Greeks vs Indians HOLY JEUS! Please Do Not Attack Personally !

April 12, 2009

To All :

Discussions can be carried without personal attacks. Sunil ji says to a member

: " Are you upset as I have opposed the views of Vinayji? "

This is not true. Had Sunil ji carried on the discussion without abusing me

( " worse than a chandala " ) and without answering my well substantiated statements

with sarcastic remarks carrying no substance(cf. brother in Rgveda), other

members would not have disliked Sunilji's remarks. Sunilji has every right to

oppose my views, but these refutations must not be abusive and should be based

on facts. I again request him to calm down.

A friendly advice : If someone has any blood pressure, I request him/her to give

up salt, spices and oils in all food for at least a few weeks (I do the same,

otherwise I would have been infected with the blood pressure of others).

-VJ

================ ===============

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

indian_kachua

Cc:

Sunday, April 12, 2009 3:16:34 AM

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Kachuaji,

Why don't you give the details of what happened in which fora that upsets you so

much? Which shadow bowing I have done and which fora I left? I have not resigned

from any fora uptill now. Kalyanaramanji does not want me in his fora because of

my belief in astrlogy. Kaulji does not want me in his forum as I oppose his

views of Indian astrology. They invited me to their fora and they removed from

their fora. I have no regret for that. Are you upset as I have opposed the views

of Vinayji?

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:03 PM

What prevents the kachua from divulging the names of the forums he is referring

to. Kachua ! can you not substantiate your statements? If you think you have to

present something please do so otherwise stop these hollow statements. That

will be better than your giving judgement on others.

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ > wrote:

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:57 AM

SKB is shadow boxer who use to do on the mails on only and only on one forum

forwarded from other forums.....

He has been fled away from other forums now see his dance here....

He has nothing to present....

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

Indian Kachua had really spurred up Vinayji. Now we can see the great Vedic

scholar in Vinayji.

-SKB

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:22 AM

BROTHERS ???

Sunil ji said : " the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. "

It is a very good idea of Sunil ji for which I support him, excepting for the

fact that Rgveda never said so. There are 33 references to /bhraatr// in entire

Rgveda in all its possible declinations. In 32 instances, it is used for the

Sun, and in the 33rd instance, it is used for the son of Vivasvaana Sun named

Vaivasvata Yama who was also a

brother of Yami (twin). All traditional grammarians deduced it from the root

//bhraash// which means " to shine " , and has forms like bhraach and bhraaj too.

A brother never shines, but the Sun shines. The original Vedic meaning of

bhraatr was " a Sun (because it shines) " , and " brother " is a later Laukika

meaning. Saayana surmised that bhraatr in Rgveda might be related to //bhr// ,

but //bhr// is related to bhartaa which means husband. A father bears/sustains,

and then husband sustains, not the brother. But the Sun shines as well as

sustains everything alive. Hence, the Rgveda says none of us are brothers, only

the Sun is a bhraatr, and at one place (RV, X,10) its son is also a bhraatr.. We

should not impose our laukika meanings upon Vedic meanings. I hope Sunil ji will

take this remark in a positive manner, and will try to consult the original

verses instead of relying upon translations by mlechchhas.

-VJ

____________ _________

_________ __

Indian Kachuaa <indian_kachua@ >

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:28:37 PM

Re: Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Dear Shri Vinayji,

Thanks for so good clarifications.

Please continue with shedding knowledge on us.

Please dont mind with the mails of 'sunil_bhattacharjy a' as we all know he

talks with out and proof.He has to write anything that is all with him.But

please you continue with your knowledge as he is giving opportunity to let you

prove yourself as good and sound scholar.

Please continue.

Luv and Regards

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

Tuesday, April 7,

2009, 6:34 PM

At 4:40 AM GMT today, I made following reply to Sunilji's wrong interpretations

of Manusmriti as well as of my messages, which did not appear in common mailbox,

hence I am posting it again :

>>>>>>>>>> To Sunilji :

According to Manusmriti, " apaankta " brahmin was not only prevented from sitting

among pure brahmins during a shraaddha feast but was not even allowed to see

good brahmins eating in such feasts (iii, 178) ; such a treatment was meted out

to chaandalas in those days, who were similarly segregated during such feasts.

Mahabharata uses the term pankti-dooshaka instead of Manusmriti's " apaankta " ,

but in the same sense. Manusmriti uses the term " pankti-paavana " an an antonym

for " apaankta " , hence " apaankta " is a synonymnfor pankti-dooshaka " , which is

used in MBh together with the term " chaandaala " for such persons. But who are

these " apaankta " persons ? Sunilji and Kaulji say

astrologers were " apaankta " persons, which is not true. Manusmriti has made no

derogatory reference to Jyotishi, even once. On the contrary, in Mn...iii.183-

185, knower of six Vedaangas are declared to be pankti-paavana brahmins, which

proves that Manusmriti regards Jyotishi as a

" pankti-paavana " , which is opposite to " apaankta " or pankti-dooshakas. The

verse which forbids socalled astrologers from sitting in a shraaddha feast (Mn,

iii, 162) uses the word " nakshatreyashcha jeevati " which is same as

nakshatrajeevee. Nakshatrajeevees are pankti-dooshakas and Jyotishis are

pankti-paavanas according to Manusmriti. Nakshatrajeevees are derided in other

ancient texts too, and they are never eulogized in any ancient text I have ever

read. Nakshatrajeevees were not regarded as astrologers, they were viewed as

cheats who rob people by masquerading as astrologers. They were equated with

chaandaalas in MBh. The fault lies in western translators. Buhler

translated Nakshatrajeevee as " astrologer " . Kaulji was cheated by relying on

wrong translations, and Sunilji followed the same wrong line. Nakshatrajeevees

are different from astrologer, the latter was denoted by the revered term

" jyotishi " in all ancient texts including Manusmriti and

MBh. Similarly, all temple-priests are not derided in Manusmriti, please read

the Mn-iii to get the fuller sense on Manusmriti. Sunilji should read properly.

He misreads Manusmriti, MBh and he similarly misreads my paper on 61-year cycle.

I know he is not a dishonest person, he is being carried by uncontrolled anger

against me. Any term must be defined in its proper context only. We have no

right to impose our meanings on ancient terms. While dealing with ancient texts,

we must not forget that these texts were written in contexts and milieus vastly

different from ours.

Sunilji's attitude and language is turning from bad to worse. If he calms down a

bit, he

may see differently. He fails to see why an anti-astrology person should devote

his life to develop free astrological softwares based on ancient predictive

principles ; my only " crime " is that among the myriads of softwares I developed,

I found that Suryasiddhantic Ganita combined with Parashara Phalita best suits

the purposes of predictive astrology. Before delving into Suryasiddhanta, I used

astrological softwares developed by others and then developed astrological

softwares based on modern astronomy myself, but they did not give accurate

Vimshottari timings and divisionals were also not satisfactory. Other software

developers also know this problem, that is why they are experimenting with

various types of year lengths for Vimshottari and with various values of

ayanamsha. Sunilji is not interested in these real problems of astrology and is

merely interested in

solutions of practical problems through word duels, which is a mere wastage of

time.

When Sunilji's unwarranted anger against me subsides, I will request him to read

my paper on 61-year cycle again. At present, he is not in a mood to understand

it properly, and is driven with a wish to refute each and every word from me. I

hope the scientist within him will eventually overcome his unfounded anger. I

tried to use some harsh words in order to compel him to pay heed to facts, but I

failed. I, therefore, apologize for using harsh words, and request him to drop

this thread at present, and discuss the matters after a few days when he calms

down. I know I am much younger to him, but he does not know he is

misinterpreting almost every sentence from me due to anger.

with regards,

-VJ <<<<<<<<<<

I got the following reply from Sunil ji :

" A liar wants to extricate himself by attributing his own mistakes to others and

rejoices. Only a spineless and gutless man is unable to admit

his own mistake. A liar is worse than a chandala. "

My answer is:

What a " scientific method " and " honourable manner " !! I will not take a refuge

in abusing those who abuse me, because I have better words whose worth will be

decided by Time. Nakshatrasoochakas are different from Jyotishis, which Sunilji

does not understand.

Sunilji said : " Vinayji has given only calendar years and he has not mentioned

the months in his paper on monsoon cycles " . I explained the method and my

experiments with all types of years beginning with Jan, feb, Mar, etc, and found

that year beginning with April gives best results as far as long term cyclical

patterns in Monsoons are concerned. Yet he says I said nothing about months

!Either Sunilji is not interested in or not proficient ib this field, or is

deliberately distoring facts. Figures in my papers clearly indicate whether I

use year beginning with January or with April. Two curves superimposed upon

each other have exact difference of 61 years. For 50% of this cycle, repetitive

pattern is clear, for the remaining chaotic half, there is no trace of any

cyclicity. By confusing this 61-year solar cycle with 60-year Jovian cycle (59.3

solar years), does Sunil ji wants to believe that Jovian cycle is true only for

50% and false for the rest 50% ?

Jupiter, Sun and Moon do not return to the same position at the end of 60 years,

60 jovian years are equal to 59.305 solar years, difference is of over 250

degrees or 0.7 years, which is over 8 rashis ! Astrologers make varshaphala at

mesha samkraantis. Error of over 8 rashis will destroy this method. Saturn

completes two cucles in 59 and not in 60 years. A real scientist should not be

so crude.

-VJ

============ =========

, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

>

> Dear

Rohini,

>

> Thank you for the good words.

>

> Yes the Rig Veda says that we are all brothers. But sometimes conflict does

occur like it happened in the Mahabharata days and it happens these days too. We

have to voice our concern and cannot remain indifferent to any wrong-doing. Then

leave it at that. I think that this age is such that all knowledge will spread

and people will be benefitted.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

>

> Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

>

> Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:34 PM

>

> Dear Sunilda,

>

> Please kindly call me rohini, henceforth :-)

> If my own Dada, who was a gift in this lifetime to me and an absolutely

unattainable Role Model, were alive today he would be about your age...

>

> Age aside, your wonderful accomplishments in science and particularly

Chemistry that has always been so endearing to me, if only I had the brains for

it :-) -- is wonderful to hear. Jyotish can certainly benefit from more

scientists, from all disciplines -- and that is the catchword! Most people think

and assume that scientists are simply disorganized, though creative geniuses who

forget what or when they ate last or where they kept their socks (absent-minded

professor stereotype!) but little does the general public realizes how

ridiculously simplistic that perception is.

>

> It is commendable that after spending a long career in an intensive

pursuit such as science is, you have chosen to focus your vast experience and

readily obvious superior mental acumen to the pursuit of astrology/astronomy and

to get to the roots of it. Actually to the roots of humanity in a sense! WE ALL

sometimes overlook and ignore the obvious fact that at one time, long long long

long time ago, there must have been just a few humans and not billions who were

just carted down to planet earth in some space-shape as some newage SCI-FI lore

has tried to convince us from time to time (since early 90's at least since I

had been observing that ground-swell) .

>

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam was not an empty phrase, a mere pleasantry that was

penned by some Ancient Elder just to assuage tensions or a 'feel-good'

affirmation -- I think it was simply an expression of " knowing " , a wisdom that

could only have come from a Parental Divine Source!

>

> Pranaams

>

Rohiniranjan

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy

a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rohiniranjanji,

> >

> > I am sixty eight years old. I heard about you and I will be glad if you

kindly let me know about your age etc.

> >

> > After my M.Sc. in Chemistry I underwent one year's training course in the

Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (now BARC) and then joined that

organisation as a scientist. Thereafter I moved to Chemical Industry. Much

later, ie. towards the end of my career, I changed my field to Environmental

engineering. I have interest in Indian Philosophy, Ancient Indian History and in

Jyotish Shastra. In Jyotish shastra I have equal interest interest in Hindu

astronomy and Hindu astrology. But astrology is really a big subject and in that

I am somewhat like a beginner but I have come to realize the

utility of Astrlogy and see that sooner the world realises its value better it

will be. Astrology ia a boon to the humanity and that is why, even though I am

not an expert in astrology, I do not like anybody condemning astrology without

any basis like Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul isdoing. I came to know about Shri Vinay

Jha first time in the AIA forum and he somehow

> > extricated himself from the bad situation he created for himself in the AIA.

As Sreenadhji invited him to AIA he thought that everybody would worship him

there without questioning. He claimed that he alone has the secret knowledge of

Suryasiddhanta and he went on telling about such things, which he could not

substantiate. However he was in for surprise as AIA, like any other sensible

fora, the AIA members would not tolerate any baseless statement.

> >

> > I too feel now that there is no point in responding to his mails. If anybody

is interested the old

mails of the groups are there to refer to.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ ...>

> > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 7:28 PM

> >

> > Sunil bhai/Dada,

> >

> > I do not know your age but you sound older than me ...

> >

> > Why is this Vinayji becoming so important to you? Each point that you shared

with this forum of thousands of us ants -- had a reference to Vinayji...

> >

> > Who is this " Vinayji " who claims so much of your attention and energy and

why should you think he should ours as well?

> >

> > At least in the post that I responded to?

> >

> > Rohiniranjan

> >

> > , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear all.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

>

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > In all these Vinayji had conveyed to us that he cannot cite a single

> >

> > > reference to support his Saurpaksha and Drikpasha systems of Jyotisha...

> >

> > > I shall not insist on that hereafter.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinayji has overlooked my earlier mail where I said that like a yogi

> >

> > > has a physical body but can move about in his astral body so also

> >

> > > though the Sun has the physical body he can have another body to move

> >

> > > away from his physical body. That is how Surya might have come to Kunti

>

> > > or to Mayasura. We know that Kashyapa rishi also had a son called

> >

> > > Vivasvan (Vivasvat). There was also another Surya rishi, who could also

> >

> > > have taught Mayasura.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinayji had not read my paper carefully and that is why he is telling

> >

> > > that I was speculating on the date of Kalidasa. He had not seen how the

> >

> > > date of Kalidasa wasarrived at. If he did not agree then he could have

> >

> > > frankly told me like I tell him when I do not ahgree with him. If he

> >

> > > knows the date of Kalidasa correctly why does he not tell the group

> >

> > > about it with proof.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 4)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > In the AIA group Vinayji was boasting about his paper on 60-year cycle

> >

> > > of rain, which he claims to have presented in I.I.Sc. and he wanted to

> >

> > > give an interpretation reportedly based on Suryasiddhanta without

> >

> > > establishing any proper connection with Suryasiddhanta and no

> >

> > > appropriate verse from Suryasiddhanta was quoted there. Mind that

> >

> > > Vinayji's paper was only a presentation and there is already a paper

> >

> > > on that topic by the scientists Rajesh Agnihotri and Koushik Dutta,

> >

> > >

published in a peer-riviewed Journal (Current Science, Vol.85, No.4, 25

> >

> > > August,2003) , where the authors were saying about the 60-year

> >

> > > periodicity of Indian Monsoon. I told him that the 60-year Jupiter

> >

> > > cycle (when the Sun, the Moon and the Jupiter meet at the same point)

> >

> > > could be the main reason for this periodicity. In fact any astrologer

> >

> > > worth his salt may know about this cycle and even the Saturn comes to

> >

> > > its earlier position in 60-years after completing two 30-year cycles.

> >

> > > But Vinayji got afrronted. He should have explained to us in what way

> >

> > > his paper is different from the earlier works and the 60-year Jupiter

> >

> > > cycle but instead of that he flew in rage at our questioning the

> >

> > > newness in his work. He wants everybody to accept his claims as divine

> >

> > > truth and without questioning. He labels any questioning as a personal

> >

> > > attack on him.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 5)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinayji says

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > You got

the fact of eastward flow of Saptasindhu from me, and now you

> >

> > > will use it in your essays, without acknowledging me for being the

> >

> > > source of this information, and instead have already started abusing me

after getting this information.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Let him quote what exactly I wrote in the AIA forum in my first mails

> >

> > > in response to his claim that eastward-flowing Saraswati started

> >

> > > flowing to the west and that will show him that his own memory is

> >

> > >

playing tricks with him.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 6)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > He says I have not discussed astrology but I do so with others. Others

> >

> > > do not claim secret knowledge which cannot be divulged like Vinayji

> >

> > > does. He says only a tapasvi can have the secret knowledge (and by this

> >

> > > he implies that he is a tapasvi and therefore what he says must be

> >

> > > accepted unquestioningly) and I regret to have to express my inability

> >

> > > to discuss astrology with such a person claimihg to be sitting on a

> >

> > > vast storehose of ancient secret knowledge. If he comes down to the

> >

> > > normal

human-level of sharing knowledge I should have no hesitation to

> >

> > > discuss astrology with him. However I must admit that am not a veteran

> >

> > > in astrology and I am just collecting pebbles on the shore.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 7)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinayji compares his contribution with that of Chandrahariji. Not that

> >

> > > I agree with everything that Chandrahariji says but I appreciate that

> >

> > > Chandrahariji published papers in peer-reviewed journals against

> >

> > > Vinayji's papers, which were either just presented in conferences or

> >

> > > given in his own websites.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > 8)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Vinayji questioned as to what I contributed in astrology. I want to

> >

> > > assure Vinayji that I am still learning astrology and I do ask

> >

> > > questions like a student who wants to understand a subject and do not

> >

> > > claim to have mastered the subject. But I believe that I have right to

> >

> > > question anything what appears to me as mistranslation and

> >

> > > misinterpretation. I questioned Kaulji because he said that we cannot

> >

> > > call Indian astrology as Vedic astrology and that the Indians learnt

> >

> > > astrology from the Greeks and that Varahamihira had copied everything

> >

> > >

from Sphridhvaj and Kaulji had called Varahamihira a charlatan. As a

> >

> > > student of Indian jyotisha I cannot tolerate that. He misinterpreted a

> >

> > > verse to interpret that Varahamihira accepted the superior knowledge of

> >

> > > the Geeks in astrology for which they command respect but actually that

> >

> > > verse meant just the reverse. Kaulji said that the astrologers are

> >

> > > Chandalas without knowing that any dishonest person in any profession

> >

> > > is a Chandala. He did not accept that astrology was known in the

> >

> > > ancient times in India though he himself said that Manu mentioned that

> >

> > > astrologers are not to be invited to participate in Devakarya and

> >

> > > Pitrikarya and he was withholding the fact the physicians and the

> >

> > > temple priest are also not to be invited for these ceremonies. Kaulji

> >

> > > did not know the proper dates of Vedanga jyotisha and I only protested

> >

> > > against that and told him what those dates should be. I am protesting

> >

> > > against such harms being done to astrology and Hindu civilization.

> >

> > > There are several such issues where I contested his knowledge. He may

> >

> > > know astrology but he must accept the human limitations in

> >

> > > interpreting the effects of the stars and not just condemn Hindu

> >

> > > astrology citing examples where the fake astrologers have failed. A

> >

> > > genuine astrologer tells his clients that the predictions are from his

> >

> > > past karmaphal and that his present karma is in his hand and that

> >

> > > present karma will have effect too. Hindu astrology is not fatalistic

> >

> > > but constructive. If something bad is likely to happen one can work

> >

> > > towards changing that. The basic purpose of Hindu astrology is to

> >

> > > change that if any bad thing is like to happen through some

> >

> > > counter-balancing good karma. Parashara and other greats had that

> >

> > > approach. Thus a good astrologer tries to make the predictions fail if

> >

> > > necessary and this failure is in fact a triumph of astrology. But

> >

> > > people like Kaulji does not have the insight to understand that. I have

> >

> > > devoted sometime to protest what Kaulji is saying lest he misguides

> >

> > > some of my gullible brothers and sisters by misinterpreting the

> >

> > > efficacy and the purpose of astrology. Kaulji should channelise his

> >

> > > energies properly and he must have respect for Hindu astrology. Jyotish

> >

> > > shastra contains both astronomy and astrology. So he cannot go on

> >

> > > condemning Hindu astrology and then go to rectify Hindu calendar. I

> >

> > > think that the past greats like Parashara had done tremendous work in

> >

> > > astrology and if we master those what they said would be enough

at

> >

> > > least for people at ordinary level in which I am there as I do not

> >

> > > claim to be a great tapasvi like Vinayji thinks himself to be.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Finally Vinayji may be a veteran in astrology and may have his admirers as

he

> >

> > > very often quotes the names of many professors to prove that. I am just

> >

> > > a beginner in astrology and I cannot compare myself with Vinayji. I am

> >

> > > not claiming any superiority over Vinayji in astrology and I cannot assert

that

> >

> > > myself as it is upto the others to say if I had made any contribution

> >

> > > so far and it is

also upto them to judge where I stand vis-a-vis

> >

> > > Vinayji, if they have the time and desire to make any such comparison.. .

> >

> > > I am just putting forth my views as they have given me an opportunity

> >

> > > to do so, for which I am thankful to them.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > However I wish to ask Vinayji as to how can he say that I have not made

any contribution in Science and Technology when I published a number of papers

in peer-reviewed National and International Scientific and Technical journals of

repute and presented a number of papers in big Scientific and Technical seminars

and also have a number of patents to my credit. Mr. Vinayji with this sort of

statement are you fulfilling your self-claimed vow that you would never lie?

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Regards nevertheless,

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunil. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ ...>

> >

> > > Re: Greeks vs Indians <HOLY JEUS!>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:12 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > To ALL :

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Since this thread may be read by other sincere members, I must add here

> >

> > >

> >

> > > that the very purpose of my joining any astrological forum was to show

> >

> > >

> >

> > > concrete proofs of both physical and non-physical astrology in a

> >

> > >

>

> > > comparati

Sign In

Greeks vs Indians HOLY JEUS! Please Do Not Attack Personally !

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads