Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 NShri Harimallaji, You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide with Pausha month. You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras.. Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. I summarise the above as follows: 1) Show precedents, 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? Sincerely --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM Dear sir, Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear friend, > > You said: > > Quote > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > Unauote > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > Dear sir, > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a.> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge.. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect > us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person.. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12.. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc.. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available.. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya . wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar.. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are my observations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Sunil Da, You are mistaken is asserting " Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. " Some members say Suryasiddhanta is not Veda. Some others say Suryasiddhanta is not Dharmashastra. And some say it is foreign importation. But none of them says that Suryasiddhantawas never derided in this manner by any ancient Indian scholar. There are said to be 18 original siddhanta originating from gods or Rishis. Only Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other siddhantas are made by scholars and not by Rishis, and their basic design is based upon Suryasiddhanta and not upon physical astronomy. All astronomical/astrological statements in each and every Purana is strictly according to Suryasiddhanta (I have shown it already in the context of yuga system, giving reference from various puranas). Siddhanta, Samhita and Hora are three skandhas of Jyotisha. Samhita and Hora are parts of Phalita (predictive astrology), and are based on Siddhanta. Suryasiddhantais the only apaurusheya siddhanta, even according to Varaha Mihira. Hence, it is the foundation of Jyotisha, the most important of all Vedangas and therefore accorded the status of Eye of Veda. Dharmashatra, strictly speaking, is not mathematics and cannot include Suryasiddhanta. But it is utterly wrong to say that Suryasiddhanta is not Dharmashatra, because Dharmashatra cannot function without Jyotisha/Suryasiddhanta. It is only in during the period of decline of Dharma that Suryasiddhanta became the object of attack. After the importation of physical astronomy from Khwarezm by muslims, Suryasiddhanta was declared to be ourdated by unscrupulous astrologers who did not bother to check that it was never up-to-date in the sense that it never conformed with phuysical astronomy even within wide ranges of 10 degrees. Such great differences between Suryasiddhantic planets and physical planets, which were even greater in past because the difference increases at the rate of 1 degree per 117 years as we go into past, means that all our ancient scholars were idiots to have believed in Suryasiddhanta. Analysis of past data has shown that difference between Suryasiddhantic and physical planets is minimum around 2000 AD, it was greater in the past. Difference in Lagna was ever greater. Only in modern period this difference has come down to minimum level, to half a degree for Sun and 1-2 degrees for most planets, and only occassionally more than 2 degrees. Hence, even Drikpakshiya computations now give 70% tolerable results (it is the conclusion of Mr Arun Bansal, editor of Future Point, and maker of Leo Gold, a Drikpakshiya software). But in the past, Drikpaksha gave totally wrong results in astrology, and was therefore not used by anyone. Dharmashatra was completely based on Suryasiddhanta. Till mid-20 century, traditional astrologers used to worship Suryasiddhanta. Its greatness is incomparably greater than the combined achievements of all modern scientists, because it is about the unseen divine world whose influences control the destinies of men and nations, while the works of physical scientists are about the perceived world which can be easily studied directly by everyone. This unseen world can be studied only by Rishis. The only proof of Suryasiddhanta is astrological. -VJ ============================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:58:34 PM Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras NShri Harimallaji, You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide with Pausha month. You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. I summarise the above as follows: 1) Show precedents, 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? Sincerely --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketmai l.com> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM Dear sir, Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear friend, > > You said: > > Quote > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > Unauote > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > Dear sir, > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a.> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge.. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect > us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person.. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12.. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc.. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available.. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya . wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar.. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are my observations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Dear Vinay, The Jyotish Shastra is a Vedanga and I think according to the Narada Purana it had 400,000 verses in all its three skandhas combined. If I remember correctly Pingree mentioned in the introduction to his translation of the Shuridhvaja's Yavana Jataka that there is a belief that the Suryasiddhanta had 100,000 verses. I also believe that Suryasiddhanta is originally Indian and the lost Aryasiddhanta of Aryabhatta-I was based on that and subsequently Suryasiddhanta was mentioned in Varahamihira's work. But I have not yet come across anywhere in the puranas referring to Surysiddhanta by that name. The original name of the Suryasiddhanta in the ancient days of the Vedas could have been different. Secondly we know that the puranas have been given the exalted status of the Fifth Veda. I am yet to see any such conferment of the exalted status to the Suryasiddhanta. If you are in the know of it you may please let us know. Best wishes, SKB Please do not hesitate to correct me if I m wrong. --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:30 AM Sunil Da, You are mistaken is asserting " Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. " Some members say Suryasiddhanta is not Veda. Some others say Suryasiddhanta is not Dharmashastra. And some say it is foreign importation. But none of them says that Suryasiddhantawas never derided in this manner by any ancient Indian scholar. There are said to be 18 original siddhanta originating from gods or Rishis. Only Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other siddhantas are made by scholars and not by Rishis, and their basic design is based upon Suryasiddhanta and not upon physical astronomy. All astronomical/ astrological statements in each and every Purana is strictly according to Suryasiddhanta (I have shown it already in the context of yuga system, giving reference from various puranas). Siddhanta, Samhita and Hora are three skandhas of Jyotisha. Samhita and Hora are parts of Phalita (predictive astrology), and are based on Siddhanta. Suryasiddhantais the only apaurusheya siddhanta, even according to Varaha Mihira. Hence, it is the foundation of Jyotisha, the most important of all Vedangas and therefore accorded the status of Eye of Veda. Dharmashatra, strictly speaking, is not mathematics and cannot include Suryasiddhanta. But it is utterly wrong to say that Suryasiddhanta is not Dharmashatra, because Dharmashatra cannot function without Jyotisha/Suryasiddh anta. It is only in during the period of decline of Dharma that Suryasiddhanta became the object of attack. After the importation of physical astronomy from Khwarezm by muslims, Suryasiddhanta was declared to be ourdated by unscrupulous astrologers who did not bother to check that it was never up-to-date in the sense that it never conformed with phuysical astronomy even within wide ranges of 10 degrees. Such great differences between Suryasiddhantic planets and physical planets, which were even greater in past because the difference increases at the rate of 1 degree per 117 years as we go into past, means that all our ancient scholars were idiots to have believed in Suryasiddhanta. Analysis of past data has shown that difference between Suryasiddhantic and physical planets is minimum around 2000 AD, it was greater in the past. Difference in Lagna was ever greater. Only in modern period this difference has come down to minimum level, to half a degree for Sun and 1-2 degrees for most planets, and only occassionally more than 2 degrees. Hence, even Drikpakshiya computations now give 70% tolerable results (it is the conclusion of Mr Arun Bansal, editor of Future Point, and maker of Leo Gold, a Drikpakshiya software). But in the past, Drikpaksha gave totally wrong results in astrology, and was therefore not used by anyone. Dharmashatra was completely based on Suryasiddhanta. Till mid-20 century, traditional astrologers used to worship Suryasiddhanta. Its greatness is incomparably greater than the combined achievements of all modern scientists, because it is about the unseen divine world whose influences control the destinies of men and nations, while the works of physical scientists are about the perceived world which can be easily studied directly by everyone. This unseen world can be studied only by Rishis. The only proof of Suryasiddhanta is astrological. -VJ ============ ========= ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:58:34 PM Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras NShri Harimallaji, You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide with Pausha month. You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. I summarise the above as follows: 1) Show precedents, 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? Sincerely --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM Dear sir, Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear friend, > > You said: > > Quote > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > Unauote > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > Dear sir, > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a.> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge.. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect > us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person.. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12.. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc.. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available.. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya . wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar.. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are my observations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Sunil Da, The last verse of Suryasiddhanta says it is " rahasyam Brahma sammitam " . It was a secret, given onlt to disciples according to a verse in Suryasiddhanta itself. Like Vedas and Tantras, Suryasiddhanta was not written down. But unlike Vedas and Tantras, Suryasiddhanta could not be understood by those who followed it and even worshipped it. Only good mathematicians could understand it. Besides, even for good mathematicians it is impossible to make panchangas directly from the formulae of Suryasiddhanta, because no mortal can carry out so much computations manually. Hence, Tantra (not Tantra of philosophy but Tantra of Jyotisha) and Karana texts were prepared out of siddhanta, and these crude Tantra and Karana texts were used by practical panchanga makers. Varaha Mihira's Panchansiddhangtika is a crude Karana text, and Aryabhatiya is a Tantra text. So are all other ient or mediaeval available ancmathematical texts which can be used for panchanga making. Panchanga makers only know the name of Suryasiddhanta, and of them remember few verses, but none kn ows how how to make true planets from Suryasiddhantic formulae (excepting me, that is why I defeated a recognized Sanskrit university in a high court case : cf. http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Credentials ). There are better scholars of Sanskrit or Jyotisha texts than me, there are better monks, but no monk gives his life to Jyotisha and no Sanskrit scholar of astrology is a brahmachaari ; that is why the practical equations of Suryasiddhanta cannot be given to them. Till now, I have failed to find a brahmachaari student fit for Suryasiddhanta, although I have one such student who is a real brahmachaari and may learn Suryasiddhanta in future, but he is weak in mathematics at present and is learning it. I hope you will not take these words as a boasting, but as a problem faced by me. My Guruji was a lifelong brahmachaari, he was PhD from London's School of African and Oriental Studies (1948-50). He was a Vice Chancellor in my university (without taking salary) and had numerous students. But he gave the equatuons only to m e, because other students were interested in other fields, not in Jyotisha, and Jyotishis were not ready to follow his strict rules of Vedic Brahmavaada. I have relaxed some of the rules, yet I fail to find learners. That is why I made softwares out of suryasiddhanta, in order to preserve it, and if I fail to find any good student I will publish all I know before I leave this world (I know when I will leave). I am working on that book. The proof of apaurushetatva and status of Suryasiddhanta can be easily demonstrated, but only to those who do not have a bias against it. That proof is simple : Point (1) Jyotisha is revered as a part of Veda in ancient scriptures, which means Jyotisha was regarded as divine REVEALED science like the Veda, and not an empirical science as you believe. There is no proof of any Rishi DISCOVERING anything either in Veda or in Jyotisha : ancient texts say Jyotisha, both Ganita and Phalita, was revealed to Rishis. For instance, BPHS was revealed to Sage Parashara by Brahmaa Ji. Point (2) Ancient texts say Jyotisha had three skandhas : Siddhanta, Hora and Samhita. Siddhanta was another name for Ganita which excluded the mathematices involved in Hora and Samhita : Ganita meant purely theory as well as practical methods of computing planetary positions & c. Hora needs planetary positions but uses the positions given in panchangas, students of Hora or Samhitaa do not study formulae of planetary postions nor use these formulae to compute planetary positions. Thus, Siddhanta was the mathematical FOUNDATION of all Jyotisha. Point (3) There were 18 ancient siddhangta as mentioned in ancient texts, and all of them were apaurusheya, ie, given either by gods directly to persons performing tapasyaa, or revealed to rishis. Whitney published a confusing list of 19 siddhantas, in which he included many mediaeval works too and excluded many archaic siddhantas. None of these archaic REVEALED siddhantas are now extant, excepting the Suryasiddhanta, which was clearly called apaurusheya by Varaha Mihira. Some modern authors have falsely imagined Surya to be some mortal composing this siddhanta around 400 AD (-Burgess, with false " proofs " ) or some centuries before (as some Indians say, without proofs). Now, join above three points. Only Suryasiddhanta is extant among all apaurusheya siddhantyas, and Jyotisha is meaningless and non-existent without siddhant, and Jyotisha is Vedanga. What conclusion can one derive ? Now, let me give another proof. Mahabharata says Girivraja was 99 yojanas from Mathura. Suryasiddhanta says Earth's diameter is 1600 yojanas. Using this value of diameter, distance of Mathura from Girivraja come out to be 98.504886 yojanas, which was rounded to 99 by Vyas Ji for versification. During entire historical epoch, the value of Earth's diameter were believed to range mostly around 3200 yojanas, which was used even by Aryabhatiya (with minor modification) and Varaha Mihira. This wrong value originated in some prehistoric period of Kaliyuga due to Earth's conception not as a spheroid abut as a circle, hence its circumference was doubled instead of being multiplied with 'pi' (ie, even this wrong circumference of 3200 yojanas originated from Suryasiddhantic diameter). This can be proven only through a detailed discussion of Spashtaadhikaara chapters of all available siddhants, which I have already analysed and found that the formulae used by these scholars of historical period used Earth's circumference around ~5000 yojanas in actual formulae of computing planetary positions, but stated in madhyamaadhikaara that Earth's circumference was only ~3200 yojanas !! This contradiction implies that they took formulae from Suryasiddhanta but their statement about reduced circumference was taken from social practice. Such self-contradictions are rife in all Paurusheya siddhantas / Tantras / Karanas, but not in Suryasiddhanta, which is the onlt text without ant self-contradiction of this type. this proves that the yojaya used by Suryasiddhanta was not used during historicak period. During historical period, a larger value of yojana was used, which originated from a wrong conception of circular Earh which was flat, and had polar circunference just double of diameter, while equatorial circumference was 'pi' times of diameter. It is thus proven that Suryasiddhantic yojana was pre-historic. It also proves that the basic story of Mahabharata was written during same prehistoric period, because such a measure of Yojana was unknown to In dians in all historical ages. Such a conclusion is reinforced by other facts. Rajgir was the capital of Magadha when historical period begins, while Girivraja was the capital in Mahabharata. Hence, the Mahabharata's main story was written down in some remote pre-Buddha period when Suryasiddhantic yojana was in vogue. A good conclusion is that either the original author of Suryasiddhanta discovered the value of 'pi', or if Suryasiddhanta is denied any credit (due to prejudice) then at least Vyasa Ji should be credited with discovering the value of 'pi', unless it cannot be explained how he computed the distance of Mathura from Girivraja. Modern " scholars " complacently IGNORE such proofs. I published such evidences in my book in Hindi which went out of print soon after publication in 2005 AD. In the same way, all other computational and other ideas in epic and Puranas related to Jyotisha are directly based upon Suryasiddhanta, although some portions in MBh and Puranas were interpolated during the great Dark Age of ~2350-1750 BC, when the followers of Mahishaasura were ruling all over India and their chief towns were concentrated in Indus-Sarasvati valleys. These Asuras worshipped a special form of Mahishaasura whom they wanted to make Shiva (cf. socalled Pashupati seal of Harappa with buffalo's horns, naked body with erect Phallus, which is anti-Vedic (Rgveda derides Shishnadevas) and reminds one of Vaamamaargi Tantricism. I am amused that you want only literry proofs, and refuse to examine the real proofs of Suryasiddhanta, which is the Unified field Theory. Once you wanted to learn Suryasiddhanta. With a prejudiced mind, you will never be able to learn a Divine science. If you really want to learn it, approach it with a blank mind, an impartial attitude and truly scientific spirit. Please do not feel offended. I do not want to offend you. I am outlining the only possible method of approaching Suryasiddhanta. Check the 20 horoscopes made from Suryasiddhanta as well as 20 horoscopes made from physical astronomy, ans compare their results ASTROLOGICALLY. Suryasiddhanta proves to be perfect astrologically in 100% cases. Astrologer earning their livlihood from some particular method will never accept their megthod to be wrong. They will either abuse me or avoid any impartial examikn ation of Suryasiddhanta wrt physical astronomy on the groung of astrological efficacy. But you do not earn from asttrology. You can do this pious job. The moment you start testing Suryasiddhanta ASTROLOGICALLY, instead of wasting time in historical and logical discussions without practical tests, you will become a fan of Suryasiddhanta due to its 100% astrological perfection. You already possess requite skills in doing so. Physical Astronomy is perfect for physical world, not for astrology. Proof lies in astrological analysis of horoscopes, not in historical or logical discussions. Sincerely. -VJ =================================== == ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:59:10 AM Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Dear Vinay, The Jyotish Shastra is a Vedanga and I think according to the Narada Purana it had 400,000 verses in all its three skandhas combined. If I remember correctly Pingree mentioned in the introduction to his translation of the Shuridhvaja' s Yavana Jataka that there is a belief that the Suryasiddhanta had 100,000 verses. I also believe that Suryasiddhanta is originally Indian and the lost Aryasiddhanta of Aryabhatta-I was based on that and subsequently Suryasiddhanta was mentioned in Varahamihira' s work. But I have not yet come across anywhere in the puranas referring to Surysiddhanta by that name. The original name of the Suryasiddhanta in the ancient days of the Vedas could have been different. Secondly we know that the puranas have been given the exalted status of the Fifth Veda. I am yet to see any such conferment of the exalted status to the Suryasiddhanta. If you are in the know of it you may please let us know. Best wishes, SKB Please do not hesitate to correct me if I m wrong. --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:30 AM Sunil Da, You are mistaken is asserting " Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. " Some members say Suryasiddhanta is not Veda. Some others say Suryasiddhanta is not Dharmashastra. And some say it is foreign importation. But none of them says that Suryasiddhantawas never derided in this manner by any ancient Indian scholar. There are said to be 18 original siddhanta originating from gods or Rishis. Only Suryasiddhanta has survived. All other siddhantas are made by scholars and not by Rishis, and their basic design is based upon Suryasiddhanta and not upon physical astronomy. All astronomical/ astrological statements in each and every Purana is strictly according to Suryasiddhanta (I have shown it already in the context of yuga system, giving reference from various puranas). Siddhanta, Samhita and Hora are three skandhas of Jyotisha. Samhita and Hora are parts of Phalita (predictive astrology), and are based on Siddhanta. Suryasiddhantais the only apaurusheya siddhanta, even according to Varaha Mihira. Hence, it is the foundation of Jyotisha, the most important of all Vedangas and therefore accorded the status of Eye of Veda. Dharmashatra, strictly speaking, is not mathematics and cannot include Suryasiddhanta. But it is utterly wrong to say that Suryasiddhanta is not Dharmashatra, because Dharmashatra cannot function without Jyotisha/Suryasiddh anta. It is only in during the period of decline of Dharma that Suryasiddhanta became the object of attack. After the importation of physical astronomy from Khwarezm by muslims, Suryasiddhanta was declared to be ourdated by unscrupulous astrologers who did not bother to check that it was never up-to-date in the sense that it never conformed with phuysical astronomy even within wide ranges of 10 degrees. Such great differences between Suryasiddhantic planets and physical planets, which were even greater in past because the difference increases at the rate of 1 degree per 117 years as we go into past, means that all our ancient scholars were idiots to have believed in Suryasiddhanta. Analysis of past data has shown that difference between Suryasiddhantic and physical planets is minimum around 2000 AD, it was greater in the past. Difference in Lagna was ever greater. Only in modern period this difference has come down to minimum level, to half a degree for Sun and 1-2 degrees for most planets, and only occassionally more than 2 degrees. Hence, even Drikpakshiya computations now give 70% tolerable results (it is the conclusion of Mr Arun Bansal, editor of Future Point, and maker of Leo Gold, a Drikpakshiya software). But in the past, Drikpaksha gave totally wrong results in astrology, and was therefore not used by anyone. Dharmashatra was completely based on Suryasiddhanta. Till mid-20 century, traditional astrologers used to worship Suryasiddhanta. Its greatness is incomparably greater than the combined achievements of all modern scientists, because it is about the unseen divine world whose influences control the destinies of men and nations, while the works of physical scientists are about the perceived world which can be easily studied directly by everyone. This unseen world can be studied only by Rishis. The only proof of Suryasiddhanta is astrological. -VJ ============ ========= ========= == ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:58:34 PM Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras NShri Harimallaji, You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide with Pausha month. You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. I summarise the above as follows: 1) Show precedents, 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? Sincerely --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM Dear sir, Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear friend, > > You said: > > Quote > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > Unauote > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > Sincerely > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote: > > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > Dear sir, > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > Quote > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a.> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge.. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect > us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person.. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12.. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc.. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available.. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya . wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar.. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are my observations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. So mother is to be given the first priority.She(seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. Sincerely yours, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > NShri Harimallaji, > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > with Pausha month. > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras.. Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > I summarise the above as follows: > > 1) Show precedents, > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > Sincerely > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > Dear sir, > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear friend, > > > > You said: > > > > Quote > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > Unauote > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > Sincerely > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no knowledge of the Shastras, but have studied science. He is commenting on the effects of starts on us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He says - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > show that actually none of the stars effect us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he is so enamored by Science, let him understand the basic two-slit experiment in quantum physics (infact the first basic step in understanding quantum physics) which no scientist has been able to understand and explain. How can two electrons millions of light years away influence each other? How do they know about each other? He should read about it and then he should just shut up, and not comment based on his so-called scientific knowledge. And he should wait for science to come up with an explanation (which it never can) and then comment on anything!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 21/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a.> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge.. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows, " Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull " .Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not misquote me and say " also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect > > us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You see the western people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person.. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK then good bye for today.Take care. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimalla, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12.. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very > concerned > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dharma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say as follows? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided the Modearorji approves such discussions here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerley, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said as follows " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc.. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden " meanings! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available.. I could not find it on INSA site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With regaqrds, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya . wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar.. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Malhotraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > K K Mehrotra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are my observations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & gt% > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable.To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? thank you, Regards, Hari Malla casued thereby. , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > Sinil Da, > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > Thanks > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > Sunil Da, > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > -VJ > > ============ ======== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ======= === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > Sincerely yours, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > with Pausha month. > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, sincerely lyours, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, We should agree, we have had two nirayan uttarayan in the last 3400 years.One was sun in dhnistha for 1700years and another sun in makar sankranti for about 1700years. It is now time we searched for another sun positon as the new solar uttarayan.Right? Please give your opinion as to the new limit of ayanamsa as 15 degrees instead of the 27 degrees as mentioned in Surya sidhnanta to continue our solilunar system as it is.Thank you, Regards, Hari Malla , " harimalla " <harimalla wrote: > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > sincerely lyours, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ <harimalla@> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ <harimalla@> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > Sincerely yours, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Thank you for expressing your frank opinion.This way we will surely clarify all our misunderstandings.Mostly I have found, modern reformers have not come to understnd our vedic system inspite of the fact that they think they know aboutit.the discussions were started in the nineteenth century,with the discussion between the sayan vadis and the nirayan vadis. They have been in two different camps because they did not properly understand our own sytem.This is the reason our calendar reform has dragged for nearly one and half century without result. Let me now explain what is nirayan uttarayan and what is sayan uttarayan.There are two types of nirayan uttarayan, the solar and the lunar uttarayans.During the vedanga jyotish, the solar uttarayan was sun in dhanistha and the lunar uttaryan was maagha sukla pratipada.During the sidhanta jyotish time they were shifted as follows.The solar uttarayan was shifted to sun in makar sankranti and the lunar uttarayan was shifted to Poush purnima.These dates we are still following although their effectivness has already expired. Now I will tell you about the sayan uttarayan.The tropical uttarayan , which is the only uttarayan you know may be called as the sayan uttarayan.We are not allowed to celebrate teh uttrayan festival by this date, although it is the actual uttrayan as observed by our physical senses.This is the vedic method which can be verified by practiced festivals.Please check. About the antiquity, I only want the correct dates accepted by the majority of the scholars, but we seem to try to stretch them finding all excuses to do so.Only this is my objection, not the correct dates. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > You make me laugh. What is Nirayana Uttarayana? Uttarayana occurs every year since the solar system came to be. It occurred at different nakshaytras at different times. Nakshatrasare Nirayana and if you do not know this simple fundamental thing then please do not waste time. > > Secondly you said: > > Quote > > Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional. > > Unquote > > Avtar krishen Kaul abuses Varahamihira and calls him Charlatan and accuses him that he had stolen astrology from the Greeks. All this is because Avtar Kaul does not know the true date of Varahamihira or pretends not to know that. So the Antiquity is the most most most important thing. I have told him that Varahamihira's date is 427 of Sakendra kala as given by Varahamihira himself and Sakendra kala is different from the Shalivahana saka. But he is bent upon repeating the same record everytime. Next time please do not say that antiquity is not important. > > SKB > > > -- On Sat, 7/4/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Saturday, July 4, 2009, 1:34 AM > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > We should agree, we have had two nirayan uttarayan in the last 3400 years.One was sun in dhnistha for 1700years and another sun in makar sankranti for about 1700years. It is now time we searched for another sun positon as the new solar uttarayan.Right? > Please give your opinion as to the new limit of ayanamsa as 15 degrees instead of the 27 degrees as mentioned in Surya sidhnanta to continue our solilunar system as it is.Thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > , " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > > sincerely lyours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ <harimalla@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ <harimalla@> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > tithi > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > May be 1400 BCE then. > > SKB Hey Dada-bhai, Wasn't that when Velikowsky said venus broke off Jupiter, hurtled across the earth, made it stop, do a cartwheel (N becase S, S became N and then we all ended up with Venus full of Sulphuric Acid while Jupiter remained full of Hydrogen ;-) Love your sense of humour ;-) Rohini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Jhaaji, Namaskar! Sorry,I admit it was my mistake to think of maagha sukla pratipada occurring 864 times in 72 years,but then since you agree that it occurs 72 times, and thus sun and moon together residing in dhanistha during that period is 72 times.Then why do you think it is not possible for the event to occur even once? Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Sunil Da, > > Mr Hari Malla says : > > <<< " So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. " >>> > > One Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa occurs in one average luni-solar year. In 72 years, there will be 72 occurrences of Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa, and not 72 x 12. All 12 months are not Maagha. this is one pitiable mistake of Mr Malla. Secondly, Sun and Moon do not reside in Dhanishthaa always. Mr Malla is adamant on refuting me, by means of distorting some facts and neglecting others. Which Dharma-shaastra is he supporting by distorting facts ?? > > Mr Hari Malla says : > > <<< " I do not know why he (Vinay Jha) thinks like that. " >>> > > Should I reproduce my past messages to Mr Malla in which I explained in detail why I " thinks like that " ?? I wasted much of my my time in explaining to him that lunar Maagha was impossible around 1400 BCE, and he simply ignored to discuss that point. But it is unethical to deny that I explained my point to him. > > Mr Malla makes much hue and cry about purity of lunar months and wants to change even ayanamsha and nirayana solar year for preserving the supposed sanctity of lunar month ; now, he thinks " we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details. " What a " scientific " way to make a selective study of facts !!! Discard those facts which do not fit into your prejudices, and thus prove your prejudices to be true !! > > -VJ > ========================= == > > > > > ________________________________ > " harimalla " <harimalla > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:40:21 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > sincerely lyours, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > Sincerely yours, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Sunil da, Even the densest of atoms has more space than substance. The Universe is full of holes! RR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Jhaaji, Sorry I cannot say, Lahiri's calculations are more authentic than the version of vedanga jyotish who are talking with first hand knowledge, about their own epoch.Please forgive me. When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. From the beginning of dhanistha to the beginning of makar rashi, it is seven padas.If uttarayan occurred at the beginning of makar rashi, in 285 AD, simple calculation says sun in dhanistha was seven ninth of 2150 years or 1672 YEARS BEFORE 285 AD, which is 1387 BC or approximately 1400 BC. Only simple people can get such simple answer, but the answer for exta-ordinary persons seems also to be extra ordinary.I actually don't know what that is and I am not interested to learn any extraordinary mathematics by going to extra ordinary schools? Sorry to disappoint you. But I do not mind if you have some educative comments for this simple calculation I have presented above.If you can show where I have erred in the above calculation, please do not hesitate to teach me, but please without bringing new factors into your calculations out of your own fancies.Then after settling the above calcualtions, perhaps we can talk further about tithi fluctuations etc.First thing first please. Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Malla Ji, > > 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa), and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. > > I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. > > I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. > > The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. > > Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. > > > Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I > get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their > corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have > been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. > > You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or > mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you > are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept > correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for > learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit > together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as > Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. > > Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical opinions, because you are incapable of devoting somne time on actual computations. Computing lunar month for 5000 years is a great task which needs the knowledge of panchanga making as well as computer programming, because manually one cannot do this job even if one knows the method. Colebrooke did not possess a computer and therefore erred. But had he possessed a computer, he would have computed lunar month before arriving at any decision. A computer is basically made for computing, but you are using it for spreading anti-computational purposes, for spreading wrong ideas against mathematical proofs. > > Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I > get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their > corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have > been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. > > You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or > mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you > are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept > correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for > learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit > together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as > Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Eithe show your computations proving the possibility of Magha Shukla Pratipada when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa during uttarayana around 1400 BCE, or stop your wrong messages without backing your statements with computational evidence. > > -VJ > ====================== = > > > ________________________________ > " harimalla " <harimalla > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:37:44 AM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji, > Namaskar! Sorry,I admit it was my mistake to think of maagha sukla pratipada occurring 864 times in 72 years,but then since you agree that it occurs 72 times, and thus sun and moon together residing in dhanistha during that period is 72 times.Then why do you think it is not possible for the event to occur even once? > Regards, > Hari Malla > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > Mr Hari Malla says : > > > > <<< " So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. " >>> > > > > One Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa occurs in one average luni-solar year. In 72 years, there will be 72 occurrences of Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa, and not 72 x 12. All 12 months are not Maagha. this is one pitiable mistake of Mr Malla. Secondly, Sun and Moon do not reside in Dhanishthaa always. Mr Malla is adamant on refuting me, by means of distorting some facts and neglecting others. Which Dharma-shaastra is he supporting by distorting facts ?? > > > > Mr Hari Malla says : > > > > <<< " I do not know why he (Vinay Jha) thinks like that. " >>> > > > > Should I reproduce my past messages to Mr Malla in which I explained in detail why I " thinks like that " ?? I wasted much of my my time in explaining to him that lunar Maagha was impossible around 1400 BCE, and he simply ignored to discuss that point. But it is unethical to deny that I explained my point to him. > > > > Mr Malla makes much hue and cry about purity of lunar months and wants to change even ayanamsha and nirayana solar year for preserving the supposed sanctity of lunar month ; now, he thinks " we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details. " What a " scientific " way to make a selective study of facts !!! Discard those facts which do not fit into your prejudices, and thus prove your prejudices to be true !! > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:40:21 PM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > > sincerely lyours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > tithi > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Bhattachajyaji, I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, But it is interesting to note that many people like Jhaaji think that now adays the system is basically Amanta but they do not know that, it is actully purnimanta by the definition I have given. At present uttarayan is taken at poush purnima, thus the present system is Purnimanta.This is proven by the fact that maagh snan is done at poush purnima, as per the dharma shastras. Since many of the festivals belong to the vedanga jyotish days,the Amanta system is also prevalent as an alternative.Thus at present, both the system are running parallely.At present we may say,poush purnima is the purnimanta uttarayan and maagh sukla pratipada is the amanta uttarayan, continured from thevedanga jyotish days. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > Quote > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > Unquote > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > -VJ > ============ ========= == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > Sunil da, > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Dear Vinay, > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > Best wishes, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > Sunil Da, > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ==== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > SKB > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan tithi > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > thank you, > Regards, > Hari Malla > > casued thereby. > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > Thanks > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > Sincerely yours, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > However the VJ says as follows: > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > Sincerely > > SKB > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > Quote > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > Sunil da, > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > Sincerely yours, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, The very fact that the month starts from Maagha sukla pratipada means it is amanta maagha, since it starts then and ends at amavsya. If the month started 15 days before on the krishna pratipada then it would end on the maagha purnima.This is purnimanta maagha.There is no doubt in this. But to say some person has discovered that the verdict of vedanga jyotish is wrong, that uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, and that event was millions of years ago is funny indeed. Regards, Hari Malla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Harimallaji, > > You have not given any given any definition. Everybody here knows what are Purnimanta and Amanta. What you write does not make any sense. What do you mean by saying that " since many of the festivals belong to the Vedanga Jyotish days " . Can you give any reference to substantiate that the Vedanga Jyotisha endorses the start of the month in Shukla-pratipada? > > Purnimanta month has been followed since the Vedic times. I asked Vinay also if he has any reference in favour of the Amanta Magha in VJ. Can you also show how the Amanta Magha can fit in the 5th verse of the Rig Vedanga Jyotisha? Vinay says that it could have occurred only a million years ago. > > Sincerely, > > SKB > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:35 PM > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > But it is interesting to note that many people like Jhaaji think that now adays the system is basically Amanta but they do not know that, it is actully purnimanta by the definition I have given. > At present uttarayan is taken at poush purnima, thus the present system is Purnimanta.This is proven by the fact that maagh snan is done at poush purnima, as per the dharma shastras. > Since many of the festivals belong to the vedanga jyotish days,the Amanta system is also prevalent as an alternative. Thus at present, both the system are running parallely.At present we may say,poush purnima is the purnimanta uttarayan and maagh sukla pratipada is the amanta uttarayan, continured from thevedanga jyotish days. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > Quote > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > Sunil da, > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > Sincerely yours, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Please know that the month which starts with sukla pratipada is amanta and that which starts with krishna pratipada is purnimanta month.The two words are defining when the month ends. After the end it starts from the next tithi.The next day from purnima is krishna pratipada and the next day from amavasya is sukla pratipada.Thus the words themselves are self explanatory, when the month ends and when the month starts.Amanta months are also known as sukladia and punimanta months are also known as krishnadi. There is a difference of 15 days in the total month. The sukla pakshya in the two systems are the same days, where as the krishna pakshya in the two methods are one month apart.Considering the whole month, amanta month ends 15 days after the purnimanta month. Thus poush purnima in the two types of months are the same.but poush amavasya in the purnimanta month occurs 15 days before the poush purnima, where as in the amanta month, poush amavasya occurs 15 days after the same poush purnima. The five year yuga started at maagha sukla pratipada after having a adhimas in the month of poush.Then after two and half years they had another adhimas in Ashadh.Again after two and half years the adhimas was celebrated in poush, thus completing the five year yuga. That was the vedanga jyotish system of the five year yuga- with alternating adhimases in two and half years, to make a cycle of five years, when the cycle strarted again in maagha sukla pratipada. Please do not hesitate to ask if more clarifications are necessay. Regards, Hari Malla , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Hari Mallaji, > > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi " (ie.the start of the 5-year yuga) > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote: > > > harimalla <harimalla > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > > > However the VJ says as follows: > > > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > > > Sincerely > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > > > Sunil da, > > > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > > tithi > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear all, I have found Jhaaji equating solar and lunar entries as equal.He should understand that the sun is a fixed body and it is ideal to consider it in conncetion with precession. One months shift in 2150 years is a long long time to move over a short distance.Only the fixed sun is ideal to keep this tract of this motion. The moon is a very mobile thing it goes round the earth every month.It also fluctuates in course of two and half to three years over corresponding solar dates 15 days before and after.If we mix the two motions, it is like mixing the hour and the second hands in a clock.Before we say how many seconds, we say what the hour is. At 12 o clock the hour and the second hands may coincide.The second hand being at 12 is not as important as the hour hand being at 12.The 12 o' clock time is indicated by the hour hand, the second hand also being at 12 or even 5 seconds plus and minus is insignificant.The indicator of time is first the hour hand.In this same way we should consider the precession with respect to the sun position only.The moon repeats the one month change of position in less than three years where as precession changes over that same one month position in 2150 years.Thus when the moon moves more than eight to nine hundred times back and forth over 30 degrees, precession moves that same distantce only once.So why he likes to give the same importance to the two events of moon moving every three or less years and precession moving in 2150 years.. Thus it is prefectly OK to consider only the sun positon at dhanistha, the moon position being comparatively insignificant. Also,I have given the example of how uttrayan takes 72 years to move only half degree before and after dhanistha, where as the moon would have gone back and forth on both sides of that point of dhanistha, at least 28 times (taking 2.5 years' adhimas cycle).To think that in that period, the moon would not been at that point (alighned to dhanistha) is too much of hair splitting, which I am sure the vedanga jyotish people would never want to do. When they say it occurred like that(the moon also came across dhanistha) who are we to say it did not occur then. Let us not go to fictitius figures, because we like to show we are extra-ordinary people.Let us live in the practical world and not in our mathematical fantasies.Thank you. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > To All, > > Mr Hari Malla is deliberately distorting things. He says : > > <<< " When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. " >>> > > It is a lie he is spreading. Vedanga Jyotish says Sun and Moon simultaneously enter into Dhanishthaa at the time of uttarayana on Maagha Shukla Pratipada. Mr Malla and all his predecessors beginning from Colebrooke delibearately neglect to mention Maagha Shukla Pratipada and check only the position of Sun. Such a selective use of facts is intellectual dishonesty. In my view, Colebrooke was not dishonest, he overlooked the need to check whether Maagha Shukla Pratipada was possible then or not. But Mr Malla is certainly not sincere when he refuses to check the full statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and insists on checking only the position of Sun and not of tithi, just because checking tithi 3400 years ago is a time consuming task which those cannot undertake who poke fun at " over zealous fans of mathematics " . Mathematical problems cannot be solved by rhetoric, which Mr Malla is trying to do. If we overlook the fact that Vedanga Jyotisha talked of Maagha > Shukla Pratipada at the onset of uttarayana when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa, why Mr Malla refuses to accept this statement of Vedanga Jyotisha and quotes it selectively merely to misinform members here ? > > I do not feel any need to show further proofs to Mr Malla because he has started quoting Vedanga Jyotisha selectively, deliberately omptting the mention of tithi. But those who may be misinformed by his neglect of tithi computation needed to understand the conditions in Vedanga Jyotisha are requested to read my previous mail in which I gave the details. > > If tithi as mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha is neglected, then Mr Hari Malla is correct. But why tithi should be neglected ? Around 1400 BCE, Maagha Shukla Pratipada was impossible (error of 21 tithis) at the conditions mentioned in Vedanga Jyotisha. By burying mathematics, Mr Malla is not harming me but himself. > > -VJ > ============================= === > > > > > ________________________________ > " harimalla " <harimalla > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 7:30:26 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji, > Sorry I cannot say, Lahiri's calculations are more authentic than the version of vedanga jyotish who are talking with first hand knowledge, about their own epoch.Please forgive me. > When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, for me it means that only and nothing else.I did not know for over zealous fans of mathematics, it can mean something else too. > From the beginning of dhanistha to the beginning of makar rashi, it is seven padas.If uttarayan occurred at the beginning of makar rashi, in 285 AD, simple calculation says sun in dhanistha was seven ninth of 2150 years or 1672 YEARS BEFORE 285 AD, which is 1387 BC or approximately 1400 BC. Only simple people can get such simple answer, but the answer for exta-ordinary persons seems also to be extra ordinary.I actually don't know what that is and I am not interested to learn any extraordinary mathematics by going to extra ordinary schools? Sorry to disappoint you. > But I do not mind if you have some educative comments for this simple calculation I have presented above.If you can show where I have erred in the above calculation, please do not hesitate to teach me, but please without bringing new factors into your calculations out of your own fancies.Then after settling the above calcualtions, perhaps we can talk further about tithi fluctuations etc.First thing first please. Thank you. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Malla Ji, > > > > 12 lunar months are shorter by 10.875145 days than tropical solar year (and 10.89 days from sidereal year), hence if Sun and Moon sit together in Dhanishthaa on Magha Shukla Pratipada in a given year, Sun will enter Dhanishthaa on Ekaadashi next year because solar year is ~11 days longer. Compute the Tithis when sun will enter Dhanishthaa. Next year during 72 years. The shortfall will be of 21.75 days. Third year, the shortfall will be of 32.625 days which will be adjusted as an intercalary month and 2.625 days shortfall (chaturthi instead of pratipada needed when Sun enters Dhanishthaa) , and so on. In 72 years, there will be five occassions when the shortfall will be less than one day. why you say Sun will enter Dhanishthaa always on Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa for 72 years ?? You do not feel the need to make computations before putting forth absurd claims. > > > > I said that Sun and Moon entering Dhanishthaa near Maagha Shukla Pratipada is fulfilled now-a-days, but it does not mean that this condition is fulfilled every year now-a-days. I stated the average condition now-a-days. > > > > I also said that this condition was impossible during 1000-3000 BCE. Impossible for any year, because Magha Shukla Pratipada coincided with Sun's and Moon's simultaneous entry into Ashvini and not into Dhanishthaa on 3101 BCE (Read NC Lahiri because you do not believe traditional panchanga makers all of whom say so). There is a difference of 67 degrees between Ashvini and Dhanishthaa. During 2458.66 years, one lunar months shifts means one rashi of shift. 67 degrees of shift in Nakshatra means a shift of two months. Now-a-days the conditions decsribed in Vedanga Jyotisha are being fulfilled approximately. Hence, now Sun enters Asvini not in Magha but in Chaitra, and Sun ebters Dhanishthaa in Magha as described in Vedanga Jyotisha. > > > > The conditions described in Vedanga jyotisha repeat once in 1800000 years, and not every year as you wrongly imagine. When those conditions arrive, they may repeat a maximum of 5 times during 72 years, but after that we will have to wait for 1800000 years to see same conditions. > > > > Either Vedanga Jyotisha was composed 1800000 (or its multiple) years ago or it is a false text stating false things. You may choose any of these alternatives, but it is wrong to insist on 2400 or 1400 or 400 BCE, because the lunar month Magha was impossible during sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. Those who do not have time to check lunarf month during entire 5100 period as I have done have no right to spread false opinions just because some wrongheaded disciples of Colebrooke said something. > > > > > > Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I > > get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their > > corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have > > been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. > > > > You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or > > mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you > > are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept > > correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for > > learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit > > together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as > > Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. > > > > Please do not feel offended with my remarks. I know all mathematical proofs sent by me will be thrown into dustbin by you and you will stick to your anti-mathematical opinions, because you are incapable of devoting somne time on actual computations. Computing lunar month for 5000 years is a great task which needs the knowledge of panchanga making as well as computer programming, because manually one cannot do this job even if one knows the method. Colebrooke did not possess a computer and therefore erred. But had he possessed a computer, he would have computed lunar month before arriving at any decision. A computer is basically made for computing, but you are using it for spreading anti-computational purposes, for spreading wrong ideas against mathematical proofs. > > > > Can you count how many times have I pointed out your errors ? When I > > get some time, I will prepare a list of your errors and their > > corrections by me. It is surprising that a persons whose errors have > > been pointed out scores of times sticks to his erroneous views. > > > > You are impervious to school-level mathematics. Astronomy or > > mathematics is not your field. I have no desire to insult you, but you > > are wasting our time with your WRONG ideas and your refusal to accept > > correct computations. You should get enrolled in some school for > > learning some mathematics before arguing that Sun and Moon can sit > > together in Dhanishthaa for 72 years on Magha Shukla Pratipada, as > > Vedanga Jyotisha mentions. Eithe show your computations proving the possibility of Magha Shukla Pratipada when Sun and Moon entered Dhanishthaa during uttarayana around 1400 BCE, or stop your wrong messages without backing your statements with computational evidence. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= = = > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:37:44 AM > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jhaaji, > > Namaskar! Sorry,I admit it was my mistake to think of maagha sukla pratipada occurring 864 times in 72 years,but then since you agree that it occurs 72 times, and thus sun and moon together residing in dhanistha during that period is 72 times.Then why do you think it is not possible for the event to occur even once? > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > Mr Hari Malla says : > > > > > > <<< " So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. " >>> > > > > > > One Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa occurs in one average luni-solar year. In 72 years, there will be 72 occurrences of Maagha Sukla Pratipadaa, and not 72 x 12. All 12 months are not Maagha. this is one pitiable mistake of Mr Malla. Secondly, Sun and Moon do not reside in Dhanishthaa always. Mr Malla is adamant on refuting me, by means of distorting some facts and neglecting others. Which Dharma-shaastra is he supporting by distorting facts ?? > > > > > > Mr Hari Malla says : > > > > > > <<< " I do not know why he (Vinay Jha) thinks like that. " >>> > > > > > > Should I reproduce my past messages to Mr Malla in which I explained in detail why I " thinks like that " ?? I wasted much of my my time in explaining to him that lunar Maagha was impossible around 1400 BCE, and he simply ignored to discuss that point. But it is unethical to deny that I explained my point to him. > > > > > > Mr Malla makes much hue and cry about purity of lunar months and wants to change even ayanamsha and nirayana solar year for preserving the supposed sanctity of lunar month ; now, he thinks " we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details. " What a " scientific " way to make a selective study of facts !!! Discard those facts which do not fit into your prejudices, and thus prove your prejudices to be true !! > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ==== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:40:21 PM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattacharjyaji, > > > In that case I support you.My contribution is, it is quite possible.I do not know why he thinks like that.Actually we should take what is obvious first.That first serves as the backbone.So we should first think of the sun in dhanistha.The other things like month or packshya are secondary details.These repeat every 15 days or 30 days.Moving even only one degree of uttrayan takes 72 years.This is equal to 72 x 12 months or 72x12x2 pakshyas.So I say, if we take only half degree plus and minus which is quite undetectable by naked eye,what is mentioned in vendanga jyotish becomes true not once or twice in those years, but 864 times true.So we have 864 numbers of maagh sukla pratipada occurring even with the undetectable deviation of only half degree from the actual point of sun in dhanistha as uttarayan. > > > So does this serve our purpose to prove the vedanga jyotish was true only 33oo years from now.Let us not get too fond of antiquity or enjyoy adding many zeros to the historical figures.Let us be factual and not emotional.thank you, > > > sincerely lyours, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > > tithi > > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Jhaaji, When vedanga jyotish says uttarayan occurred when the sun was in dhanistha, which indicates around 3,400 years from now,(along with the moon, whose position is comparatively insignificant due to its great frequency or many many fluctuations both sides of that same point), how can you say,it cannot occur in a million years.Have you not defied vedanga jyotish and its statement that the sun was in dhanistha? Sorry Jhaaji,I never intend to hurt.Perhaps you are trying to lift vedanga jyotish over the sky,but I feel you are fond of adding many zeros to real figures to make facts sound like fiction.Perhaps this is like the puranic style. Regards, Hari Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Mr Hari Malla has made innumerable false statements which I have refuted with cogent proofs, but he is retaliating with false statements about me without even caring to cite where he feels me to be in the wrong ; he says : > > " How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. " > > He is lying. And he is not even supplying the context !! > > > -VJ > ====================== === > > > ________________________________ > " harimalla " <harimalla > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009 12:26:25 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > > > However the VJ says as follows: > > > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > > > Sincerely > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > > > Sunil da, > > > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > > tithi > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Dear Bhattacharjyaji, Statements like this is defying the coordinated nirayn system of the sun and the moon. <I said was Maagha Shukla pratipada occurred on Mesha Samkraanti in 3101 BCE > How he gets these strange ideas, is really worthy of research.I asked Jhaaji to check the truth by his own panchanga.He said it has not occurred in the last 2000 years or so, but it will occur when the time comes.I wonder if such a time will ever come? Has any body ever heard that maagha sukla pratipada occurred in mesh sankranti? I have only heard that Chaitra sukla pratipada or Chaitra purnima or even Vaisakh sukla pratipada occurs on mesh sankranti. Perhaps when one gets too fond of mathematics,he gives up the truth so he can prove his mathematics to be correct, by making irrelevant assumtions and consider their calculations to be truer than reality. They should know that our ancient rishis were clever enough not to make such mistakes,by giving the same names of fullmoon and the nakshaytras. The rishis knew well how to escape the trap that some mathematicians fall into.Thus they were wiser.I hope you agree with me. Regards, HAri Malla , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Sunil Da, > > You have misunderstood me completely, and are citing me wrongly. I never said 1400 or 2400 or 1800 BCE are impossible on the basis of Amaanta or poornimaanta Maagha, I said was Maagha Shukla ratipada occurred on Mesha Samkraanti in 3101 BCE according to all ancient and modern panchanga makers and siddhanta experts of India. It is not my personal view. Mathematically, one month shift occurs in 2459 years. Hence, now Mesha Samkraanti occurs two monyhs after Maagha Shukla ratipada, and now Maagha Shukla Pratipada roughly falls around the start of Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa. > > What is now prevailing around 2000 AD is what Vedanga Jyotisha tells. But VJ cannot be a work of 2000 AD. 2459 years before now, Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place one month BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and 4917 years before now Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place two months BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and 7376 years before now Sun's entry into Dhanishthaa took place threemonths BEFORE Maagha Shukla Pratipada, and so on. I am talking of Maagha Shukla Pratipada, which will always remain Maagha Shukla Pratipada whether you count with Amaanta or with Poornimaanta method. > > If you think Amaanta system means lunar month ends there and new lunar month begins, then you are mistaken. Lunar month always ends and begins with a Poornimaa, since the Vedic times. Amaanta system is never used for naming months. It is used for computing the number of lunations in mathematics and is not used by laymen or even by non-astro pandits at all. > > It is surprosing that you are burying my computations under fictious argument of my computations being based on Amaant system. Perhaps you think that Maagha Shukla Pratipada of amaanta system become Maagha Krishna Pratipada or something else in Poornimaanta system !! There is no such thing as Maagha Shukla Pratipada of amaanta system. Amaanta system is not used for making lunar months. It is used for computing lunation numbers, because Creation, Mahayuga and 5-year VJ yuga began with New Moon. > > > -VJ > ======================= === > > > ________________________________ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:59:39 PM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Hari Mallaji, > > Sorry my mail got garbled. I am resending it. > > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the Krishna pratipada ie. on the day after Pausha Purnima and after that when the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month Tapa started. Uttarayana in Dhanistha Nakshatra occurred within the same month of Magha, within which the Yuga and Tapa had already started from the Shukla pratipada.. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ was meaning " yugadi " (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga) Thus Shuklapaksha, yuga, Tapa and Uttarayana in Dhanistha all occurred within the month of Magha. > > By considering an Amanta Magha how can you show that Magha, Tapa, Yuga, Shuklapaksha and Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha during 1400 to 2400 BCE.. Vinay is that way very sensible and he says that with an Amanta Magha the date of these events of Vedanga Jyotisha cannot cannot occur in 1400 to 2400 BCE as his knows the Mathematics well. You appear to be in an illusion and that is what I meant when I said that you want to eat the cake and eat it too. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya . > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, sunil_bhattacharjya @ <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 2:20 AM > > Hari Mallaji, > > You may have doubt as to whether the start of the shukla paksha is shukla pratipada or not but I do not have any doubt on that. How did you jump to the conclusion that it was Amanta Magha. The Magha month started on the day after Pausha Purnima and after the dark fortninght was over (ie.15 days later) there was the shukla pratipada day from which the 5-year yuga well as the seasonal month started. Uttarayana when the Yugad and Tapa startedwinter solstice day was a shukla pratipada. When VJ said " syattad adiyugam " , VJ is meaning " yugadi " (ie. the start of the 5-year yuga) > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:56 PM > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji, > Start of sukla pakshya means sukla pratipada.Is there any more doubts? How can Vinay Jhaaji be correct by going against the verdict of vedanga jyotish. To me it sounds like a joke. What do you say, Does it not? > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > > > However the VJ says as follows: > > > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > > > Sincerely > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > > > Sunil da, > > > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > > tithi > > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > > thank you, > > > Regards, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > casued thereby. > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Come on Vinay ji! Surely Vedic Jyotish is not that fragile to crumble that easily, by a wrong ayanamsha or so on. It has its own Angel inside that has preserved it for so many hundreds of years. Please give it more credit. Jyotish is Mother, and not some infant that is so vulnerable...! RR , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > To All, > > Mr Hari Malla is out to destroy Vedic jyotisha by his ludicrous ayanamsha and indian panchangas by his ignorant statements... <rest snipped since irrelevant for this posting...> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Dada, Is that based on empirical evidence or mathematical derivation? If math as we knew it were supreme, perfect and final, why did Brahma have to introduce Quantum into our reality? What more is left to know ...? Is that final or there are still " miles to go before Humanity is allowed to sleep? " <<that is when BOTs are unleashed on this earth, although a few have already been spotted here and there, they tell me!!>> But seriously, do we know, really -- how far before we reach Brahma the source of CREATION? And IS HE the 'SOUL' SOURCE?? RR , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > DearRohini and Vinay, > > Are you both not referring to the two sides of the same coin? The atoms have (atomic)space between the orbiting electrons and the nucleus. In the black hole such atomic space does not exist and there is only dense mass. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:05 AM > > The converse is also true : invisible dark matter is 9 times more weigthy than normal matter, and black holes can contain more than we can give into them. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:06:27 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunil da, > > Even the densest of atoms has more space than substance. The Universe is full of holes! > > RR > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 This is purely to lighten the milieu and not to offend anyone who has some sense of humour left folks: A doctor friend once shared an observation: A Physician knows everything (being a scholar!) but cannot help the patient... A Surgeon thinks he is the boss, goes in and actually does manage to help some... A Pathologist -- Now he is the one who knows everything, but too late because the patient is already DEAD! Similarly, one can visualize the biologist, chemist, and the mathematician! Don't lose your sense of " humour " folks, especially, " NEVER ON A SUNDAY! " As long as you arrived and chose to live in this reality as a native and not some missionary with a " mission " ! RR , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Vinay, > > As regards the Divyavarsha I told you to see the Vayu purana and you told me that you do not have it with you and that you do not have the time to fetch it because of your preoccupations. Please refer to the Vayu purana, as that alone gives the correct definition of the Divya varsha. > > The Yuga starts when the Moon and the Sun are together at the same point of the ecliptic after five years. When the Moon and the Sun are together that is the Amavashya and the next tithi is the Shukla-pratipada. You know this . Why then is the confusion? > > Please do not forget the the Purnimanta Magha month does have one Shukla-pratipada in the middle of the month. Vedanga Jyotisha says that in such a Magha Shukla-pratipada the yuga and Tapa started. Shuklapaksha remained for 15 days. In this Shukla (Shuklapaksha) itself the Uttarayana occurred. All hese events ocurred when the Sun and the Moon were in Dhanistha and the Lunar month was Magha. > > I always said that Vedanga jytisha's date is in the region 2400 BCE and 1400 BCE and now specifically say that the date is around 1800 BCE. So nobody can question me whether I believe in the authenticity of the Vedanga Jyotisha or not. > > Besyt wishes, > > SKB. > > > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:15 AM > > Sunil Da, > > Hurry is not a good thing. even in the case of Divya Varsha, you cited verses out of context with its adjacent verses. Similarly, you are now citing verse-5 of Rg-Jyotisha, which is verse-6 in Yajusha-Jyotisha, but neglect to cite a verse just near that (verse-8 in Archajyotisha or Rg-Jyotisha) which says that the first ayana began with Pratipadaa ( " prathamam " ). Every year does not start with Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa, VJ gives tithis of other years of the 5-year cycle too : Pratipadaa, Chaturthi, Saptami, Dashami and Tryodashi, and says that Chaturthi and Dashamiin Krishnapaksha are also sometimes ayana starting points. But the whole 5-samvatsara cycle begins with Pratipadaa. Which month's Pratipadaa ? Maagha Shukla, which is given in verse-5 cited by you. > > I hope you will try to read the whole context before rushing to any conclusion. The light manner in which you are taking my statements is not a sign of my error, but of your hurry. > > I do not believe that Vedanga Jyotisha was composed some million years ago. I have put forth no opinion of my own, because you will not accept it. i merely ststed the meaning of conditions stated in the text. If Vedanga jyotisha is a false text, say so openly and throw it away, but do not make a selective reading from it to prove modern biases. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== === > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:51:23 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Harimallaji, > > No guesswork in these cases. If the Magha is Amanta in Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) then Vinay is correct in his date of the Vedanga Jyotisha, that it was composed some million years ago. You have to chose only one. You cannot eat the cake and have it too. > > However the VJ says as follows: > > << svaraakramete somaarkau yadaa saakam savaasavau . > syaattadaadiyugam maaghastapah shuklo.ayanam hyudak >> > > This means that when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha then it was the start of the Yuga and it was the Lunar month of Magha and it was also the seasonal month of Tapa and Shuklapaksha. VJ did not say that Uttarayana occurred on Shukla pratipada. > > Sincerely > > SKB > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:23 PM > > Dear Bhattachajyaji, > I think Vinay Jhaaji is correct in this respect.I have not read more details,but if he says the vedanga jyotish lunar months were amanta, then he is correct.But the vedic months before vedanga jyotish period seeem to be purnimanta. > My analysis is that if the uttrayan is set at purnima, then it is purnimanta and if uttrayan is set at sukla pratipada then it is amanta. > Regards, > Hari Malla > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > I have read very very carefully but cannot agree on the following : > > > > Quote > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. > > > > Unquote > > > > How can you be sure that Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to that? Any specific reference anywhere? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have not read my explanations carefully : how many times will I need to say that that I have tested entire Kali and Dvapar ages years ago for dating of VJ. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= == > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:55:57 PM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > Why don't you try at least once with Purnimanta Magha and Amanta Tapa and the year as1800 BCE > > > > Best wishes, > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 11:07 PM > > > > Sunil da, > > > > The most frequest and first Vedic yajna is Darsha-paurnamaasa Yajna (chapter-1, Yajurveda's all recensions). The very meaning of paurnamaasa is " completion of month " . Therefore, the vedic law is that lunar month should end with a full moon . > > > > But according to all siddhantas, Creation began when all planets were at start of Mesha. hence, it was new moon. Therefore, month started with new moon in actual practice. > > > > Even today, computations of panchanga makers are based on siddhantic reckoning of month beginning with Shuklaadi, ie new moon, which is what Vedanga Jyotisha also refers to. But for all practical purposes, including all religious and social functions, month changes at full moon and not at new moon. This duality is Vedic and is still preserved. > > > > As for your insistence on 2400 BC or 1800 BC or 1400 BC, you are wrong by millions of years !! You will not digest " millions " of years, but it is better to dismiss Vedanga Jyotisha as a false text (I believe it is not a false text) than to use its data SELECTIVELY in forder to prove one's own theory : the latter method is unscientific. Why you do not try to compute the lunar month yourself if you disbelieve my computation ?? Instead of taking votes among those who do not want to make lengthy computations, mathematics is a better friend : scholars may err or lie, but mathematics is the only pure science (or art) because it never cheats. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 3:39:32 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > To my knowledge the months in the days of Mahabharata and the Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) were Purnimanta. Manu says that war should be fought in Margashirsha or in two other months. So the Mahabharata war began on the next day after the Kartiki Purnima, when it was Margashirsha. Because of not knwing this some of the modern astronomers are confused regarding the day on which the Mahabharata war started. When VJ says that Uttarayana, Magha, Tapa and Shuklapaksha started together this means that at the time of the Uttarayana it was the Soli-Lunar month of Magha. The Seasonal month Tapa started on the day following the next Amavashya (ie. after the Uttarayana day) and the month of Magha ended 15 days after tthe start of the Tapa. > > > > Though it appeared to me earlier that 2400 BCE may be the date of the VJ, I am now rethinking on that and feel that 1800 BCE, as found by Dr. Narahari Achar, may be the more appropriate date. I will like to invite the opinion of other scholars from other Jyotish groups also on this and I am marking this mail to some of those groups also > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:26 AM > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > You have put the problem in corredct terms. Mr Malla is not interested in discussing the real issue. The real issue is whether the simultaneous entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa was possible on the day of Magha Shukla Pratipadaa or not. All " experts " till now, beginning from Colebrooke, have neglected the need to compute whether Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was possible or not : I say this condition could not be fulfilled around 1000-2000 BCE. The proof is simple : > > > > Now-a-days Mesha Samkraanti roughly coincides with lunar month of Chaitra. But all panchanga makers and ven NC Lahiri said that Kaliyuga began with Mesha Samkraanti when lunar month was lunar month of Maagha (New Moon). thus, there is a shift of two lunar months during 5 millenia. I have shown that one lunar month should shift after every 2458.66 year period. Hence, the opinions of panchanga makers is correct. All panchanga celebrate Kaliyugaadi on Maaghi Amaavasa : this must be mentioned in panchangas because Yugaadi days are regarded as Anaadhyaaya- days on which Vedas should not be studied. Accurate computation of Yugaadi day is not merely a scholarly game for panchanga makers, but a religious duty. All panchanga makers are unanimous on this point and mathematics also supports them. > > > > Since Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi NM (=new-moon; = middle of Maagha, because Maasa ended with Poorna-maasi or FM/full-moon) ) in 3101 BCE. > > > > But now Mesha Samkraanti coincides with Chaitra NM. > > > > Therefore, around 642 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Phaalguini NM and around 1872 BCE Mesha Samkraanti coincided with Maaghi FM (end of lunar Maagha month). Therefore, between the period 4330 - 1872 BCE, Mesha Samkraanti (360 degrees) occurred in lunar Maagha month. But VJ says Sun was entering into Dhanishthaa (293.3333 degrees) when lunar mongth was Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa. Hence, it is wrong to put VJ in that period : it gives an error of 360 - 293.33 = 66.6667 degrees in the position of Sun ! It is not a slight error to be neglected. > > > > 235 lunar months approximately coincide with 19 solar years. It is best approximation and is therefore used by panchanga makers. But a small residue is left which accumulates to one extra lunar month in 2458.66 years, which is not an intercalary (adhimaasa) month because Samkraanti occurs in it. I have examined the whole list of intercalary months during entire 5100 years of Kaliyuga and also made special softwares for examining other aspects of VJ problem. There is no way to prove VJ a work of Kaliyuga, excepting one " beautiful " way : neglect the lunar month and prove what one wants !! > > > > Sunil Ji has not examined the issue of lunar month, while Mr Malla has no regard for mathematics. I have sent him detailed computationational evidence, which he ignores. > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ ========= ==== === > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Saturday, July 4, 2009 11:33:36 AM > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Harimallaji, > > > > There is no hair-splitting. You have gone off tangentially as you have not understood what was being discussed. Vinay's view is that Vedanga Jyitisha's date is neither 2400 BCE nor 1800 BCE as qaccording to him the Sun and the Moon could not come to Dhanistha together for the Yuga, the Magha, the Tapa, the bright fortnight and the Wnter solstice to occur together. I was explaining that it was possible. Please do not divert the discussions with irrelevant matter, which makes absolutely no sense. First try to get what is being discussed and contribute to that only if possible. > > > > SKB > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:34 PM > > > > Dear shree Bhattachrajyaji and Vinayaji, > > Are you not doing hair splitting without purpose? Sorry to have made this remark? But my sincere remark is this that VJ remained effective for about 17ooyears not just for 12 days or 13 days. > > Say, from 1400 BC to about 300 AD.How did this happen? If you have the time I will explain in short. > > For uttarayan, just to move one degree from the actual position of sun in dhanistha,it takes 72 years.This is one full life span.One degreee this way and that way required two life spans (or 6 generations taking about 25 years per generation). Detecting one degree is a very minute thing and without instrument, with naked eyes,these are virtually indistinguishable. To talk of 12 or 13 days in this context is pactically useless. > > Then what is useful in this respect? It is useful to talk of the lunar tithi of maagha sukla partipada which swings over one full month of solar maagha caused by adhimas resulting in the fluctuation of tithis.From the begginning of dhaanistha to makar snkranti is about 23 degrees.Since maagha sukla patipada swings from makar sankranti to kumbha sankranti( 30 degrees),every two an dhalf to threee years,maagha sukla pratipada crossed both the sun in dhanistha and sun in uttarayan position (tropical or sayan uttrayan) upto makar sankranti for 1700 years.Thus since maagha sukla pratipada was able to get the nirayan value of nirayan uttrayan(sun in dhanistha) and the sayan or tropical uttarayan for this whole period,it was the uttarayan celebration tithi of 'maagha snan' for that whole period.Thus it was our custom to celebrate uttarayn either by solar nirayan uttrayan as sun in dhanistha (instead of the presenat makar sankrnati)and also lunar uttaryan > tithi > > of maagha sukla pratipada, for that whole period of 1700years.Thus my claim is that right from the vedanga jyotish days our system was 'nirayan' for the celebration of the uttrayan both by solar and the lunar dates. It was never celebrated on the tropical uttarayan day.Is this aceptable to you both who are scholars, on the nirayan system.Please understand the spirit of the nirayan system.I am also in full supprt of the vedic nirayan system.I hope you too are.May I think so? > > thank you, > > Regards, > > Hari Malla > > > > casued thereby. > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > When Uttarayana occurred in the Dhanistha then the Sun stayed in Dhanistha between 1 to 13 days depending on the date, which the VJ is referring to.. Around 2400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha after uttarayana for at most a day but in 1400 BCE the Sun could have stayed in Dhanistha probably upto a maximum of 12 days. So the Moon has to be in the Dhanistha within that period and it should be possible for the Moon to do that. Have you considered this aspect? For Tapas you need not worry as Tapas is the name given to the month immediately after the Winter solstice and no nakshatra calculation is involved there. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:56 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinil Da, > > > > > > After you check the VJ verse, compute the lunar month when Sun enters Dhanishthaa during the period 2400-1400 BCE. I had posted detailed mathematics about this to Mr Mall, which he ignored. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 4:33:49 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > May be. I shall check the VJ verse again. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:11 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > I know tha basis on which you are giving a date 2400 BC, or Colebrooke gave 1400 BC. But such dates do not take into account the neccessity of lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa at the start of Uttaraayana when Sun and Moon both entered into Dhanishthaa. Lunar Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa was quite impossible during that period ; I am more than sure of it, but unfortunately neither Mr Mall nor you are trying to compute the lunar month at the conditions described in VJ. Once you compute the lunar month, you will see that VJ cannot belong to any period within past million years !! If such a conclusion is unsauitable for the prevalent theory, is it proper to deliberately neglect the mention of lunar month and make computations on selective grounds ?? > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ========= == > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Friday, July 3, 2009 9:51:15 AM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > There is no confusion regarding the names of the months.The Solar (seasonal) month, Tapa is defined in the Shukla yajur Veda (15,57) as the two months of the Shishira ritu and whch according to me coincides with the sdereal month immediately after the Uttarayana. > > > > > > Vedanga Jyotisha (VJ) mentions Lagadha in third person therefore VJ must have been written between 2400 to 1800 BCE by some disciple of Lagadha . This shows that Lagadha must have been from the same time or before that but one cannot definitely say how much before. It will be anybody's guess. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 8:00 AM > > > > > > Sunil Da, > > > > > > You got confused with my statement because I did not differentiate the solar Maagha from lunar Maagha. When I say that Tapa was Magha, you must assume that I am speaking of solar month, because lunar Maagha cannot be always equivalent to solar Tapa. Should I elaborate every bit of my statement ? > > > > > > Even today solar months named Maagha & c are used by panchamga makers of India , and classical muhurt texts give muhurtas for events like marriage & c in terms of solar Magha & c, beginning from solar samkraantis. > > > > > > Your message suggests that you believe Vedanga Jyotisha to be a later work. Extant versions of Vedanga Jyotisha say it was written down by some unnamed person who ascribed the original work to Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha existed long before the writing down of these texts. The astronomical conditions described in these texts do not belong to 1400 or 2400 BC, because Maagha cannot be prov en in those periods. Around 3101 BCE, it was Maagha New Moon on Mesha Samkraanti. Now, Mesha Samkraanti has shifted to two months after, approximately to Chaitra New Moon. Now-a-day, entry of Sun and Moon into Dhanishthaa occurs around Maagha and Uttarayana, but it was not possible during much more than past one million years : I made special softwares to test it. Hence, Mahatma Lagadha cannot be placed in Dvapar or Kali yugas. > > > > > > The problem with you is that you are misled by archaeologists who believe no advanced culture was possible in remote periods. To them, " advancement " of culture is based on material developm ent, and such an attitude presupposes that Rishis were primitives because they deliberately avoided material possessions. > > > > > > The nimber od Rishis was few and they mostly happened to live in Aryavarta where it is impossible to find fossils of more than 2 thousand years. I have experience of field survey of 65 archaological sites, and of excavation at some, and I possess reports of many important sites, which show that prehistoric carbononiferous remains should not be expedcted to survive in the humod Gangetic valley (incl. Sarasvati), which was the Saptasindhu as Vyasa Ji said. Indus was not even a part of the actual; Saptasindhu, and in no period of Indian history Indus was the cradle of high civilization. Even in MBh, it was populated by uncultured peoples. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ============ ======== ==== > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:42:05 PM > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear Vinay, > > > > > > Where did you find that Tapa is Magha? Any relevant verse? In Vedanga Jyotisha the Tapa and Magha started simultaneously when the Uttarayana occurred in Dhanistha. That was at the time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Further I came across a verse (now I do not readily recollect that reference) which says that Tapa is related to the Uttarayana, as the coolest months are only best suitable for the Tapa and Tapasya. So my understanding is that Magha is the Soli-Lunar month related to the Magha Nakshatra and and the Tapa is the month related to Uttarayana. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > SKB > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009, 5:08 AM > > > > > > Calendar Reform Committee was completely biased as it had not a single expert of traditional system on whose basis most of panchangas were and are still being made. Those who had no faith or interest in astrrology controlled this committee. As a result, the biased " findings " of this committee were unheeded by panchanga makers and by public at large. > > > > > > The discussion about " erroneous " Indian Calendar was initiated by self-appointed Europeamn Experts who did not even know the mechanisms of Indian siddhantas. > > > > > > Ther is no problem in our calendar, and those who believe this calendar to be faulty can invent their own or follow some other calendar. > > > > > > Many persons have thrown away entire Vedic tradition, hence it is not surprising if someone throws away Raashis. > > > > > > But to say that we should shift the Raashis means all of us are God. Only God can shift the fixed frame of reference of all universes, which is defined by the Raashi-Chakra. By shifting the Raashi-Chakra in the manner Mr Malla is proposing, all nirayana astrology will be wrong by 30 degrees in all computations and predictions. > > > > > > Me Malla has no interest in astrology, and is therefore oblivious of this loss to astrology. Astrology is NOT a pseudo-science invented by thugs to earn their livlihood by fooling the public as some " modernisers " would make us believe. > > > > > > The following statement can come from only that type of person who has no knowledge of astrology : > > > > > > " Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. " > > > > > > Even today, both Sayana and Nirayana systems are used in Vedic Astrology : Sayana system is used for computing sunrise, Ishtakaala, lagna, etc, and Nirayana system is used for bulk of the astrology. Sayana system cannot be indiscriminately used for all fields of astrology. Nirayana solar month has no effect of ayanamsha. Vedic Tapa was Nirayana. Tapa is not Pousha, but Magha. The very idea of Tropical Month is un-Indian. > > > > > > Continuous precession over full circle is not a modern idea : this Chakraayana was known to ancient Indians, but n one of them prescribed it for computing ayanamsha. Ayanamsha had no connection to precession of equinoxes, this is a mischief of moderners, starting from Colebrooke. Ayanamsha was originally defined as the to-and-fro pendulum like motion of the Bha-chakra. It cannot be defined as either to-and-fro pendulum like motion or circular motion of Earth's equinoctial points. These modifications of original definition of Ayanamsha by some moderners is causing all this trouble. > > > > > > Do not misquote Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav to put forth your ideas, which are not based on Dharma-shaastras but on distorted definition of Ayanamsha. > > > > > > Trepidation of the Bhachakra cannot be empirically observed by scientists, because no physical object resides at the orbit of 60 years which is the orbit of Nakshatras according to ancients. Beyonf this orbit, every object is a non-planet, including Uranus and Neptune. In astrology, Graha is not defined on the basis of their revolutions aroung Sun, but on the basis of their being within the Bhachakra. > > > > > > Non-astrologers of modern period are tampering with such basic concepts of astrology and are now desirous of tampering with the religious calendar as well. Govt of India publishes its Tropical Calendar, which no one uses. Mr Kaul may observe his festivals according this " official " calendar made by atheists. > > > > > > -VJ > > > ============ ========= ======= === > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > " harimalla@rocketma i l.com " <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:58:44 AM > > > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > Dear shri Bhattacharjyaji, > > > Thank you for the considered mail below.The discussion has been going for over one and half centuries about the correct calendar reform.The two camps were divided between Shankar Balakrishna Dixit and Bala Gangadhar Tilak.Now I see between you and Kaulji.government of India seems to have suppported Shankar Balakrishna Dixit in 1957.If we want to solve the problem both have to give up something so we meet somewhere. > > > 1. He should give up throwing away the rashis and you should be ready to shift the rashis appropriately. > > > 2.Indefinite nirayan is not recommneded by Surya sidhanta, so an improvement of limit of ayansamsa from 27 degrees to 15 degrees should be welcome.Kaulji should be ready to increase his ayanamsa from o degrees in the sayan method to 15 degrees and you should not insist on indefinite ayansamsa even going against the concept of Surya sidhanta.Limited ayanamsa or nirayanness is the middle path compromise. > > > > > > 3. My view about the stars is clear.since the stars outside ecliptic do not effect us those in the ecliptic also do not effect us.But they only serve as the land mark to set the solstices and the equinoxes for over a thousand years,ie for the purpose of limited nirayanness. > > > Since mesh and meen are both nirayan, one can play the role of the other.This is suported by the fact that both Meen and mesh can reflect all the 12 bhaavas of jyotish shastra.Thus there is no jyotish problem if we shift mesh in place of meen as both are nirayan and can represent the 12 bhaavas with equal efficiency. > > > > > > 4.The rashis and the nakshyatras are both nirayan in reallity,but since we can go only through the seasons to them, we should give priority to the seasons.Only the mother knows who the father is. > > > So mother is to be given the first priority.She( seasons or the pole stars) will easily tell the identity of the nirayan father(sideral stars). > > > > > > 5.Since tapa has become poush now, we should call it as maagha to re-establish the original shastriya name for it.Dharma shastra should not be changed, according to SB Dixit. > > > > > > 6. Dharma shatra as Dharma sindhu and Kalamadhav are the explantions of the original dharma shastras.Thus they are not original work.But these writers are better informd than you or me, who are basically science students. > > > > > > 7. I respect the rashis mentioned in the fifth vedas that is why I am trying so hard to protect the truth contained in them.when they say makar sankranti is uttrayan although uttrayan has shifted near to Dhanu sankranti, I am insisting that the present uttarayan should also be be called as makar sankranti to keep the fifth vedas always correct. > > > So let us compromise and save our dharma and nirayan jyotish shatras in a logical way,where they originally belong.Let us forget the personal dislikes of people and compromise for the truth.thank you. > > > Sincerely yours, > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > NShri Harimallaji, > > > > > > > > You are repeating the same arguments everytime. No use. Please do not waste your energy. You have not been able to show any single precedent. About Varahamihira I have told you that when he was alive the Uttarayana occurred when the Sun entered the Makar rashi. He was born before the advent of the Shalivahana saka. Pingree manipulated the dates to suit his theory that the Indians learnt everything from the Greeks. But you are tactfully ignoring what I said. Then how can I or anybody listen to you? Do you think that so far our ancestors and the past Indian scholars did not know the Dharmashastra? Do you know the difference between the Sakendra kala mentioned by Varahamihira and the Sakanta kala mentioned by Brahmagupta? First please try to understand all that. I have told this umpteen times. Further the Sayana month " Tapa " these days should start from the day next to the first Amavashya after the Winter solstice, ie. Tapa should coincide > > > > with Pausha month. > > > > > > > > You say the stars have no effect. I have been telling that even the western astrologers also believe that the Vernal equinox in Pisces has different effect on us than when the Vernal effect is in Aries. Can you please try to understand why this is so? I am asking in very plain English so that anybody should be able to understand this. When you will understand this then please incorporate what you understood in your mails so that some progress can be made. Please do'nt repeat what the 17th century and 18th century compilations like Dharmasindhu and Nirnayasindhu say. It is not that I do not value that but I prefer to refer to the original dharmashastras when there is big differences of opinion. Please quote from the original Dharmashastras. . Our original Dharmashastras are much much older. Please also remember that even Suryasiddhanta is not called Dharmashastra. > > > > > > > > I summarise the above as follows: > > > > > > > > 1) Show precedents, > > > > 2) Correct your date of Varahamihira, > > > > 3) Think about the effects of the stars and tell us about your opinion. You cannot change the age-old belief in the nakshatras just by your assertions and reassertions. > > > > 4) The status of the Nirayana Rashis have to be respected, > > > > 5) Tapa starts from the day next to the Amavashya after the Uttrayana ie. these days it will coincide with the present Pausha month. and > > > > 6) Refer to the original Dharmashastras. > > > > 7) Some people may not understand the Vedic verses giving the Rashis but the Rashis are clearly mentioned in the fifth Veda. Do you accept the Nirayana rashis of the fifth Veda? > > > > > > > > Please let us know in your next mail whether you agree to all the above seven points. No further arguments on these points please as enough has been discussed so far. Please do not evade a single point. If not I shall be unable to particfipate in any of your discussions and please discontinue this topic. Have you been able to convinve AKK that he should accept the Nakshatras and the Nirayana rashis before any Calendar reform? > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:39 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > Surya sidhanta limits ayanamsa to 27 degrees, so you should also not go agaisnt it and think of indefinite ayanamsa, but only limited. > > > > Meen takes all the 12 bhaavas like mesh, so meen is not different from mesh since both take all the 12 bhaavas according to the lagan. > > > > Since the stars have no effect on us, as the stars outside the eclibtic do not effect us, mesh and meen are equal from the boint of nirayanness and the 12 bhaavas.We can thus name meen as mesh We may also shift the nakshyatras too by thirty degrees along with the rashis, to continue their link. > > > > > > > > thank you, > > > > Regards, > > > > Hari Malla > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan. > > > > > > > > > > Unauote > > > > > > > > > > I can't agree to this twisted definition. So no further discussion on this point. > > > > > > > > > > Further the western Tropical (Sayana) calendar recognises that the Vernal equinox occurs at different Sidereal (Nirayana) Rashis at different times. In that sense they retained the Nirayana Rashis untouched. Our Sayana rashwallas should take a lesson from them. > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:28 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear sir, > > > > > The nirayan rashis are not indefinitely nirayan, but limited nirayan.In our solilunar system, the nirayaness is valid without disturbing the basic rule of adimas only when the ayanamsa is less than 15 degrees forward and backward.Althoug Surya sidhanta mentions the limit of ayanamsa of 27 degrees forward and backwards.But on careful analysis we can easily see that if ayanamsa is more than 15 degrees,Adhimas system fails it burbose to limit the lunar seasons 15 days within solar seasons.Thus the need to limit ayanamsa to 15 degrees only or we have to give ub our solilunar system.Other wise the seaonsal value of the festivals are lost .When dharma is lost all is lost.Thus we have to shift the names of the original nirayan rashis by one month to establish the new ebochal nirayan rashi when the ayanamsa increases more than 15 degrees.thank you, > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear members, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am really flabbergasted by the following statemenmt : > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > How can the Nirayana Rashis move as contain fixed (non-moving) Nakshatras? The Sayana rashis are anyway the imitation rashis and they only move along with the moving Tropical zodiac. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/29/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > Monday, June 29, 2009, 6:53 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohiniranjanji, > > > > > > May your wish to keep it a mature forum with a good past and a good future be fulfilled! > > > > > > To my knowledge,precessio n which is the wobbly motion of the earth changing the pole stars in the long run, does not influence the eclliptic path and its shape.This precession is independant although both this motion and the annual orbit of the earth is carried out by the earth. > > > > > > This precession is caused mainly by the lunar gravitaion on the earth whereas the earth orbit is cased by the gravitation of the sun on the earth.Precession does shift the seasons or ayanamsa about one month in 2150 years.thus originally about 1700 years ago mesh sankranti was spring equinox.Due to precesion, the spring equnox has moved by 24 days in the solar sense, and one full month in the lunar sense.Thus there is calendar reform proposal to move the rashis too by one month to match with the original seasons, ie to name the bresent meen rashi as the new epochal mesh rashi.This is necessary to celebrate the festivals in their resbective seasons. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh-ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascinating discussions and it is wonderful to see that other than good-hearted jibs and jabs -- no abusive outpourings have ensued as has become the norm in some places :-( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us maintain the decorum continuingly for this is a mature forum that was once blessed by none other than Sri K.N. Rao who has done for Jyotish what an injection of adrenaline would do to a dying person, or one of those electrical defibrillators, that resuscitate dying people, that are now being installed in malls and shopping plazas in some developed nations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This matter about the ecliptic belt, which I was told is really created by the projected travel-path of the earth around the sun (creating the apparent movement of sun, the ayanas, the seasons and what not) -- although SUN has its slower true motion too (galactic) --- I am curious to find out if the notion of " ecliptic " and what it is is at all influenced by the slow polar wobble of the earth which makes it point towards a different pole star over the long cycle of ayanamsha as the S.V.P. shifts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Dinesh Dheengra <dineshdheengra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Respected Sunilji, Mallaji and Jhaaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My work is just to show that how constellations' s star are scattered around the ecliptic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i will comeup with document and ppl will see it and will bear in mind what Sunilji and Mallaji were saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mallaji said that stars which are away from ecliptic should also affect on earth like other stars affect us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji said that all constellation' s star are on ecliptic so only those can affect and others can not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my point was that stars which formed the consteallation itself are scattered -9 to +9 degrees from ecliptic so in the same way stars which are more away from ecliptic should also affect it.Many planets even dont go to partcular constellation and we say it is in that Rashi( as SBji has siad that Rashis came up with animal shaped constellation) . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Give me some time i will show that to all of you the reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Till that time LOVE TO ALL.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love you all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh Dheengra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 28/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunday, 28 June, 2009, 8:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for your reply to my mail No. 23743. For your ready reference I am repeating the contents of that mail below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic > > > > > > > > band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other > > > > > > > > constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any > > > > > > > > effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. > > > > > > > > Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to > > > > > > > > understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first > > > > > > > > place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you > > > > > > > > think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the > > > > > > > > constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of > > > > > > > > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he > > > > > > > > is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no > > > > > > > > effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not > > > > > > > > have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless > > > > > > > > constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in > > > > > > > > the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen > > > > > > > > preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unquote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awaiting your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/27/09, harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@rocketmai l.com <harimalla@rocketma i l.com> > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009, 8:54 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhreengraji, Jhaaji and Bhattacharjyaji, > > > > > > > > The discussion is taking a interesting turn.I think truth is truth, old or new. Jhaaji is saying it is a age old thing, but there is no problem in being age old.Many times the older, the more truer. Thus let us concentrate in what Dheengraji is saying. > > > > > > > > He is saying, the signs of the zodiacs is not on the ecliptic exactly, it is say, plus minus eight or nine degrees on the ecliptic.If it should be true for plus minus eight( or 9) then why it should not be true when it is plus minus forty five degrees? He says we are also marking as on the rashis when actually it is not. > > > > > > > > Thus according to Dhreengraji, it should be true for 45 degreees if true for 8 (or 9)degrees.Am I right Dhreengraji? what would Jhaaji and Bhattachrjyaji say? Please give reasons why Dhreengraji is not right? Thank you, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Dinesh Dheengra Ji , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement about " age-old point " reveals your hatred for ancient wisdom just because it is ancient. Moreover, your statement about correspondence of raashis with constellations shows that you are neither a scientist nor an astrologer. If you are a scientist, how can you prove that physical stars or planets can have astrological effects ? If you are a supporter of astrology, why you do not test astrology on the basis of its standard ( " age-old " ) principles before discarding them, which are " age-old " (ie, outdated) for you ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<< " Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... " . >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I studied these things since 1973. You may read the following : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ NASA%27s_ Report%3B_ %26_my_Paper_ accepted_ by_CAOS%2C_ IISc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorance can be cured, but there is no cure for prejudice. One who is biased against " age-old " things should keep away from astrology, because it is an age-old thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a more detailed answer to Mt Hari Malla about this point, but you do not desrve such an answer, because you have already written me off as an outdated person. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ============ ========= = ========= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:58:17 PM > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Dheengraji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri Harimallaji thinks that the constellations (Nakshatras) in the ecliptic band were chosen arbitrarilily and that they are also of no use if other constellations outside the ecliptic band are not considered to be of having any effect on man. This is his assertion and subsequently he reasserted that. Assertions and reassertions are after all assertions. He never cared to understand why the constellations in the ecliptic band was chosen in the first place in preference to the constallationa outside the ecliptic band. Do you think he is right in ignoring the reasons for the preferential choice of the constallation in theecliptic band? Or should we assume that he is ignorant of the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He admits that he does not believe in astrology. It appears to me that he is trying to mean that if the constellations outside the ecliptic band have no effect on man then the constellations within the ecliptic band also would not have any effect on man and therefore the astrology, which involves these useless constellations is also of no use to man. He says so because he does not know in the first place why the constallations in the ecliptic band were chosen preferentially. Do you think that his assertions has any merit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think this assessment of mine holds any truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/26/09, dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dineshdheengra <dineshdheengra@ .in> > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friday, June 26, 2009, 5:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinayji, Sunilji and HariMallaji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some eyeopener ideas for this mail chain, those are as below:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constellations like Libra, Leo , aries etc etc... are 8 to 9 degrees away from ecliptic plane(anybody may check from wikipedia or anything) means those are away from ecliptic and are affecting us so what we should think about the stars which could be 45 degrees away from ecliptic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes some planets dont even transit in specific constellation and we say those are in that specific constellation. like in below example:- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some time moon transits in Ar constellation but we say it is in Pisces because we have restricted us to 30-30 degree partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So sunilji's statement doent not hold any truth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinayji is saying it is age old point:- i think Vinay ji himself has not checked the position of conestellation on ecliptic... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunilji himself told that Rashis are animal shaped creations but those are away from ecliptic(8 to 9 degrees from ecliptic on both side means +8 to -8) so it means those stars(by which constellations are made) are affecting us than insimilar fashion stars which are 45 degrees away from ecliptic will affect in same way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because age old point also give same clue and we have so many works present between us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sirs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a person totally ignorat of or opposed to astrology will raise such doubts. Mr SKB has made an age old point. All astrologers use zodiacal region and none uses the fringes of skies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ========= ========= ====== == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > > > > > > > " harimalla@ .. " <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:41:47 PM > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? May I request you to ask the gentleman, who wrote the following, as to the scientific and logical reasoning for his claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic> > > > > > > > > > > Please evaluate for yourself when his reply comes.ThanK you, > > > > > > > > > > sincerely yours, > > > > > > > > > > HAri Malla > > > > > > > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is insanity to claim that the constellations outside that plane of the solar system will have the same effect on the Earth as the constellations on the plane of the solar system ie. the ecliptic. Has any theoretical astrophysicist done any such work on that and reported the findings in scientific literature? Secondly the costellations on the ecliptic alone are useful for astronomical dating of past events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 12:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharthji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is irrelevant here because we on earth are at the receiving end and not the stars about each other.The light we receive from the different stars are known to us only and it is possible to compare their effects on us. Their effects would be similar, other things remaining the same.. > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion remains that if some of the stars effect us then the other stars too will effect us in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have some comments on this opinion.Please comment if you want to say that some stars are priviledged to effect us whereas other stars do not have the priviledge, instead of bringing irrelevant questions. > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you side tracking the questions that I raised since you are showing off so much as a scientific mind. I have not made any assertions, only you have. I am too small to make assertions. I only raised some questions. Once your scientific knowledge finds answers raised by questions, I assure you that I will start learning from you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any instead of answering my questions, you are raising more!! And in fact reading my mind too - u even know what i think! I will appreciate if you could find answers to my questions with your scientific knowledge and enlighten me also. Then we could take our discussion forward. Otherwise we are just engaging in useless discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My sincere regards and > > > > > > > > > > > > Best of Luck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 4:45 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sidhartha Dembiji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you think only some stars effect the creatures on earth whereas others are not capable of effecting.Is that what you intend to say? If so can you give some reason, why this should be so.Also what type of effect these stars have on us? Let us have your scientific outlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari Malla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Sidharth Dembi <s_dembi@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice reply to him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > & g > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Just continuing on the string (I mean thread!), Jha Ji, I would never pretend to be an astrophysicist or Quantam Physicist so even if I do not understand much of what Kaku wrote, or others there is an intuitive feeling that this time perhaps we blind men have begun to feel and describe the elephant properly and as the English say: Managed to capture reality in our imagination! But then the elephant gets fed up with all this prodding and poking and stands up and trumpets. The blind men discover another side to the coin! Sound!! Akasha it is then! Gaja, Jupiter, Akasha, Hmm... Is this a coin or nano-gold with so many shapes and forms and colours? Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Sunil Da (and Rohini Da), > > I did not refute RR Ji, I merely showed that the opposite is also true. But if you like to talk in terms of coins, I must show a third side of this strange coin. > > Recent proofs about background radiation which resulted in a Novel Prize has conclusively proved Big Bang theory to be correct. Have you pondered over the implications ? The first implkcation is that the stady-state-theory of JV Narlikar and his guru was wrong. Secondly, a universe finite in origin in time-dimension must be finite in space-dimensions too in its space-time continuum. Such a finite universe with finite space and time must be finite in mass as well. And a finite mass shows it must be finite in extent and in timein future too, because a finite mass cannot fill up infinity. A time will come when the expanding universe will have galaxies at its frinzes fleeing at about the speed of light, and therefore overburdened with relativistic masses which will eventually make the presently feeble gravitational force to overcome the expansion. Thereafter, a contraction will ensue. It is not a new idea in science, and is known as Oscillating Universe, > which is parallel to Vedic-Puranic-Sddhantic theory of Kalpas and Mahapralayas. > > Now, look at the third side of your special coin. A finite Universe must have a finite space. Hence, no matter or radiation can go out of its finite space. In other words, our universe must be a special type of Black Hole from which nothing can escape outside, but which is not densely packed like the physicists' black holes having dense matter within Schwarzschild Radii. > > Will you tolerate a fourth side of your strange coin ?? A universe with finite space and finit time will not alllow us to see anything outside it. Hence, if other universes exist outside our own, we will never see them. suppose our universe has SPIN, as vast majority of stars, planets and sub-atomic partcles hace shown to possess. Without being able to see anything outside our Universe, we will never be able to decide empirically whether our Universe rotates or not. But Suryasiddhanta has Parokshaevidences about periodicity of this physical Universe. > > There are many more sides of your multi-faceted coin, which you may not like to digest. > > -VJ > ===================== === > > > ________________________________ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya > > Thursday, July 9, 2009 6:18:35 AM > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > > > > > DearRohini and Vinay, > > Are you both not referring to the two sides of the same coin? The atoms have (atomic)space between the orbiting electrons and the nucleus. In the black hole such atomic space does not exist and there is only dense mass. > > Best wishes, > > SKB > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > Re: Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:05 AM > > The converse is also true : invisible dark matter is 9 times more weigthy than normal matter, and black holes can contain more than we can give into them. > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ===== == > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <jyotish_vani@ hotmail.com> > > Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:06:27 PM > Re: Rashi in the Fifth Veda and value of the nakshatras > > Sunil da, > > Even the densest of atoms has more space than substance. The Universe is full of holes! > > RR > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.