for the first time in Indian or Western astronomy?  How was it

calculated and by whom and from what date and when?  Did “naked-eyes-jyotishi

s†“see†ayanamsha as well with their naked eyes? Or did they calculate it

for 7319 BCE ?  Was it Lahiri or Raman or Chandra-Hari or what Ayanamsha? 

Have you adjusted it in “your chart†of Bhagwan Ram? What was that Ayanamsha

and why? And what on earth has Ayanamsha to do with precession?

SKB: < As the Tropical Zodiac shifts according to precession it is called Sayana

(sa= with, ayana= movement) or with precessional shift. The non-moving Zodiac,

i.e. the original Indian system, began to be called Nirayana (Nih= no or

without, ayana= movement). So you must have noticed that the word Sayana and

Nirayana could not have been there in the ancient times. Today one refers to the

ancient system as the Nirayana system.>

AKK: 1. My God, are we discussing astronomy or Arabian Nights (Alif Laila)? 

Would you please let me know as to how the imaginary (Tropical) Zodiac can shift

and (the same imaginary sidereal zodiac) not shift at one and the same time? 

Is it something like delineation of one and same horoscope by different

jyotishis which according to some jyotishis may “shift†but according to

other jyotishis “not shift�

2. You say the “non-moving zodiac is the original Indian systemâ€.  But in

the first para itself you said, “the rashis came to be used only towards the

end of the Dwapara yugaâ€.  How could the “original non-moving zodiac†be

the original system then as there must have been some other system prior to the

introduction of Rashis in India ? 

3. And since according to you yourself, Bhagwan Ram Incarnated in Treta Yuga,

that means that there was no Karkata Lagna or Moon in Karka or Sun in Mesha etc.

since there were no Rashis prevailing then. Then how did you calculate His

horoscope for the position of planets vis-à-vis Mesha etc. rashis  for 7319

BCE as per the Ramayana? 

4. Now that we are discussing astronomy, could you pl. tell me as to how “the

naked-eye-jyotishis†determined Delta Time in the past, since the Ephemeris

Time was at least as many as six days ahead of Bharatiya Ghati-pal Time in 7319

BCE and about at least one day in 3102 BCE , the supposed date of the start of

Kaliyuga!

Hey Ram, aap jyotishiyoon ke dar se kahan  chhipe hain! (O Lord Rama, where are

you hiding out of the fear of “Vedic astrologers�)

My dear Bhattacharjyaji, since you, like quite a few other jyotishis, claim to

have prepared the horoscope of Bhagwan Ram as per the planetary position given

in the Balakanda, 18th Canto/Sarga of Valmiki Ramayana, would you please

enlighten me as to how you have taken the year as 7319 BCE , when that is only

less than 9500 years prior to today’s date? 

Did no “naked-eyed-jyotishi†tell you that Bhagwan Ram is destined to rule

for as many as eleven thousand years?   The same VR, in the same Balakanda,

15th Canto/Sarga, has said in shlokas 29 and 30, “After killing the cruel

Ravana, who is a terror for gods, I SHALL REMAIN IN THE MORTAL PLAIN RULING OVER

THE GLOBE  FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARSâ€.  Then at the end in Uttarakanda,

Sarga/Canto 110, in shlokas 6 and 7, the same Valmiki Ramayana has said,

“AFTER HAVING RULED FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS, Bhagwan Rama took (Jal)-Samadhi

in the Saryu river† Thus we find a promise in the Balakanda by Vishnu that

He would rule for eleven thousand years as Rama, and in the last but one sarga

of the same Valmiki Ramayana, we find that after having kept that promise and

having RULED FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS, Bhgwan Ram took Jal Samadhi!

As Bhagwan Ram incarnated in 7319 BCE according to you, that means He is still

reigning and will continue to reign for another about two thousand years!  It

also means that it is still Tretayuga then, whereas it is being said that more

than five thousand years of Kaliyuga have already passed! Where has Dwapara yuga

vanished?

What is also surprising is that His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of he Art of

Living agrees with Shri Bhatnagar that Bhagwan Ram Incarnated only about 7100

years back i.e. in 5114 BCE , which means that Bhagwn Ram will rule for another

at least four thousand years and that Treta Yuga will last for at least that

number of years!

Do these Jyotishis, including you, and His Holinesses mean to say that we are

living in Rama Rajya still or is it that neither they nor you believe in the

Valmiki Ramayana?

Would you pl. let me know the actual chronology, as such, and also whether you

believe in the VR or not?

SKB: < You have excessively trusted some of the western scholars, one of whom

had the topic of his PhD thesis as the " Materials to prove that Indians got

everything from the Greeks " . >

AKK: Not Western but Indian “scholars†are making the Hindus a laughing

stock!

As seen above, I think it is “naked-eyed-jyotihis†who call themselves 

“Vedic astrologers†these days, who are making a fool of the entire Hindu

community by resorting to such mockery of their intelligence that in 7319 BCE

our “naked-eye-jyotishis†saw not only planets but even Ayanamsha and Rashis

and nakshatras and even Delta Time and “lagnas†(Ascendants) with naked

eyes!  Nay they could even see the non-existent mathematical points like Rahu

and Kethu! No Western scholar has said such a ludicrous thing anywhere till

date!  Or is it your imagination (hallucination! ) that is telling you that

Western scholars and not you have said so?

Hindu astronomers and not Western scholars have said, by implication, that

predictive gimmicks are niradhar i.e. without any basis or foundation!

That the Rashichkara is an imaginary belt was not conveyed to me, to start with,

by any Western scholar but by Lahiri’s Indian Ephemeris, year after year,

through its definition of the zodiac as “AN IMAGINARY BELT stretching 9°

North and 9° South of the APPARENT i.e. IMAGINARY path of the Sun within which

the moon and planets remain within course of their movement.â€Â  Being an

imaginary belt, any “naked-eyed-jyotishi†or even “covered-eyed-

jyotishi†can divide it into 12 or 27 or 360 or any number of divisions, and

each division will be more imaginary than the “original†imaginary belt! 

And then each division can be “allocated†to any thing or anybody like the

inanimate wandering planet Mars being the Lord of the first imaginary division,

another inanimate wandering body viz. Venus of the second imaginary division and

so on!  And since that “lordship†is also imaginary, one can rest assured

that there are not going to be

any hassles that they are any “benami†transactions!

Being an IMAGINARY BELT, anybody can claim that it starts from any IMAGINARY

point, that is anybody can claim that the Zero of that belt is where it suits

him most!  And the difference between that imaginary starting point and the

Vernal Equinox can be called Ayanamsha!  Thus there can be any ayanamsha, right

from zero to 359.9999 9 degrees!  Who is going to stop us!

But the MOST IRONIC THING IS THAT these “naked-eyed-jyotishi s†will then

prepare Birth Charts of Bhagwan Ram and Bhagwan Krishna and Gautama the Budha on

the basis of imaginary divisions of that very imaginary belt, with imaginary

ownership having been ascribed to imaginary over-lords like Mars and Saturn! 

And a joke the like of which nobody must have ever heard is that mathematical

points like Lunar North and South Nodes too will be given overlordship of an

imaginary division like “the Virign†and “the Fishesâ€.

SKB: < Though the majority of the western scholars could be genuine there are

some blacksheeps too among them. So beware of the half-baked ones among them.>

AKK: My inspiration is from Hindu shastras and not Western scholars!

From all this lengthy discussion, it is evident that no Western “blacksheepâ€

has prompted me to write all these unpleasant things about the Indian

“whitesheeps†who call themselves Vedic astrologers these days.  It is my

own shastras/scriptures , especially the Yogavasishtha Maharamayana that have

told me to accept or reject a proposition only after analyzing it thoroughly. 

And NEED I TO REMIND YOU THAT I WAS MYSELF A “naked-eyed-jyotishi†till a

few decades back, but woke up to the situation before it was too late!  What

made me delve deep into the “building blocks†of predictive gimmicks viz.

the “imaginary belt of imaginary animals†was the categorical depreciation

by Bhishma, Manu, Atri  etc. etc.  Rishis that “nakshatra-socchis/

jeevis/darshis†were “Brahmana Chandalasâ€.  After all, why should those

Rishis have warned the Hindu community that they should not involve any of

“those whitesheep†in any daiva or

pitra karya!  ONLY BECAUSE THE ZODIAC, WHICH THE “VEDIC ASTROLOGERS†CALL

RASHICHAKRA, IS AN IMAGINARY BELT i.e. AN “IMAGINARY CIRCLE OF IMAGINARY

ANIMALSâ€.  How can any such imaginary creatures “foreseeâ€, much less

affect, anybody’s lives/future?

***                             

**                   

**                               

****                           

*****              ***

No wonder, it is such “Vedic astrologers†(“naked-eyed-jyotishi sâ€!),

and not some “Western blacksheeps†who are making us kill our own dharma by

compelling us to celebrate all the festivals and muhurtas on wrong days, all in

the name of “Vedic astrology†i.e. “naked-eyes-jyotishâ€, so that they

can “discuss the chart of Bhagwan Ram and Bhagwan Krishna and Lalu and Kalu

etc.†on the basis of baseless (niradhar!) “imaginary animals of an

imaginary beltâ€.

Do I need say anything more?

Many thanks, once again, for giving me a chance to put the records straight!

A K Kaul

  WAVES-Vedic, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Dear Shri Kaulji,

Namaste,

1) It is wrong to say rashis are non-Vedic

This is because the " rashis' are mentioned in the puranas including the Bhagavat

purana and the rashis came to be used only towards the end of the Dwapara yuga

ie. towards the end of the 4th Millennium BCE . I am sure you know that the

Valmiki Ramayana of the Treta yuga mentions the position of the Moon in a

particular nakshatra at the time of the birth of Lord Rama. But the Adhyatma

Ramayana, composed by Vedavyasa in the Dwapara yuga, mentions the position of

the Sun in Mesha rashi at the time of Lord Rama's birth. You also know from the

Chandogya upanishad that purana is considered to be the fifth Veda. So it is

wrong to say that " Rashis " are non-Vedic. You must be aware that reading of this

fifth Veda is a prerequisite for reading the four Vedas.

 2) It is wrong to say that rashis are imported from Babylonia .

 This is because the rashis have been used in India in the 4th Millennium BCE .

You date of Varahamihira is also wrong as in Varahamihira' s time Saka kala was

not there . Sakakala, which Brahmagupta calls Shakanta kala, came at the end of

the Shaka rule in 78 CE. Varahamihira mentions Shakendra kala, which was at the

beginning of the Shaka rule Therefore my request to you is that kindly revise

your Rotary document immediately.

3) Your argument towards Nirayana versus Sayana needs revision too.

This is because the " Rashi " by definition means a group. You can check that in

your favourite Monier-Williams. Rashis are a group of Nakshatras. To the ancient

jyotishis the twelve clusters of nakshatras in the ecliptic appeared like

different figures. For example, the Vrashabha rashi appeared like a bull. This

they did that by imagining some lines joining the nakshatras within the rashi.

It is true that an unimaginative person may not be able to visualise the shape

or form, but the nakshtras within the rashis are very real. In olden days the

jyotishis were not like the arm-chair jyotishis of today. They determined the

positions of the grahas and nakshatras through the naked eye. They could tell

which graha was in which nakshatra and rashi. Today this system is termed as

Nirayana. In olden days the seasons occurred in different rashis at different

times due to the precession of the earth. Madhu and Madhava etc. occurred at

different nakshatras and rashis

at different times. You know that Varahamihira too indicated this.

 Further the western jyotishis concentrated their attention on the Tropical

Zodiac system and imagined the fake rashis. (Please refer to the definition of

rashi). However the Indian jyotishis did not give up the link between their

jyotish and  the nakshatras and the true rashis but they gave up observing the

grahas and the nakshatras with the naked eye. So they wanted the measure of

precessional shift, called " Ayanamsha " to correct the Tropical Zodiac positions

of the grahas so that they can relate the corrected graha positions to the

positions of the non-moving nakshatras. As the Tropical Zodiac shifts according

to precession it is called Sayana (sa= with, ayana= movement) or with

precessional shift. The non-moving Zodiac, ie. the original Indian system, began

to be called Nirayana (Nih= no or without, ayana= movement). So you must have

noticed that the word Sayana and Nirayana could not have been there in the

ancient times. Today one refers to

the ancient system as the Nirayana system.

You have excessively trusted some of the western scholars, one of whom had the

topic of his PhD thesis as the " Materials to prove that Indians got everything

from the Greeks " .  Though the majority of the  western scholars could be

genuine there are some blacksheeps too among them. So beware of the half-baked

ones among them.

With regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya