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

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil ji,

 

//I am not at all against looking at the Calendar again. I

really want to see a

Calendar that is accepted throughout India unhesitatingly.//

 

This is one of the best statements in all the threads witnessed so far.

You are right, we are not against looking at the Calendar again and for

rectification of mistakes if any, to form a common Calendar throughout

India. But this is easier said than done. Jawahar lal Nehru had once

called for a meeting of all the Panchanga makers during his tenure, to

get this issue fixed, but soon he realised that making the ends of the

sea meet would be easier than getting all the Panchanga makers to sit

and conclude with consensus on a common platform.

 

Yet your above statement shows your love for being flexible and not

rigid, and I also second your opinion. Those who become rigid in their

mind sets can never progress in any department of Life or studies.

 

I too had the same bone of contenttion with Kaul whom I consider to be a

learned man but who will not be listened to, at least by people of my

type for the reasons mentioned by You - His talking unsavoury about

Varahamihira and our ancestors, his thrashing the astrologers and

astrology, his calling Astrologers as Chandala which view is followed by

Vinay Jha, his half study done in the matters of astrology when he says

that India learnt astrology from the Greeks, his thrashing of the vedic

purports wrt astrology, his company andlove for the likes of Sanat

KumarJain who earn money by writing and selling books against astrology

etc.etc.

 

If only this man was courteous and respectable to his own ancestors, the

indian culture and the subject astrology which is related to his pet

subject astronomy, then probably he could have got a patient hearing.

But alas this was not to be, and he has turned hostile many of those who

approached him , like myself , to learn something, but who instead got

disullisioned in exasperation due to his utterances and left him.

 

Unfortunately another learned man Mr.Vinay Jha is following the same

path, though having earned degrees from this subject itself, and respect

in his geographical region and locality, yet on a broader scale would

miss out on further development or support from the others of his

community national or world wide.

 

These people are looking to impress the neighbours wife ( The

westerners) and in their zeal do not mind thrashing their own wife (

Dictums of the vedas and Sacred texts) to impress or atract the white

skinned, unfortunately. they would love to remain like the frog in the

well who cannot leap out in the world but would remain in the confines

of the small boundaries they have themselves opted for, due to their

behaviour, utterances and lack of proper study .

 

regards/Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Hari Mallaji,

> Â

> I am not at all against looking at the Calendar again. I

really want to see a Calendar that is accepted throughout India

unhesitatingly.

> Â

> 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 theÂ

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.

> Â

> 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.

> Â

> Best wishes,

> Â

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> Â

>

>

> --- 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,

> IÂ 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@

. com; IndiaArchaeology; Abhinavagupta@

. com;

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

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: [VRI] An important matter

i.e. " naked-eyed- jyotishis "

>

>

Â

> Â

> Shri Avtar Krishen Kaulji,

> Â

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

years ago in the " Hinducivilization group " . You are aware thatÂ

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)Â 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.Â

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

> Â

> 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 haveÂ

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.Â

> Â

> 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)Â where

you give your quesions in brief. Please do not make any unnecessary

references to personalities like Sri

> Â

> Dhanyavad

> Â

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> Â

> Â

> Â

> --- 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@ .

com

> Monday, March 30, 2009, 1:30 PM

Shri Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> Namaskar!

> Thanks for your response (# 2607 of 20.02.09 WAVES-VEDIC forum).Â

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-Ã -vis the nakshatras it

was only Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa who “transposedâ€

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?Â

> 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.Â

> 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€.Â

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!Â

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

“jyotishi†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.

> Â 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. Â They have, to vindicate their

stand, linked the ten Avataras of Vishnu to the same so called Sayana

Rashichakra.Â

> 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: Â <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! Â 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 belts†are there according to you and why?Â

 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 eye†effect. Thus all those constellations

are also fake, in a sort of way. Â Â 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).Â

> Thus if you want to really “celebrate†Greek

constellations even today, why don’t you adjust your Lahiri dates

accordingly, as otherwise these “true†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! Â

> 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 parishishtaâ€

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 intoÂ

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-soochisâ€

as “Brahmana-chandalasâ€.Â

> 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. " Â 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!Â

> 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

“seen†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-Ã -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-specialized†Â

“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€Waterâ€

or “Slumdog Millionaire†or “certificatesâ€

from videshis to mock at us with the comments that India is a land of

snake charmers and tantriks and jugglers etc!Â

“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-Ã -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 ?Â

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 ?Â

> 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-Ã

-vis Mesha etc. rashis  for 7319 BCE as per the Ramayana?Â

> 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?Â

> Did no “naked-eyed-jyotishi†tell you that Bhagwan Ram

is destined to rule for as many as eleven thousand years? Â Â 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 GLOBEÂ 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!Â

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!Â

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!Â

> 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 Virignâ€

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

“blacksheep†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-jyotishiâ€

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€.Â

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?

> ***Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

             Â

  **           Â

       **      Â

             Â

          ****  Â

             Â

          *****  Â

          ***

> No wonder, it is such “Vedic astrologersâ€

(“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.â€

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

> Â Â 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.

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

> Â 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.

> Â 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 theÂ

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>