Fw: Fw: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

June 11, 2009

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 6:13 AM

To Mr Avinash Sathaye (and Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya and all concerned),

Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya had quoted Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - verse 5: <<< 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH' means Meena and other Rashis." >>>

You said : <<< "Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. " >>>

Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - verse 5 says "Ye Brihaspatinaa bhuktaa Meenat prabriti Raashayah... "

But

some modern commentators think that this is a later interpolation.

Whether it is an interpolation or an original verse, no publisher has a

right to remove this verse from the text because it is mentioned in the

extant manuscripts. Throw away such spurious editions.

Both Rg

and Yaajush branches of Vedanga Jyotisha mention following verse :

"Nirekam Dvaashashaardhaabda m dvigunam gatsamjnikam, shashtyaa

shashtyaa yutam dvaabhyaam parvanaa Raashiruchyate. "

Rg Vedanga Jyotisha verse-19 mentions "Lagna". The very concept of Lagna proves that the idea of 12 astrological houses and raashis was present.

I wonder why you are doubting such explicit evidences ?

Brihat Jatak says that Riksha is a synonymn of raashi. Riksha is mentioned as a group of stare in RgVeda 1.24.10

Chhandogya Upanishada is a part of Samveda's Talavakaara Braahmana, which says that Narada Ji

was an expert of "Raashi Vidyaa", in addition to many other vidyaas,

and this fact is attested by Narada Purana which gives more details of Astrology including its astronomy than any other Purana.

Now come to Vedic interpretation. You say "mImAMsakas (Mimaansakas) made their method of interpretation as a logical system with

rules and deductions which can be consistently applied everywhere. That

way, even the people who do not agree with them cannot brush them aside

as just arbitrary interpreters. Yaska in his work also established and

applied rules illustrated with examples. I wish the believers in the parokSha meanings would do something comparable."

The

method of Mimaansakas is strictly applicable only to karmakaandic

aspect of Vedic mantras. They neglect the Adhyaatmika aspect almost

completely, and do not pay attention to other aspects which do not

concern them. They even distort the original meaning of Jaimini and

many Mimaansakas have expelled Ishvara and made Mimaansaa almost an

atheist philosophy, in spite of Jaimini's strict order that if the

performer of Yajna does not remain "attached to the Omnipotent Main /

Supreme Being, it is a Dosha (and the Yajna is fruitless". Kumarila

Bhatta & c tried to salvage Mimaansaa from the clutches of Asuric

Mimaansakas.

These "experts" themselves introduce paroksha meaning and ignore the obvious meaning of mantras. Here is an example :

Rgveda 8.96.8 says : "Trih shashtih tvaa Marutah Vavridhaanaah usraah iva raashyah.... "

Sayana

translated "raashayah" as "collections of cows" (:gaava iva

samgheebhootaaste. ..."). Let us translate this mantra literally,

assuming we do not know the meaning of "Raashi". The mantra says :

"180 Marutas like Raashis of day make you (Indra) grow..."

In

his commentary on this mantra, Sayana mentions various numbers of

Marutas in various mantras. Here, the number is 180, which is clearly

related to Uttaraayana which is day of the Gods and during which Gods

like Indra grow. According to Suryasiddhanta and all ancient

siddhantas, planetary motions are caused by Pravaha Vaayu, which is

also a part of Marutas. There are many types of Marutas, and here the

mantra clearly speaks of "180 Maruts collected like (six) Raashis of

(divine) day", but Sayana translated Usraa as "cows" and not as "days",

although Rgveda uses this term in both meanings in various mantras

according to Monier Williams. 180 days make one divine day from divine

sunrise (Makara Samkraanti) to divine sunset, during which Indra grows.

This meaning will automatically connect this mantra's meaning to that

of Sage Deerghatamas in first mandala (sookta 164) which speaks of 360

days and 360 nights in a year divided into 12 parts. Why this

Pratyakshya mening should be replaced with a Paroksha meaning of "cows"

is surprising !

With Best Regards,

-Vinay Jha

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

ancient_indian_ astrology; ; vedic_research_ institute; vedic astrology; indiaarchaeology;

Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:25:13 AM

Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

--- On Wed, 6/10/09, 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

Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 4:40 PM

Dear Avinash Sathaye,

Firstly you have forgotten that the main issue was whether the Rashis are mentioned in the Vedic literature or not. There are some people who think thart the Rashis are imported from the Greeks and that the Rashis are not mentioned in the Vedic literature. Nobody seems to address this issue.. So I thought that it would be good if I provide some information on that along with some chronological information. I showed that Rashi is given in the Vedic literature. Even a single mention of the Rashi is enough to dispel the doubt as to whether Rashi is there in the Vedic literature or not. I have given the information and it is upto the Vedic scholars to make their own assessment. Your mails are already being circulated in some Internet Fora by the interested people who want to show that the Rashis are not in the Vedic literature and you now you say :

Quote

I am not proposing the existence or absence of rashis in the Rigveda.

Unquote

It is written in the Mahabharata that before reading the Vedas one has to read the Puranas and the Epics. This is because otherwise one can misunderstand the Vedas. You want to interpret the Vedas by going straightway to the Vedas, though that is against the advice that the Vedas are to be read only after reading the Puranas. Further the Puranas have been given the status of fifth Veda. I have also mentioned in my mail about the Brahma Rashi in Mahabharata and how it became Makar Rashi in the Bhagavata purana. I expected you to see the Bhagavata purana first if you are really a Vedic scholar. But you are avoiding the Bhagavata purana, which mentions the Rashis most unambiguously. Bhagavata purana has direct meanings so one cannot have any confusion about the meaning. You do not want to admit that the Rashis are mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana. Moreover you seem to have doubt about the the fact that the Vedic verse can have more than one

meaning. If you want clearcut meaning then the Vedas are not for you as the Vedas dislike the clearcut meaning. So unless one is very profficient in the knowledge of the Vedas one can always question the meaning of the Vedic verse. It is for this reason that in the ancient times the uninitiated were not allowed to read the Vedas. One has to read the Vedangas before reading the Vedas and that too under a good Vedic scholar. .

If you consider my interpretations of the Vedic verses as assertions and your interpretations as not assertions I have nothing to say.

Sincerely,

Sunl K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 6/10/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu> wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu>

Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

"Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:46 AM

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya,

I am not proposing the existence or absence of Rashis in the Rigveda.

All I am asking for is something besides just an assertion that they are mentioned in the Rigveda.

I will be quite happy to see a meaningful explanation of at least one of your references in Rigveda which makes it appear as a reference to Rashis and not what the traditional commentary stipulates.

As you surely know, mImAMsakas made their method of interpretation as a logical system with rules and deductions which can be consistently applied everywhere. That way, even the people who do not agree with them cannot brush them aside as just arbitrary interpreters. Yaska in his work also established and applied rules illustrated with examples.

I wish the believers in the parokSha meanings would do something comparable.

At any rate, if you do not wish to explain further, I will not ask you any further questions.

Good luck with your future interpretations.

P.S. I still don't understand why you do not mention the edition of the Vedanga Jyotisha that you are getting your verses from.

Was that such an unreasonable request?

Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

I have given enough information. If you think that the Rashis are not mentioned in the Vedic literature I have nothing to say. You live with your own Vedic knowledge.

Sincerely,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu> wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu>

[WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

WAVES-Vedic

Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 4:25 AM

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:

SB said:

A) Rashi in Veda

1)

Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA" - creator of rains, since offering of Soma leads to rains!

Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha explanation of it is still not resolved.

SB further said:

Mithun (RV 3.39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7).

Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

Where does one get the Rashi?

sAyaNa describes as kanyA=kamanIyA.

Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which justifies the alternate meaning.

If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

SB further said;

There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to interpret the metaphors properly.

Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as Meena Rashi in the Veda. I fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of the verses.

If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the explanation of the rest?

The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

SB frurther said:

2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

(Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

[

Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH' means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr. Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate.

--

With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

(859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

--

With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

June 11, 2009

Dear Prashant Nairji,

People who dont know about Astrology but want to impress upon

the members, talk about everything on Earth, including Shashtras

and spirituality, but NOT Astrology.

regards/Bhaskar.

June 25, 2009

--- On Tue, 23/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 8:25 AM

To singh_ramveer :

<<< You have taunted over commentrators as Modern commentartors. Should we

consider you modern or ancient?? >>>

There is no ancient commentator of VJ (Vedanga Jyotisha), all commentators are

modern, but all are not wrong or biased. One commentator believed that one verse

was not original and therefore some publishers omitted that verse, not giving it

even in the footnote. Destroying a text is not an scholarly act. Without caring

to understand the problem, you are trying to divert the discussion to personal

sarcasms.

<<< What is the guarantee that Lagna was being find out only by Sun's movement.

>>>

Yes, the guarantee lies in ancient siddhantas. Try to read them before doubting.

'Lagna' is a technical term of siddhantic Jyotisha and cannot be redifined at

the whims of moderners. In ancient siddhanta, Lagna is the rising point of

ecliptic at a given time, which makes Bhaavachalita as the main kundali. Some

phalikta works gave a crude definition of rising point of Raashi chakra. All 12

houses are reckoned from Lagna kundali. Taking other planets as Lagna is useful

only for some particulat houses. Even in those cases, lagna is NEVER taken as

riring time of any planet or its orbit.

<<< You would not be aware that Jyotishis have also said that Lagna can also be

calculated by Moon's movement. >>>

I am not aware of a lot of novelties invented by those who are careless or

oblivious of the shaastras. Lagna can NEVER be calculated by Moon's movement.

Making Chandra-kundali with Moon as lagna is quite different from the basic

lagna of lagna kundali. Moonrise cannot be used for lagna.

<<< Except this, you have talked of Jaimini, Brihat Jataka etc etc... which are

not very older works, and even in those works they have not talked of any

ayanamsa. >>>

Ayanamsha is clearly defined in Suryasiddhanta which is said to be given at the

end of Satyuga. Even Varahmihira lauded it as the best of all siddhantas and

called it divine, which proves its archaicness.

<<< Jha you didnt tell about the verse of Vedanga Jyotish in which there is talk

of Uttarayana. >>>

I posted many messages about those verses but got no responses from Mr AKK & c.

Please search old mails.

<<< You also have not told us about that verse in which he talksed of Uttarayan

in Dhanista Nks and by taking precesion of 50 we can reach to near about 1500 BC

means time when Vedanaga Jyotish was written.

But you challenged ppl that nobody can show that VEDANGA JYOTISH had been

authored in 1500 BC. >>>

I have said time and again that this method of taking only annual rate of

precession and neglecting the explicit mention of lunar month of Magha was a

deliberate ploy of Colebrooke & c to put Vedas and Vedangas within Kaliyuga. Why

you do not read Veganga Jyotisha , instead of repeating the wrong odeas of

Colebrooke ? Kaliyuga-Meshaadi coincided with Magha, now Meshaadi coincides with

Chaitra and is rending towards Vaishaakha. Hence, around 1500 BC, Meshaadi

should coincide with either Magha or Phaalguna. But Vedanga Jyotisha talks of

Magha at the start of Dhanishthaa !!! It is possible only in remote antiquity,

which is unacceptable to all those " scholars " who have a priori faith in

Maxmullers's dating of the Vedas & c.

The proof of Siddhantic ayanamsha is ASTROLOGICAL test, not materialistic

astronomy which studies dead objects with which Vedic Jyotisha is not concerned

at all.

To SKB :

Sir,

Siddhantic ayanamsha expalins the long-term coincidence of seasons with both

sayana and nirayana solar months. Siddhantic ayanamsha vibrates within a maximum

range of +/- 27 degrees. It is not a vibration of physical orbits, but of the

Nakshatra-chakra as Suryasiddhanta tells. Nakshatra-chakra lies at a distance

between Saturn and Neptune, having a periodicity of 60 years.. There is no

physical object there. Hence, physical astronomy cannot prove or disprove its

existence. Sun requires 61 years to reach at the same point on Nakshatra-chakra.

this is the explanation of 61-year solar cycle of seasons.

-VJ

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

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Monday, June 22, 2009 10:26:59 AM

Re: Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

Dear Vinay,

I think the question asked by Shri Singh is whether by Lagna you can mean only

the Ascendeant (Rising Sun ie. in which the Sun rises in the morning) or this

should also mean the Rising Moon. Yes, this clarification is needed from you.

Probably you will have to quote the definition of Lagna such as " Lagnanam udou

Surya " or whatever you think proper. Correct me if I am wrong.

Secondly I am sure you have seen the verse where it is said that Magha, Tapa in

Shukla paksha and Uttarayana occur(ed) together. Tapa as you very well know is

the Tropical or Seasonal month starting at the time of the Uttarayana. Did you

by any chance goof up anywhere that you are being asked this question? Goofing

up happens once in a way in case of everybody.

Third question is about Uttarayana occurring in Dhanistha Nakshatra. We all know

that Uttarayana occurs in a Nakshatra for one thousand years and it first

occurred in Dhanistha around 2400 BCE and then it ended around 1400 BCE. The

question asked means whether you took the beginning of Uttarayana in the

Dhanistha or the ending of Uttaraya in the Dhanistha. I take the beginning of

the occurrence of the Uttarayana as that appears to me to be meaning of that

verse.

I think these questions are not tough for a scholar like you.

Now AKK has also a doubt about the Mrigachakra. He says that the " Bha-chakra "

means " Nakshatra-chakra " . He thinks " Mriga-chakra " should also be

" Nakshatra-chakra " . In my opinion the animal representaion is for the Rashi and

not Nakshatra. Once you identify the Rashi ithe identification of the Nakshatra

within the Rashi is not a problem at all. After all the imaginary animal

representation came to be used only for identification of the Rashis by the

naked-eye astronomers of the ancient times, otherwise how could they have

distingished the Rashis. Correct me if I am wrong.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. BHattacharjya

--- On Sun, 6/21/09, singh_ramveer <singh_ramveer@ .in> wrote:

singh_ramveer <singh_ramveer@ .in>

Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

Sunday, June 21, 2009, 2:52 PM

< Rg Vedanga Jyotisha verse-19 mentions " Lagna " . The very concept of Lagna

proves that the idea of 12 astrological houses and raashis was present >

You have taunted over commentrators as Modern commentartors. Should we consider

you modern or ancient??

Now come to the point:-

What is the guarantee that Lagna was being find out only by Sun's movement.

You would not be aware that Jyotishis have also said that Lagna can also be

calculated by Moon's movement.

Except this, you have talked of Jaimini, Brihat Jataka etc etc... which are not

very older works, and even in those works they have not talked of any ayanamsa.

Jha you didnt tell about the verse of Vedanga Jyotish in which there is talk of

Uttarayana, now tell us that Uttarayana doesnt show that they were talking o

seasons.But you dont want to put those verses between public

You also have not told us about that verse in which he talksed of Uttarayan in

Dhanista Nks and by taking precesion of 50 we can reach to near about 1500 BC

means time when Vedanaga Jyotish was written.

But you challenged ppl that nobody can show that VEDANGA JYOTISH had been

authored in 1500 BC.

Thanks

> , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > To Mr Avinash Sathaye (and Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya and all concerned),

> >

> > Mr Sunil Bhattacharjya had quoted Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - verse 5: <<<

'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH' means Meena and other Rashis. " >>>

> >

> > You said : <<< " Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate

this verse

> > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

> > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. " >>>

> >

> > Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - verse 5 says " Ye Brihaspatinaa bhuktaa Meenat

prabriti Raashayah... "

> >

> > But

> > some modern commentators think that this is a later interpolation.

> > Whether it is an interpolation or an original verse, no publisher has a

> > right to remove this verse from the text because it is mentioned in the

> > extant manuscripts. Throw away such spurious editions.

> >

> > Both Rg

> > and Yaajush branches of Vedanga Jyotisha mention following verse :

> > " Nirekam Dvaashashaardhaabda m dvigunam gatsamjnikam, shashtyaa

> > shashtyaa yutam dvaabhyaam parvanaa Raashiruchyate. "

> >

> > Rg Vedanga Jyotisha verse-19 mentions " Lagna " . The very concept of Lagna

proves that the idea of 12 astrological houses and raashis was present.

> >

> > I wonder why you are doubting such explicit evidences ?

> >

> > Brihat Jatak says that Riksha is a synonymn of raashi. Riksha is mentioned

as a group of stare in RgVeda 1.24.10

> >

> > Chhandogya Upanishada is a part of Samveda's Talavakaara Braahmana, which

says that Narada Ji

> > was an expert of " Raashi Vidyaa " , in addition to many other vidyaas,

> > and this fact is attested by Narada Purana which gives more details of

Astrology including its astronomy than any other Purana.

> >

> > Now come to Vedic interpretation. You say " mImAMsakas (Mimaansakas) made

their method of interpretation as a logical system with

> > rules and deductions which can be consistently applied everywhere. That

> > way, even the people who do not agree with them cannot brush them aside

> > as just arbitrary interpreters. Yaska in his work also established and

> > applied rules illustrated with examples. I wish the believers in the

parokSha meanings would do something comparable. "

> >

> > The

> > method of Mimaansakas is strictly applicable only to karmakaandic

> > aspect of Vedic mantras. They neglect the Adhyaatmika aspect almost

> > completely, and do not pay attention to other aspects which do not

> > concern them. They even distort the original meaning of Jaimini and

> > many Mimaansakas have expelled Ishvara and made Mimaansaa almost an

> > atheist philosophy, in spite of Jaimini's strict order that if the

> > performer of Yajna does not remain " attached to the Omnipotent Main /

> > Supreme Being, it is a Dosha (and the Yajna is fruitless " . Kumarila

> > Bhatta & c tried to salvage Mimaansaa from the clutches of Asuric

> > Mimaansakas.

> >

> > These " experts " themselves introduce paroksha meaning and ignore the obvious

meaning of mantras. Here is an example :

> >

> > Rgveda 8.96.8 says : " Trih shashtih tvaa Marutah Vavridhaanaah usraah iva

raashyah.... "

> >

> > Sayana

> > translated " raashayah " as " collections of cows " (:gaava iva

> > samgheebhootaaste. ... " ). Let us translate this mantra literally,

> > assuming we do not know the meaning of " Raashi " . The mantra says :

> >

> > " 180 Marutas like Raashis of day make you (Indra) grow... "

> >

> > In

> > his commentary on this mantra, Sayana mentions various numbers of

> > Marutas in various mantras. Here, the number is 180, which is clearly

> > related to Uttaraayana which is day of the Gods and during which Gods

> > like Indra grow. According to Suryasiddhanta and all ancient

> > siddhantas, planetary motions are caused by Pravaha Vaayu, which is

> > also a part of Marutas. There are many types of Marutas, and here the

> > mantra clearly speaks of " 180 Maruts collected like (six) Raashis of

> > (divine) day " , but Sayana translated Usraa as " cows " and not as " days " ,

> > although Rgveda uses this term in both meanings in various mantras

> > according to Monier Williams. 180 days make one divine day from divine

> > sunrise (Makara Samkraanti) to divine sunset, during which Indra grows.

> > This meaning will automatically connect this mantra's meaning to that

> > of Sage Deerghatamas in first mandala (sookta 164) which speaks of 360

> > days and 360 nights in a year divided into 12 parts. Why this

> > Pratyakshya mening should be replaced with a Paroksha meaning of " cows "

> > is surprising !

> >

> > With Best Regards,

> >

> > -Vinay Jha

> > ============ ========= = =======

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@>

> > ancient_indian_ astrology; @ .

com; vedic_research_ institute; vedic astrology@ .

com; indiaarchaeology;

> > Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:25:13 AM

> > Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/10/09, 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

> > Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 4:40 PM

> >

> > Dear Avinash Sathaye,

> >

> > Firstly you have forgotten that the main issue was whether the Rashis are

mentioned in the Vedic literature or not. There are some people who think thart

the Rashis are imported from the Greeks and that the Rashis are not mentioned in

the Vedic literature. Nobody seems to address this issue... So I thought that it

would be good if I provide some information on that along with some

chronological information. I showed that Rashi is given in the Vedic literature.

Even a single mention of the Rashi is enough to dispel the doubt as to whether

Rashi is there in the Vedic literature or not. I have given the information and

it is upto the Vedic scholars to make their own assessment. Your mails are

already being circulated in some Internet Fora by the interested people who want

to show that the Rashis are not in the Vedic literature and you now you say :

> >

> > Quote

> >

> > I am not proposing the existence or absence of rashis in the Rigveda.

> >

> > Unquote

> >

> > It is written in the Mahabharata that before reading the Vedas one has to

read the Puranas and the Epics. This is because otherwise one can misunderstand

the Vedas. You want to interpret the Vedas by going straightway to the Vedas,

though that is against the advice that the Vedas are to be read only after

reading the Puranas. Further the Puranas have been given the status of fifth

Veda. I have also mentioned in my mail about the Brahma Rashi in Mahabharata and

how it became Makar Rashi in the Bhagavata purana. I expected you to see the

Bhagavata purana first if you are really a Vedic scholar. But you are avoiding

the Bhagavata purana, which mentions the Rashis most unambiguously. Bhagavata

purana has direct meanings so one cannot have any confusion about the meaning.

You do not want to admit that the Rashis are mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana.

Moreover you seem to have doubt about the the fact that the Vedic verse can have

more than one

> > meaning. If you want clearcut meaning then the Vedas are not for you as the

Vedas dislike the clearcut meaning. So unless one is very profficient in the

knowledge of the Vedas one can always question the meaning of the Vedic verse.

It is for this reason that in the ancient times the uninitiated were not allowed

to read the Vedas. One has to read the Vedangas before reading the Vedas and

that too under a good Vedic scholar. .

> >

> > If you consider my interpretations of the Vedic verses as assertions and

your interpretations as not assertions I have nothing to say.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > Sunl K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:46 AM

> >

> > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > I am not proposing the existence or absence of Rashis in the Rigveda.

> > All I am asking for is something besides just an assertion that they are

mentioned in the Rigveda.

> >

> > I will be quite happy to see a meaningful explanation of at least one of

your references in Rigveda which makes it appear as a reference to Rashis and

not what the traditional commentary stipulates.

> >

> > As you surely know, mImAMsakas made their method of interpretation as a

logical system with rules and deductions which can be consistently applied

everywhere. That way, even the people who do not agree with them cannot brush

them aside as just arbitrary interpreters. Yaska in his work also established

and applied rules illustrated with examples.

> >

> > I wish the believers in the parokSha meanings would do something comparable.

> >

> > At any rate, if you do not wish to explain further, I will not ask you any

further questions.

> >

> > Good luck with your future interpretations.

> >

> > P.S. I still don't understand why you do not mention the edition of the

Vedanga Jyotisha that you are getting your verses from.

> > Was that such an unreasonable request?

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > I have given enough information. If you think that the Rashis are not

mentioned in the Vedic literature I have nothing to say. You live with your own

Vedic knowledge..

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Tue, 6/9/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology

and the Sidereal

> > WAVES-Vedic

> > Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 4:25 AM

> >

> > 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:

> >

> > SB said:

> > A) Rashi in Veda

> >

> > 1)

> > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

6.47.5; 8.93..1),

> >

> > In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains it as

" vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma leads to rains!

> > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

> > I have already given 8..93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

explanation of it is still not resolved.

> >

> > SB further said:

> > Mithun (RV 3.39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7).

> >

> > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> > Where does one get the Rashi?

> > sAyaNa describes as kanyA=kamanIyA.

> > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

justifies the alternate meaning.

> > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I can

find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

> >

> > SB further said;

> >

> > There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and Vasishtha were

born. The verse is :

> >

> >

> > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we understand

that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to interpret the metaphors

properly.

> >

> > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis in

Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as Meena Rashi in

the Veda. I fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows that the Veda itself

says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of the verses.

> >

> > If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

explanation of the rest?

> > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in the

kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

> >

> > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of faith

(perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

> >

> > SB frurther said:

> >

> > 2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> >

> > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

> >

> > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

> >

> > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> > [

> > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH' means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr. Vartak

points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

> >

> > Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse in my

copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave the exact

reference to my source. Please reciprocate.

> > --

> >

> > With Best Regards,

> > Avinash Sathaye

> > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

> > --

> >

> > --

> > With Best Regards,

> > Avinash Sathaye

> >

> > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

June 26, 2009

You wrongly say :

<<< " In those days the lagna was expressed in terms of Nks and bhamsa only as

there was no Rashi concept. " . >>>

Vedanga Jyotisha (Yaajush text) mentions Mina Raashi. Verse-4 of Archa Jyotisha

(= Rgvedic Vedanga Jyotisha) says :

" Nir-ekam dvaadashaabhyastam dvigunam gata-samyutam / shashtyaa-shashtyaa yutam

dvaabhyaam parvanaam Raashir-uchyate. "

It means : " Substract one (from the samvatsara-number of current samvatsara in

the 5-year yuga of VJ) and multiply the resultant with 12, and again multiply

the resultant with two, it will give the Raashis of Parvas in the 60-60 list

(during 5 years " .

Its meaning is not difficult to decide, in proper context. Preceding verse says

that this text was composed for " yajna-kaalaartha-siddhaye " , ie for ascertaining

the timing of yajnas. The first yajna of Yajurveda is Darsha-paurna-maasa Yajna.

It is to be performed regularly on each New Moon (=Darsha) and Full Moon

(Poornamaasi). Hence, each synodical lunar month had two Parvas. Malamaassa

(adhimaasa) do not contain any (Darshapaurnamaasa) Parva. Therefore, in five

years, there are 60 Darsha Parvas and 60 Paurnamaasa Parvas. Although these

Darshapaurnamaasa Parvas are performed according to lunar months and there are

synodical 61.842 lunar months in 5 years, only 60 Darshapaurnamaasa Parvas can

be performed in 5 years because Parvas are not performed during adhimaasa.

Therefoen long term the number of pairs of Parvas is equal to the number of

solar months or solar Raashis. The text of Vedanga Jyotish uses the term

" Raashi " for solar month, which is

perfectlt in tune with modern practice.

Please try to be honest to sources and do not distort their meanings.

You again wrongly say :

<<< " The earth itself rotates 1835 times in the yuga and the time of one

rotation is known as a sidereal day.The zodiac makes the same number of

rotations. " >>>

It is your own idea, not supported by any ancient or modern text. According to

modern astronomy, Earth rotates 5* (1 + 356.256361226 ) = 1831.2818 times in 5

years, and if we replace the modern sidereal year equal to 356.256361226 days

with Suryasiddhantic value we will get 1831.2938 rotations in one yuga of VJ.

There are 1582237828 risings of the nakshatras in a mahayuga of 4320000 years as

per Suryasiddhanta, and there are 57753336 lurar revolutions in a mahayuga.

Hence, one sidereal month amounts to 1582237828 / 57753336 days, and 67 such

lunar revolutions (Naakshatra maasas or sidereal lunar months) are equal to

1835.563827 days, which is truncated as 1835 days in VJ system. You are

misinterpreting it as number of Earth's rotations. Vedanga Jyotisha is not a

simple text, and you need to refine your crude approach and careless attitude to

it. The value of modern physical sidereal month is marginally different from

Suryasiddhantic value and according to physical astronimy we will get 1835.55986

days for 67 sidereal lunar months.

<<< Those siddhanta are not older than the VEDANGA JYOTISH >>>

Suryasiddhanta was revealed in Satyuga and astrologers of historical period

called it divine whives its hoary past.

Vedanga Jyotisha says that its purpose is determination of auspicious time for

Yajnas. Hence, it used only that portion of Jyotisha which was needed by

Vaidikas. It does not mean that rest of Jyotisha was non-existemt. Vedas are not

encyclopaediae of everything and it is wrong to believe things not explicitly

mentioned in Vedas did not exist.

Since time immewmorial, Jyotisha is said to be founded on three skandhas, and

Siddhanta is the mathematical foundation of Jyotisha. Your rejection of

Siddhanta is understandable, because Siddhanta is very difficult to master. Mr

AK Kaul had also erred by 24 degrees in computing Suryasiddhanting ayanamsha and

arrived at a value of 47 degrees for modern period !

Mr AA Kaul is nor a Vedic scholar. Vedic learning is a difficult process which

requires years of painstaking labour under a Vedic guru. Slight change in accent

may invert the meaning. For instance, the term Indra-shatru means, depending

upon placement of primary acdent on poorvapada or uttarapada, both Vrittasura as

well as Surya, wich have almost opposite consequences.

<<< I am not reading Colebrook & C ploy, i am reading those VERSES by my own

eyes. >>>

If you know how to compute with the help of Vedanga Jyotisha, show the date of

its composition on the basis of conditions of uttarayana mention in it, NOT

OMITTING THE CONDITION OF MAAGHA MONTH as all followers of Colebrooke have

done.

Magha Shukla Pratipada was impossible around 1400 BCE. I have already described

it in detail. Why you do not compute the lunar month at the start of uttarayana

with Sun and Moon in Dhanishtha around 1400 BCE ? Once you try to find out the

lunar month, which is a difficult job, you will find that Vedanga Jyotisha is a

very very old text belonging to much earlier period than 1400 BCE or 2400 BCE.

Instead of arguing with wordas, try to compute the lunar month, you will FAIL.

I am repeating : " Kaliyuga-Meshaadi coincided with Magha, now Meshaadi coincides

with Chaitra and is rending towards Vaishaakha. Hence, around 1500 BC, Meshaadi

should coincide with either Magha or Phaalguna. But Vedanga Jyotisha talks of

Magha at the start of Dhanishthaa !!! It is possible only in remote antiquity,

which is unacceptable to all those " scholars " who have a priori faith in

Maxmullers's dating of the Vedas & c. "

<<< I have not talk of those things, it is your ploy, i am talking simple thing

and it is directly from VJ's mantra.And i have already proved it but you

challenged that nobody can prove that it is of 1500 BC work.And all learned ppl

are convinced by it. >>>

It is hard truth and not my " ploy " as you say, because Vedanga Jyotisha clearly

says that Magha Shukla Pratipada must coincide with uttarayana at the start of

its yuga when Sun and Moon enter Dhanishthaa. Hitherto I suspected that you are

beguiled by careless authors, but now you are refusing to abide by the verse of

Verse of Vedanga Jyotisha and are deliberately avoiding the condition of Magha

Shukla Pratipada at Dhanishthaa.

<<< VARAHMIHIR only can laud who himself also claimed that MAYA was MLECHAA. >>>

Why are you imposing AK Kaul's abusive words about Maya in the name of Varaha

Mihira ? A K Kaul is the first person in whole human history who called Maya a

Mlechchha. Varaha Mihira called Suryasiddhanta as the " Saavitr " siddhanta , ie

the Siddhanta of the Vedic deity Savitaa (Sun-God) and said that Suryasiddhanta

is the best of all siddhantas. Read his Panchsiddhantika.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:45:53 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic]

Re:Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

--- On Tue, 23/6/09, Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer@ .in> wrote:

Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer@ .in>

Re: Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 7:48 PM

To Jhaa

< Yes, the guarantee lies in ancient siddhantas. Try to read them before

doubting. 'Lagna' is a technical term of siddhantic Jyotisha and cannot be

redifined at the whims of moderners. In ancient siddhanta, Lagna is the rising

point of ecliptic at a given time, which makes Bhaavachalita as the main

kundali. Some phalikta works gave a crude definition of rising point of Raashi

chakra. All 12 houses are reckoned from Lagna kundali. Taking other planets as

Lagna is useful only for some particulat houses. Even in those cases, lagna is

NEVER taken as riring time of any planet or its orbit. >

Answer to JHAA:-

Those siddhanta are not older than the VEDANGA JYOTISH so we have to try to see

the possibilty of lagna making by NKS only, means, what ever the resources we

have in VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH, accordingly we should approach. We should not

tae crutch of any Sidhantic works with are later works(It is common sense).I am

trying to show astrological Lagna because some ppl claims that it is same lagna

which we talk in astrology.But many many learned ppl(learned means ppl who knows

VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotis and Purans) say it has nothing to do with it.

So accoring to those resources lagna(astrological lagna) calculation is as

below:-

*********

The earth itself rotates 1835 times in the yuga and the time of one rotation is

known as a sidereal day.The zodiac makes the same number of rotations.

In those days the lagna was expressed in terms of Nks and bhamsa only as there

was no Rashi concept.

One Nks as well as the day has 124 amshas, therefore, the hamsha of the day,

when multiplied by 27, bhamsha of Lagna.

Zodiac completes its one rotation during one day or 124 parts of the day, thus

the result will be in the form of NKS rising with its bhamshas.

There is one rise of 27 NKS * 124 bhamsha daily, which gives NKS lagna..

27 NKS * 124 = BHAMSHA of NKS lagna day amsha /124

= Estha Kaal Fraction

Therefore, 27*124*day amsha divided by 124, simply 27*day amshas gives lagna in

terms of NKS.

*********

< I am not aware of a lot of novelties invented by those who are careless or

oblivious of the shaastras. Lagna can NEVER be calculated by Moon's movement.

Making Chandra-kundali with Moon as lagna is quite different from the basic

lagna of lagna kundali. Moonrise cannot be used for lagna. >

I have already answered it in previous one.

< I have said time and again that this method of taking only annual rate of

precession and neglecting the explicit mention of lunar month of Magha was a

deliberate ploy of Colebrooke & c to put Vedas and Vedangas within Kaliyuga. Why

you do not read Veganga Jyotisha , instead of repeating the wrong odeas of

Colebrooke ? >

I am not reading Colebrook & C ploy, i am reading those VERSES by my own eyes.So

i am telling.Whatever not fits not according to you started abusing.Even by it

Many Indians and acient Indian Jyotishis are convinced, if you want their names

i can also let you know.

The VJ has said in the fifth mantra, " When the sun and the moon

while moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha, Alpha Delphini), then

the yuga, the Magha and Tapas months, the light half of the month and the

winter solstice, all commence together " .

The VJ has followed a pattern of 27 equal nakshatra divisions,

starting from Krittika. Presuming that Alpha Delphini is supposed to be in

the middle of Dhanishshta nakshtra division(this is not presumed by any cole

brook any but by Indian, it had an almost exact longitude 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 a

work of at least fourteenth century BCE, if not earlier.

< Kaliyuga-Meshaadi coincided with Magha, now Meshaadi coincides with Chaitra

and is rending towards Vaishaakha. Hence, around 1500 BC, Meshaadi should

coincide with either Magha or Phaalguna. But Vedanga Jyotisha talks of Magha at

the start of Dhanishthaa !!! It is possible only in remote antiquity, which is

unacceptable to all those " scholars " who have a priori faith in Maxmullers's

dating of the Vedas & c. >

I have not talk of those things, it is your ploy, i am talking simple thing and

it is directly from VJ's mantra.And i have already proved it but you challenged

that nobody can prove that it is of 1500 BC work.And all learned ppl are

convinced by it.

< Ayanamsha is clearly defined in Suryasiddhanta which is said to be given at

the end of Satyuga. Even Varahmihira lauded it as the best of all siddhantas and

called it divine, which proves its archaicness. >

I am talking of most ancient works VEDANGA JYOTISH. Now i think nobody will laud

as it is away from correct planet's location and everybody knows it well.And

Vibrational concept of ayanamsha i can not understand.Yes VARAHMIHIR only can

laud who himself also claimed that MAYA was MLECHAA.

Thank you

--- On Tue, 23/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re:Rashi in Vedic literature,

the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 8:25 AM

To singh_ramveer :

<<< You have taunted over commentrators as Modern commentartors. Should we

consider you modern or ancient?? >>>

There is no ancient commentator of VJ (Vedanga Jyotisha), all commentators are

modern, but all are not wrong or biased. One commentator believed that one verse

was not original and therefore some publishers omitted that verse, not giving it

even in the footnote. Destroying a text is not an scholarly act. Without caring

to understand the problem, you are trying to divert the discussion to personal

sarcasms.

<<< What is the guarantee that Lagna was being find out only by Sun's movement.

>>>

Yes, the guarantee lies in ancient siddhantas. Try to read them before doubting.

'Lagna' is a technical term of siddhantic Jyotisha and cannot be redifined at

the whims of moderners. In ancient siddhanta, Lagna is the rising point of

ecliptic at a given time, which makes Bhaavachalita as the main kundali. Some

phalikta works gave a crude definition of rising point of Raashi chakra. All 12

houses are reckoned from Lagna kundali. Taking other planets as Lagna is useful

only for some particulat houses. Even in those cases, lagna is NEVER taken as

riring time of any planet or its orbit.

<<< You would not be aware that Jyotishis have also said that Lagna can also be

calculated by Moon's movement. >>>

I am not aware of a lot of novelties invented by those who are careless or

oblivious of the shaastras. Lagna can NEVER be calculated by Moon's movement.

Making Chandra-kundali with Moon as lagna is quite different from the basic

lagna of lagna kundali. Moonrise cannot be used for lagna.

<<< Except this, you have talked of Jaimini, Brihat Jataka etc etc... which are

not very older works, and even in those works they have not talked of any

ayanamsa. >>>

Ayanamsha is clearly defined in Suryasiddhanta which is said to be given at the

end of Satyuga. Even Varahmihira lauded it as the best of all siddhantas and

called it divine, which proves its archaicness.

<<< Jha you didnt tell about the verse of Vedanga Jyotish in which there is talk

of Uttarayana. >>>

I posted many messages about those verses but got no responses from Mr AKK & c.

Please search old mails.

<<< You also have not told us about that verse in which he talksed of Uttarayan

in Dhanista Nks and by taking precesion of 50 we can reach to near about 1500 BC

means time when Vedanaga Jyotish was written.

But you challenged ppl that nobody can show that VEDANGA JYOTISH had been

authored in 1500 BC. >>>

I have said time and again that this method of taking only annual rate of

precession and neglecting the explicit mention of lunar month of Magha was a

deliberate ploy of Colebrooke & c to put Vedas and Vedangas within Kaliyuga.. Why

you do not read Veganga Jyotisha , instead of repeating the wrong odeas of

Colebrooke ? Kaliyuga-Meshaadi coincided with Magha, now Meshaadi coincides with

Chaitra and is rending towards Vaishaakha. Hence, around 1500 BC, Meshaadi

should coincide with either Magha or Phaalguna. But Vedanga Jyotisha talks of

Magha at the start of Dhanishthaa !!! It is possible only in remote antiquity,

which is unacceptable to all those " scholars " who have a priori faith in

Maxmullers's dating of the Vedas & c.

The proof of Siddhantic ayanamsha is ASTROLOGICAL test, not materialistic

astronomy which studies dead objects with which Vedic Jyotisha is not concerned

at all.

To SKB :

Sir,

Siddhantic ayanamsha expalins the long-term coincidence of seasons with both

sayana and nirayana solar months. Siddhantic ayanamsha vibrates within a maximum

range of +/- 27 degrees. It is not a vibration of physical orbits, but of the

Nakshatra-chakra as Suryasiddhanta tells.. Nakshatra-chakra lies at a distance