Secrets of the earth

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Mallaji,Namaskar,I am glad that you have asked a good question. The Vedanga Jyotisha refers to Lagadhacharya in third person. This means that the Vedanga Jyotisha, that we read, was actually composed by some disciple of Lagadhacharya though the nature of the material it contains may be much older. Lagadhacharya's date can be earlier than the date of composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha but one cannot say how much earlier.Vedanga Jyotisha was composed in 2400 BCE and the date of 1400 BCE given by Colbrooke is not correct as I had shown in an earlier mail. However what the Vedanga Jyotisha wrote was astronomical knowledge known to Vedic scholars like Bhishma much earlier than 2400 BCE.The Mahabharata war was fought in 3139 BCE, ie about 36.5 years before the start of the Kali yuga

in 3102 BCE. Bhishma made a statement statement before the date of Vedanga Jyotisha need not mean that Jyotish was not known before 2400 BCE. They do not exclude one another.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 3/28/09, Hari Malla <harimalla wrote:Hari Malla <harimallaRe: [WAVES-Vedic] Secrets of the earth"Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjyaCc: , , vvrspsDate: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 8:45 AM

Dear Sunil Bhattacharyaji,

Namaskar!

Is it not true that mahabharat is when the vedanga jyotish was in use? This seems to be the case as Bhisma cites the example of the lunar year and months as per the vedanga jyotish.Please enlighten me if the case is otherwise.thank you.

sincerely your,

Hari Malla

 

 

 

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaWAVES-Vedic Cc: ; ; vvrspsSent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:40:27 AMRe: [WAVES-Vedic] Secrets of the earth

 

 

 

 

 

Shri Ramanji,Kaulji has poor idea of chronology. He puts the date of Mahabharata after the composition of Vedanga Jyotisha. He harps on the fact rashi is not mentioned in Vedanga jyotisha ignoring the fact that rashi has been mentioned in the other texts such as Bhagavata purana, which were composed earlier than the date of composition of Vedanga Jyotisha and he goes on saying that the rashis are imported from Babylonia without substantiating.It is said that nectar mixed with poison is poison. His poisonous approach is harmful to Hindu Jyotisha. It is for that reason that I resented your uncritical praise for his approach.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Fri, 3/27/09, Raman <vvrsps wrote:

Raman <vvrspsRe: [WAVES-Vedic] Secrets of the earth"Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya @>, WAVES-VedicCc: ancient_indian_ astrology, Friday, March 27, 2009, 6:09 AM

 

 

<In the light of the above will you kindly let us know why you made your above hasty comment?>

 

Shri Bhattacharjya:

This is a very fair question, except for your describing my comment as hasty.

I am not sure I can answer it to your satisfaction, but, with the group’s indulgence, I will try to explain my position all the same.

I applaud Kaulji, not so much for everything he has been saying, much less for the tone in which he sometimes answers those who disagree with him, but for his courage to challenge long-held notions, a challenge that is also based on considerable scholarship and understanding. In this matter, from my perspective, he is a Hindu seeker of the enlightened kind, unlike otherwise genuine seekers who are more keen on defending and preserving what has come down to us as ancestral interpretations of the world.

I have taught (modern) observational astronomy and theoretical astrophysics at the university level, and I know many Hindu scientists who have serious misgivings about Vedic or any other type of astrology.. But they dare not speak out on this matter, for fear of offending the upholders of orthodoxy. To an extent I empathize with them, because such doubts are sometimes interpreted as resulting from Western corruption of the Hindu mind.

Yet, as I see it, this is being fully faithful to the Hindu tradition. In classical India scholars often discussed, debated, and disagreed on many matters of crucial import: which is why Hindu culture has evolved to become so rich and multifaceted. Unfortunately, in recent decades, provoked largely by external and internal threats which have generated feelings of insecurity, many Hindu thinkers have become all too defensive and afraid of openly recognizing anything wrong in our tradition and or unpleasant in our society. Declarations to the effect that our religion is <superior> to all others and deprecation of other faith systems, though understandable in the attacked context in which we find ourselves, are not (in my view) intrinsic to our tradition. They are shrill and unseemly echoes of misguided

Abrahamic postures, and it pains me to see this ugly turn occurring in our framework. If anything the Hindu mode has always stressed the multiplicity of paths to spiritual fulfillment. In the current muddled juncture in human history, this insight should serve as a model for the whole world.

No one can deny that there is much profound wisdom in the Vedas. It is worth exploring and unraveling this, as this group has rightly set out to do. Yet, for me as for many other genuine Hindus, the Vedas were essentially utterances of remarkably alert sage-poets of our past, rather than Divine truths that cannot or should not be challenged. I am inclined to think that the insights of our great rishis are trivialized when they are regarded as beyond critical analysis. Those keen minds would not be flattered by meek submission and rote rehashing of whatever that had said in a different age. But I also recognize that this view of mine arises because I talk from the analytical plane, with hardly any spiritual awakening on the matter. Now I have gone off on a tangent.

To come back to the original issue, while I myself have no interest in when (on which particular date), whether, or how a particular festival is celebrated, since the essence and meaning of any festival (for me) is independent of the date or manner of celebration, I do appreciate Kaulji’s careful investigation of the matter with a historical spirit of inquiry which is a sine qua non for any robust culture and evolving tradition.

I trust I have not been more obnoxious than Mr. Rathenam with these remarks, and if I have been, I apologize to the group. I have spoken my piece, and I will not interfere with your deliberations any more.

With best regards,

V. V. Raman

March 27, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear AKK,

 

Namaste,

 

1)

You may not be aware that at the time Colbrook made his dating of VJ the Max Mullerian date of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) in the 15th century BCE was accepted by all the western scholars and Colebrooke was no exception. Colebrooke therefore gave the 15th century as the date of VJ as he could not have given a date for VJ earlier than the 15 th century BCE. We now know from the Archaeological evidences and the Astronomical work of Prof. Sengupta, Prof. Achar and others that the date of the Veda was much before the 15th century BCE. Moreover there was equal division of the Nakshatras in the times of VJ and we know that the Winter solstice started occurring in Dhanistha from 2400 BCE. While I put the date of VJ sometime around 2400 BCE Prof. Achar puts it aroung 1800 BCE. Don't you realise that your contention that VJ was composed in <1400 BCE, ie. after the 15th century BCE, has no justification?

 

2)

You are dating the Mahabharata in <1400 BCE to 400 BCE. Any genuine Kashmiri scholar knows about the tradition of the Saptarshi calendar and to my understanding even now the year of birth is noted in Kashmiri horoscopes in terms of the Saparshi kala. Saptarshi kala started in 3076 BCE, when Yudhisthira went on his Swargayatra, ie. 25 years after the Kali yuga started in 3102 BCE. In fact Kalhana too mentions about the Saptarshi calendar and even Alberuni also mentioned about the Saptarshi calendar. So do you think, in all your wisdom, that the Kashmiris have been following a fake calendar from the ancient past?

 

Dhanyavad,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

Response to AKK's post on May 24, 2009 at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5036

 

--- On Sun, 5/24/09, Avtar <Avtar wrote:

Avtar <Avtar[Abhinavagupta] Re: Secrets of the Earthabhinavagupta Cc: hinducalendar , indiaarchaeology , hinducivilization Date: Sunday, May 24, 2009, 10:12 AM

 

 

Dear Francesco Brighenti,Namaskar!Many thanks for your enquiries #5001 of May 10, 09 regarding my ascribingcertain dates to the Vedas and the VJ etc.Let me start from “upside downâ€.1 < 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata>a). Mbh is a voluminous work of about one hundred thousand verses. It hasfollowed the Vedanga Jyotisha system of five year yuga, determining thenomenclature of months and tithis/nakshatras etc. The VJ is a work of anera of at least fourteenth century BCE. As such, the Mbh, to start with, ismost probably a work of the VJ era.b) Since Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis are conspicuous by their absence from theMbh, it is certainly a work of an era of prior to about 400 BCE, when rashibased Grecho-Chaldean astrology had not gained foothold in India. c) There is no mention of any weekdays in the Mbh. That also confirms thedate as prior to

4th century BCE.d) All the planets right from Budha to Shani being mentioned vis-à-visvarious nakshatras, is certainly a “side effect†of works likeAtharva-Veda- Parishsita etc. which is a work of about sixth century BCE. All these factors prove that the MBh is a work of a “steady development†of14th century BCE to 4th century BCE.2 <1400 BCE: [...] Vedanga Jyotisha>a) The VJ has said in the fifth mantra, “When the sun and the moonwhile moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha, Alpha Delphini), thenthe yuga, the Magha and Tapas months, the light half of the month and thewinter solstice, all commence togetherâ€.b) The VJ has followed a pattern of 27 equal nakshatra divisions,starting from Krittika. Presuming that Alpha Delphini is supposed to be inthe middle of Dhanishshta nakshtra division, it had an almost exactlongitude of about 270 degrees as per FK5

catalogue on January 1, 1400 BCE.The winter solstice was thus in exact conjunction with Alpha Delphini(Dhanishtha) star then. Hence it can safely be deduced that the VJ is awork of at least fourteenth century BCE, if not earlier. 3. <3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita>< 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita><3000 BCE: [...] Shatapatha Brahmana>a) Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/1-4 says, “One should getconsecrated in Krittikas…Krittikas alone consist of many stars. Otherasterisms consist of only one or two or three or four stars but Krittikashave many. These are the only stars which do not deviate from the eastwhereas all the other nakshatras do deviate from the East but notKrittikas…â€b) This is what S B Dikshit has said on page 128 ofHistory of Indian Astronomy, “The statement ‘kritikas never deviate from theeast, implies that these stars always rise in the east, that

is they aresituated on the equator or their declination is zero. At present they donot appear to rise exactly in the east but at a point north of east; thishappens because of precessional motion of equinoxes. Assuming 50†as annualmotion, the time when the junction star of the krittika had zerodeclination, comes to be 3068 years before Shaka and even 150 years earlierbefore i.e. the approximate time of commencement of Kali era. If 48†beadopted as the precessional annual motionâ€.c) Dikshit is quite correct even through his roughestimates since as per FK5 catalogue, the declination of Alcyone, theJunction Star of Krittika was about 24 arc minutes south as on January 1,3000 BCE!d) We have to bear in mind that as per these Mantras ofthe Shatapatha Brahmana, Krittika nakshatra had maximum number of stars.That means that nakshatra divisions in the Vedic time were of unequaldimensions

unlike that of the Vedanga Jyotisha! And it also means thatapart from Alcyone, there were several other prominent stars in thatdivision. e) Krittikas are a part of the Constellation (and notastrological sign!) Taurus. They are a part of Pleiades, and there is everypossibility that quite a few other prominent stars, about which we have noinformation, are a part of Krittikas, as per the Vedas. That means that oneor the other star of Kritikas had a zero degree declination for quitesometime, much before and even after 3000 BCE. f) We can, therefore, safely conclude that MadhyanhdinaShukla Yajurveda, of which Shatapatha Brahmana is a part, is a work of about3000 BCE and maybe even earlier. g) Taittiriya Samhita and Vajasneya Samhita are more orless contemporaneous of Shukla Yajurveda! Thus they also are of about 3000BCE, if not earlier.3. <4000 BCE: [...] Rigveda>a) As

is common knowledge by now, Rigveda is a muchearlier work than all the other Vedas!b) There is no doubt, thus, that the Rigveda is of atleast 4000 BCE, if not earlier!Q.E.D. (or is it QEF?)With regards,A K KaulPS1. All the remaining claptrap of your post is “immaterial,inconsequential and irrelevantâ€. with due apologies to good old Perry Mason!2. Declinations/ longitudes of Stars can be checked by anybody from10000 BCE to 12030 AD after downloading “Vasistha†program fromHinduCalendar forum, for free and without any obligation!AKK[Response to Francesco's post (10 May 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5001]------------ ------Please delete the previous post and append the relevant link as other are doing and

as I've done for your post above. I realize you are cross-posting to several other lists, but you can easily re-send your message separately to this list after modifying per our guidelines.Sunthar