Re:Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

Now Mr. Harimalla has admitted that he does not care for endorsement from the shastras. Better if he stops his anti-shastriya blabberings early.

 

He does not want to admit that the Tropical month "TAPA' is now starting with the Sidereal month "PAUSHA" and the 5-year Yuga cycle i already being maintained in the Sidereal calendar.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Thank you Nairji for your footnote. Yes, no more response to the wrestler's mail. Last couple of mails are in fact addressed to the members showing the hollowness of the arguments of the wrestler.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 6/15/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 9:30 AM

 

 

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,I wanted to reply to your other mail only tomorrow. But now since you have also touched upon this mail, I will answer now only. 1.Equal to apta vakya is also logic and ganit.So do not think quotation of the shastras is the only type of proof. I have amply given my reasons in the context only. When you have to use your logic, you never sseem to digest that and only like to refer to quotes.The scriptures cannot afford to quote every thing in life, as you would want to, so that you may never have to use your own brain or mathematics. I have given my reasons why ayanamsa should not increase more than 15 degrees.It is due to the 15 degrees relationship between the sankranti and the full moon zone.2.Now the only way to save the scriptures is by changing the names of the stars.In the past they did not have to change the names of the stars, because they were using the rashis for the first time.They did not change the names

of the nakshyatra because they could esasily change the 15 days of tithi from maagha sukla pratipada of vedanga jyotish to Poush purnima of sidhanta jyotish by only changing the system from amanta to purnimanta lunar month, keeping the names of the nakshyatras as of old.But now all the artifices having been exhausted, changing the names of the stars by 30 degrees is the only way to save the shastras both jyotish and dharma shastras..The corresponding nakshyatras and the rashis in my proposal are going to be the same. There is gong to be no change between the rashis and the nakshyatras in the relative sense, since both the rashis and the nakshyatras are going to shift by 30 degrees together as per the sayan system, during calendar reform.The future makar rashis will also have the same nakshyatras as you have mentioned.3.Having known some basics,I have no problem in saying so to satisfy the phalit people.Because what I say is true from the

phalit point of view also.I do not want to disturb phalit astrology, thus i thinkit is good to give them the freedom to select whether they want to go by the new epochal rashis aor the oldrashis as theyn are udsed to. but i feel the new once will be more accurate,the new ayanamsa being only 6 degrees instead of the present 24 degrees.Common sese says the lesser the ayanamsa the better the accuracy, the best being when the two sankrantis being at the sme point as in the beginning, say around 285 AD.My disbelieve in astrology is partial.But in the basics of the sun, the moon and the earth forces effecting us it is also my own theory which I can scientifically prove perhaps, much better than any phalit people can.Because the sayan lagan is the first fact and the lunar rashis being out of sequence with the sayan lagan,the discrepancy is easisly proved due to the vishuvat now being in two different fullmoon zones.Dharma shastras equal fullmoon zones

with the sankrantis.This can easily be proved by mathematics as the value of ayanamsa is well known and also th fluctuatuion of the fullmoon with the sankrantis is ony 15 days.4.The sidereal calendar appears to be independant for the general men. But the careful persons will know that, this independace also has a limit and that limit is 15 degrees of ayanamsa.This limit is set by the coordination of the sun and the moon by the adhimas.If ayanamsa is increased more than 15 degrees, then the purpose of adhimas is violated, which is the fundamental basis of our soli-lunar calendar.If we go by your assumption of the full independance, then in 12000 years,the sayan uttrayan and the nirayan uttrayan of makar sankranti will be six months apart, which is a absurd situation.So please give up your adamance.Remember, what Rabindra nath Tagore has said in the Gitanjali,'Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way in the dry sand of dead

habit, into that heaven of freedom,my lord, let my country awake'.So to do him honoour, please give up your illogical dead habit of total or unlimited nirayaness.The nirayan system is limited by the full moon zone.This is proven by the vedanga jyotish and the past reformations done by Barahamihir and others.Anyway thank you for taking the interest.Regards,Hari MallaRead and enjoy another stupid mail frm hari malla tho i dont read it fully to save my valuable time i hope sunil bhattacharya ji will stop responding him sunil nair any way i am approving this mail ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> Dear Members,>

> 1)> > Mr. Harimalla has written as follows:> > Quote> > Ayanamsa should in no way rise above 15 degrees, to keep up the accuracy of our astrological system as laid down by the sages.> > UNquote> > Where is the reference from the Shastras as to which sage said what and where and when.?> > 2)> Nobody in the history of Hindu calendar had ever changed the fixed stars of the Rashis uptill this day. Makar Rashi had always had 3 padas of Uttarashadha, 4 padas of Shravana and 2 padas of Dhanistha and it will always remain so. Nobody can change the composition of the Rashis.> > 3)> Mr. Harimalla had declared that he does not believe in astrology. Then what knowledge and right he has to say what is required for astrology?> > 4)> Sidereal

calendar has follow its own principles of linking up with the fixed Nakshatras and it is independent of the effects of precession. The Tropical calendar is dependent on precession and therefore the Tropical"Tapa" month can be dragged behind by one month as it is related to the Winter Solstice and nothing else needs to be done. If people like Harimalla think that it is a must then let these people call the Sidereal Lunar Pausha month as equivalent to the Tropical Pausha month. Mind that this can only solve the adamance of these people. We cannot allow to them to temper with the Vedic Sidereal months which are associated with fixed Nakshatras.> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > --- On Mon, 6/15/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote:> > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..>> Subject:

[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Rashi_Vedic_ Literature_ Chronology_ Sidereal_ Calendar> ancient_indian_ astrology> Monday, June 15, 2009, 5:03 AM> > > > > > > > > Dear Manoj Chandranji,> Thank you for the quories.> 1 and 2. The issue in question is that, the astrology practised today is not as laid down by the ancient sages.The ancient sages laid down the principles that the sun and the mooon are to be coordinated as the basis of our astrology and calendar.Thus the system of celebrating the adhimas every third year for the purpose of coordinating the two types of months- solar and the lunar.We all know that the adhimas is of one month.Thus this

method can adjust for a difference of one month only for the solar and the lunar seasons.Now since the difference has gone upto 39 days, the priciples of seasonal difference as laid down by our ancestors has already ben violated.This violation is due to the fact that ayanamsa has risen to 24 degrees.Ayanamsa should in no way rise above 15 degrees, to keep up the accuracy of our astrological system as laid down by the sages.> People are not able to catch the problem and of course without knowing the problem they are in no mood to amend the situation.> > 3.This requires the realignment of our calendar so the solar and the lunar seasons do not cross the intended limit.The solution is the shifting of one fullmonth of both the solar and the lunar months to catch up with the seasonal sankranti.This discussion is on the very basis of our system and of utmost importance.But many people would not like to admit the problem itself.Thus they

make all excuses to avoid the amendments.Perhaps they feel,in doing so,their clients will lose faith in astrology itself as they are over believing in the prediction they make.But the careful analysis of the problem shows the basis has been violated by the excessive ayanamsa and reformation is necessary.The sooner it is done the better. > > 4.After the reform, the quality of prediction will surely be brought back to the original accuracy.You must be knowing the predictions are done on the basis of both the lagan rashi and the lunar rashi. Now due to excessive ayanamsa, the coordination of the lagan and lunar positons are no more coordinated. This disruption of coordination must be restored for the system to work.Of course the less the ayanamsa the better the accuracy of prediction.But due to our nirayan system a difference of 15 degrees is allowable due to the 15 days fluctuation of the fullmoon and sankranti.But 24 degrees ayanamsa

violates the basics principles of seasonal coordination of the sun and the moon i.e. fullmoon and sankrantis.> I hope I have clarified your quories, to some extent.Thank you once again.> Regards,> Hari Malla> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear Hari Malla Ji,> > > > Most of us have been silently observing this seemingly never ending discussion. If this discussion is going to continue like this, for the sake of courtesy to all the people in the list, I kindly request that you please post a concise email clearly mentioning the following points:> > > > 1. What is the issue in question?> > 2.Why is this issue important for ancient_vedic_ astrology?> > 3. What is the final conclusion that you hope to obtain from these discussions?> > 4. After every thing is

said and done, will the final conclusion improve the quality of prediction?> > > > Please bear in mind that most of us joined this group to discuss Ancient Indian astrology. We did not join this to answer the question : Is Indian Astrology Ancient?> > > > Regards,> > > > -Manoj> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __> > "harimalla@ .." <harimalla@ ..>> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:35:39 PM> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Rashi_Vedic_ Literature_ Chronology_ Sidereal_ Calendar> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear dual Suniljis(Nair and Bhattacharjya) ,> > I am happy to know that you are both searching for the truth and honesty.So am I. So let us have a litle patience

and try to undersatnd what each of us are trying to say.There is no harm in searching for the truth.This time I expect patience from both of you.> > I am in full agreement with Bhattacharjyaji when he says our Puranas have mentioned our calender as soli-lunar sidereal.This I accept.Thank you Mr. Bhattacharjyaji for saying so. This is my belief too. I not only undesstand that but also want it to go on this way in the future after reformation. So please do not look at me with suspicion.> > But things do not end there.what Mr. Kaul says that the months and festivals are seasonal is also true.You should also agreee that.Because the puranas say,when we celebrate sidereal makar sankranti, we celebrate it as uttrayan which we know is tropical.> > Thus both of you are partially right.Be sure of that.You should both now agreee to compromise so we reach the total truth, remmeber the total truth not pratial truths over which both you

and Mr. Kaul have been disputing.> > What is the total truth? The total truth is that the lunar tithi are both tropical as well as sidereal, at the same time.Vedanga jyotish says so.It says 'month of maagha( sidereal lunar month since the full moon is connected to maghaa nakshyatra), Tapa sukla{pakshya) which is tropical lunar month, and uttrayan start together, when the sun and the moon are in dhanistha'. Please try to understand how it can be so.Bhattachrjya thinks this occurred only once in history and I have been trying to tell him this was not just once or one year but for the whole period of 1700 years, when Vedanga jyotish was effective.why did it lose its effectiveness after about 1700 years after which reformation was needed? It lost its effectivenes because the condition of both the sidereal and the tropical value of the tithi of maagha sukla pratipada was no more.Then we had to shift the nirayan uttrayan from the sun in dhanistha to

the sun in makar sankranti.The uttarayan> tithi> > was shifted from maagha sukla pratipada to Poush purnima 15 days backwards..We are still celebrating these dates even now when the date has again expired since poush purnima never meets both the tropical uttrayan and the sidereal uttrayan.Now only the sidereal uttarayan( makar sankranti) falls at the midddle of the poush purnima zone but the tropical uttrayan does not fall in its fluctuation zone within three years of adhikmas fluctuation. The tropical uttrayan has now shfted its positon due to ayanamsa to mrigashira full moon zone.Oce full moon backwards.> > So like Barahmihir and others we also have to shift the nirayan uttrayan from makar sankranti to dhanu sankranti again to bring the calendar to its original effectiveness. There is no alternative to save our dharma and shastra but to coordinate the dual nature of the tropical and sidereal calendar which is the vedic way

as demonstrated by vedanga jyotish and also the reformation made by Barahmihir and others when the present ayanamsa was zero. We should understand that the if we take the reference of zero ayanamsa, the ayanamsa at the time of vedanga jytish formtaion was bout - 23 degrees being seven padas earlier.> > Thank you for your patience. please concentrate on what i have said and enquire if it is still not clear, which i am sure you still have doubts as i have observed many times in th epast discussions. Thaking you ,I remain,> > Sincerely yurs,> > Hari malla> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Harimallaji,

 

Give reference and not your blabberings please. Show me which modern scholars says that 88 constellations are there in the plane of the sun and the planets, ie. the ecliptic.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 6/16/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 5:41 AM

 

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,There seems to have been some misunderstanding about my mentioning of the 88 constellations. So let me clarify. These constellations are the modern categorisation of the scientists and not of the scriptures.The modern categorisation of the whole sky from north pole to south pole is done in this fashion.Out of this total 88 contellations the 12 rashis of old are mentioned as only 12 of these same constellations.As in our astrology we have only these 12 to consider, we are forgetting the remaining 76 constellations, for our astrological purposes.From this fact it can be concluded that if the stars or the constellations effected us directly then, we would have taken all the 88 constellations not only 12 which fall only on the path of the sun and the moon. this proves that the stars do not efect us directly.From this new angle if you study my mail you will surely understand what I am trying to convey.Your friends

seem to equate me with Mr. Kaul, which is baseless, since our opinions are different.He is not in favour of the rashi and the nirayan system.But i am in favour of keeping up the rashis and the nirayan system, since it is now part of our culture, even if it may not have been so during the vedanga jyotish period.I agree that the rashis have been much deeply part of our culture and we cannot throw it away now.My belief is that we can do calendear reform without throwing away the rashis.Thus my proposal for readjustment of the months the vedic way, as was done before.The fact that in astrology we take ony 12 out of 88 contellations, paves us the path to rename the 12 rashis (and the 27 nakshyatras) .I do not want to dissociate the rashis and the nakshyatra.I believe they must be kept as intergral part.Aswini, Bharini and first pada of krittika must continue to be mesh even after the reform.Thank you for your reconsideration. I am available to give

further clarifications if needed.Regards.HAri Malla

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunilbhatacharjyaji,

Thank you for your quories.I do expect more quories in the future for which I

would be happy to discuss.

88 constellations are total numbers of contellations in the visible sky,both in

the northern and southern hemispheres.Only 12 out of them are in the plane of

the sun and the moon. Thus the 12 rashis on lthe plane of the sun and the moon

ie ecliptic, are a small fractions of the total numbers of stars.My question is

why should only a small fraction of stars effect us and not all the stars, if

the stars do effects us at all.This is the proof that the stars do not effect us

as such and are only practical fixed points in the sky.If they effected us then

all the stars should be effecting us.

If the stars are only fixed milestones used for convenience, then why cannot we

write the different numbers representing the miles on them to suit us, when the

starting point changes? For example, if the miles were written from Agra to

Calcutta as 1,2,3, etc. on the different milestones, and we shift the starting

point to Delhi intead of Agra, then cannot we not use the same stones to

represent the miles from Delhi as the starting point ie zero point, by wiping

the previous figures, designated when the starting point was Agra.

From this point of view, if the stars previously named as Mesh , Vrish, Mithun

etc were designated as 1, 2, 3 etc and we shift the starting point to Meen

sankranti, why can we not use the sequence starting from Meen as 1,2,3 etc. when

the vishuvat has shifted, to Meeen sankranti instead of Mesh sankranti.Since the

stars are only fixed milestones with no other effects as such, proved by the

fact that only 12 cosntellations on the path of the sun and the moon are

taken.If you think the particular stars have different effects on us then why

the other stars i.e. remaining 76 constellations do not efffect us at all and we

forget them?

If the 88 constellations as the total number of constellations is your

contention and you think it is something else, then please refer to any book of

astronomy for the same.Encyclopedias too could be of help for this.But this is

not the main issue,if you think the 12 zodiacs are only a part of the total

spherical sky, then this knowledge is enough to establish my claim.Thank you.

Regards,

Hari Malla

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Harimallaji,

>  

> Give reference and not your blabberings please. Show me which modern scholars

says that 88 constellations are there in the plane of the sun and the planets,

ie. the ecliptic.

>  

> Sincerely,

>  

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

>

>

> harimalla <harimalla

> Re:

Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar

>

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 5:41 AM

>

>

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> There seems to have been some misunderstanding about my mentioning of the 88

constellations. So let me clarify. These constellations are the modern

categorisation of the scientists and not of the scriptures.The modern

categorisation of the whole sky from north pole to south pole is done in this

fashion.Out of this total 88 contellations the 12 rashis of old are mentioned as

only 12 of these same constellations.

> As in our astrology we have only these 12 to consider, we are forgetting the

remaining 76 constellations, for our astrological purposes.From this fact it can

be concluded that if the stars or the constellations effected us directly then,

we would have taken all the 88 constellations not only 12 which fall only on the

path of the sun and the moon. this proves that the stars do not efect us

directly.From this new angle if you study my mail you will surely understand

what I am trying to convey.

> Your friends seem to equate me with Mr. Kaul, which is baseless, since our

opinions are different.He is not in favour of the rashi and the nirayan

system.But i am in favour of keeping up the rashis and the nirayan system, since

it is now part of our culture, even if it may not have been so during the

vedanga jyotish period.I agree that the rashis have been much deeply part of our

culture and we cannot throw it away now.My belief is that we can do calendear

reform without throwing away the rashis.Thus my proposal for readjustment of the

months the vedic way, as was done before.

> The fact that in astrology we take ony 12 out of 88 contellations, paves us

the path to rename the 12 rashis (and the 27 nakshyatras) .I do not want to

dissociate the rashis and the nakshyatra.I believe they must be kept as

intergral part.Aswini, Bharini and first pada of krittika must continue to be

mesh even after the reform.

> Thank you for your reconsideration. I am available to give further

clarifications if needed.

> Regards.

> HAri Malla

>

[Guest guest]

Please stop your bakwaas. You are continouously failed to give proof of any shastra though earlier you were telling things in the name of Shastra without giving any reference. At least now you are admitting that these are your own wild ideas without any backing from the Shastras. This shows your hypocrisy. Why don't you write a book and give your ideas to the whole world instead of writing to the AIA only. Does AIA need your sermons. Why are you wasting time of your own as well as ours if you don't believe in Astrology.

 

Sincerely,

 

SKB--- On Wed, 6/17/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

harimalla <harimalla Re:Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 7:08 PM

 

 

Dear Sunilbhatacharjyaji ,Thank you for your quories.I do expect more quories in the future for which I would be happy to discuss.88 constellations are total numbers of contellations in the visible sky,both in the northern and southern hemispheres. Only 12 out of them are in the plane of the sun and the moon. Thus the 12 rashis on lthe plane of the sun and the moon ie ecliptic, are a small fractions of the total numbers of stars.My question is why should only a small fraction of stars effect us and not all the stars, if the stars do effects us at all.This is the proof that the stars do not effect us as such and are only practical fixed points in the sky.If they effected us then all the stars should be effecting us.If the stars are only fixed milestones used for convenience, then why cannot we write the different numbers representing the miles on them to suit us, when the starting point changes? For example, if the miles were written from

Agra to Calcutta as 1,2,3, etc. on the different milestones, and we shift the starting point to Delhi intead of Agra, then cannot we not use the same stones to represent the miles from Delhi as the starting point ie zero point, by wiping the previous figures, designated when the starting point was Agra.From this point of view, if the stars previously named as Mesh , Vrish, Mithun etc were designated as 1, 2, 3 etc and we shift the starting point to Meen sankranti, why can we not use the sequence starting from Meen as 1,2,3 etc. when the vishuvat has shifted, to Meeen sankranti instead of Mesh sankranti.Since the stars are only fixed milestones with no other effects as such, proved by the fact that only 12 cosntellations on the path of the sun and the moon are taken.If you think the particular stars have different effects on us then why the other stars i.e. remaining 76 constellations do not efffect us at all and we forget them?If the 88

constellations as the total number of constellations is your contention and you think it is something else, then please refer to any book of astronomy for the same.Encyclopedias too could be of help for this.But this is not the main issue,if you think the 12 zodiacs are only a part of the total spherical sky, then this knowledge is enough to establish my claim.Thank you.Regards,Hari Malla

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,

I am only showing to you that the fact of astrology itself proves that tropical

zodiacs are basically true.I am not trying to prove that astrology itself is

false. So do not think, 'indefinite nirayan system' has any ground.The

nirayanness in our culture is only to accomodate for the full moon zone for

wich I have requested to apply the coordinative system of both the sayan and the

nirayan.By this way we can save our nirayan culture.If you have true regard for

the nirayan system, it must be logical nirayan which lasts not more than 2150

yaears at one time. WE have to shift the starting points after that.

So my request to you to support the proposed coordinatd system to protect our

traditional nirayan system and give up the unauthenticate nirayan as you are

thinking.In this limited nirayan system, ayanamsa is accepted authentically only

upto 15 degrees and not more than that.This wil surely also guarantee the

accuracy of the jyotish shastra, apart from the correct celebration of the

festivals,within reasonable bounds of the fullmoon zone as metnioned in dharma

shastras.'Dharmo rakshyati rakshita'.Let us give up our malice and fight for the

truth of the shastras.Let us not be too greedy in our phalit jyotish.Thank you

for the cooperation.This is no sermon,but hard core down to earth fact.Thanking

you once again.

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Please stop your bakwaas. You are continouously failed to give proof of any

shastra though earlier you were telling things in the name of Shastra without

giving any reference. At least now you are admitting that these are your own

wild ideas without any backing from the Shastras.  This shows your hypocrisy. 

Why don't you write a book and give your ideas to the whole world instead of

writing to the AIA only. Does AIA need your sermons. Why are you wasting time of

your own as well as ours if you don't believe in Astrology.

>  

> Sincerely,

>  

> SKB

>

> --- On Wed, 6/17/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

>

>

> harimalla <harimalla

>

Re:Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar

>

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 7:08 PM

>

>

Dear Sunilbhatacharjyaji ,

> Thank you for your quories.I do expect more quories in the future for which I

would be happy to discuss.

> 88 constellations are total numbers of contellations in the visible sky,both

in the northern and southern hemispheres. Only 12 out of them are in the plane

of the sun and the moon. Thus the 12 rashis on lthe plane of the sun and the

moon ie ecliptic, are a small fractions of the total numbers of stars.My

question is why should only a small fraction of stars effect us and not all the

stars, if the stars do effects us at all.This is the proof that the stars do not

effect us as such and are only practical fixed points in the sky.If they

effected us then all the stars should be effecting us.

> If the stars are only fixed milestones used for convenience, then why cannot

we write the different numbers representing the miles on them to suit us, when

the starting point changes? For example, if the miles were written from Agra to

Calcutta as 1,2,3, etc. on the different milestones, and we shift the starting

point to Delhi intead of Agra, then cannot we not use the same stones to

represent the miles from Delhi as the starting point ie zero point, by wiping

the previous figures, designated when the starting point was Agra.

> From this point of view, if the stars previously named as Mesh , Vrish, Mithun

etc were designated as 1, 2, 3 etc and we shift the starting point to Meen

sankranti, why can we not use the sequence starting from Meen as 1,2,3 etc. when

the vishuvat has shifted, to Meeen sankranti instead of Mesh sankranti.Since the

stars are only fixed milestones with no other effects as such, proved by the

fact that only 12 cosntellations on the path of the sun and the moon are

taken.If you think the particular stars have different effects on us then why

the other stars i.e. remaining 76 constellations do not efffect us at all and we

forget them?

> If the 88 constellations as the total number of constellations is your

contention and you think it is something else, then please refer to any book of

astronomy for the same.Encyclopedias too could be of help for this.But this is

not the main issue,if you think the 12 zodiacs are only a part of the total

spherical sky, then this knowledge is enough to establish my claim.Thank you.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Harimallaji,

> >  

> > Give reference and not your blabberings please. Show me which modern

scholars says that 88 constellations are there in the plane of the sun and the

planets, ie. the ecliptic.

> >  

> > Sincerely,

> >  

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:

> >

> >

> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>

> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Rashi_Vedic_ Literature_

Chronology_ Sidereal_ Calendar

> > ancient_indian_ astrology

> > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 5:41 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

> > There seems to have been some misunderstanding about my mentioning of the 88

constellations. So let me clarify. These constellations are the modern

categorisation of the scientists and not of the scriptures.The modern

categorisation of the whole sky from north pole to south pole is done in this

fashion.Out of this total 88 contellations the 12 rashis of old are mentioned as

only 12 of these same constellations.

> > As in our astrology we have only these 12 to consider, we are forgetting the

remaining 76 constellations, for our astrological purposes.From this fact it can

be concluded that if the stars or the constellations effected us directly then,

we would have taken all the 88 constellations not only 12 which fall only on the

path of the sun and the moon. this proves that the stars do not efect us

directly.From this new angle if you study my mail you will surely understand

what I am trying to convey.

> > Your friends seem to equate me with Mr. Kaul, which is baseless, since our

opinions are different.He is not in favour of the rashi and the nirayan

system.But i am in favour of keeping up the rashis and the nirayan system, since

it is now part of our culture, even if it may not have been so during the

vedanga jyotish period.I agree that the rashis have been much deeply part of our

culture and we cannot throw it away now.My belief is that we can do calendear

reform without throwing away the rashis.Thus my proposal for readjustment of the

months the vedic way, as was done before.

> > The fact that in astrology we take ony 12 out of 88 contellations, paves us

the path to rename the 12 rashis (and the 27 nakshyatras) .I do not want to

dissociate the rashis and the nakshyatra.I believe they must be kept as

intergral part.Aswini, Bharini and first pada of krittika must continue to be

mesh even after the reform.

> > Thank you for your reconsideration. I am available to give further

clarifications if needed.

> > Regards.

> > HAri Malla

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Phir bakwaas--- On Thu, 6/18/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

harimalla <harimalla Re:Rashi_Vedic_Literature_Chronology_Sidereal_Calendar Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 1:06 AM

 

 

Dear Bhattacharjyaji,I am only showing to you that the fact of astrology itself proves that tropical zodiacs are basically true.I am not trying to prove that astrology itself is false. So do not think, 'indefinite nirayan system' has any ground.The nirayanness in our culture is only to accomodate for the full moon zone for wich I have requested to apply the coordinative system of both the sayan and the nirayan.By this way we can save our nirayan culture.If you have true regard for the nirayan system, it must be logical nirayan which lasts not more than 2150 yaears at one time. WE have to shift the starting points after that.So my request to you to support the proposed coordinatd system to protect our traditional nirayan system and give up the unauthenticate nirayan as you are thinking.In this limited nirayan system, ayanamsa is accepted authentically only upto 15 degrees and not more than that.This wil surely also guarantee the accuracy of

the jyotish shastra, apart from the correct celebration of the festivals,within reasonable bounds of the fullmoon zone as metnioned in dharma shastras.'Dharmo rakshyati rakshita'.Let us give up our malice and fight for the truth of the shastras.Let us not be too greedy in our phalit jyotish.Thank you for the cooperation. This is no sermon,but hard core down to earth fact.Thanking you once again.Regards,Hari Mallaancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> Please stop your bakwaas. You are continouously failed to give proof of any shastra though earlier you were telling things in the name of Shastra without giving any reference. At least now you are admitting that these

are your own wild ideas without any backing from the Shastras. This shows your hypocrisy. Why don't you write a book and give your ideas to the whole world instead of writing to the AIA only. Does AIA need your sermons. Why are you wasting time of your own as well as ours if you don't believe in Astrology.> > Sincerely,> > SKB> > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote:> > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..>> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re:Rashi_Vedic_ Literature_ Chronology_ Sidereal_ Calendar> ancient_indian_ astrology> Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 7:08 PM> >

> > > > > > > Dear Sunilbhatacharjyaji ,> Thank you for your quories.I do expect more quories in the future for which I would be happy to discuss.> 88 constellations are total numbers of contellations in the visible sky,both in the northern and southern hemispheres. Only 12 out of them are in the plane of the sun and the moon. Thus the 12 rashis on lthe plane of the sun and the moon ie ecliptic, are a small fractions of the total numbers of stars.My question is why should only a small fraction of stars effect us and not all the stars, if the stars do effects us at all.This is the proof that the stars do not effect us as such and are only practical fixed points in the sky.If they effected us then all the stars should be effecting us.> If the stars are only fixed milestones used for convenience, then why cannot we write the different numbers representing the miles on them to suit us,

when the starting point changes? For example, if the miles were written from Agra to Calcutta as 1,2,3, etc. on the different milestones, and we shift the starting point to Delhi intead of Agra, then cannot we not use the same stones to represent the miles from Delhi as the starting point ie zero point, by wiping the previous figures, designated when the starting point was Agra.> From this point of view, if the stars previously named as Mesh , Vrish, Mithun etc were designated as 1, 2, 3 etc and we shift the starting point to Meen sankranti, why can we not use the sequence starting from Meen as 1,2,3 etc. when the vishuvat has shifted, to Meeen sankranti instead of Mesh sankranti.Since the stars are only fixed milestones with no other effects as such, proved by the fact that only 12 cosntellations on the path of the sun and the moon are taken.If you think the particular stars have different effects on us then why the other stars i.e. remaining 76

constellations do not efffect us at all and we forget them?> If the 88 constellations as the total number of constellations is your contention and you think it is something else, then please refer to any book of astronomy for the same.Encyclopedias too could be of help for this.But this is not the main issue,if you think the 12 zodiacs are only a part of the total spherical sky, then this knowledge is enough to establish my claim.Thank you.> Regards,> Hari Malla> ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> >> > Dear Harimallaji,> > > > Give reference and not your blabberings please. Show me which modern scholars says that 88 constellations are there in the plane of the sun and the planets, ie. the ecliptic.> > > > Sincerely,> > > > Sunil K.

Bhattacharjya> >> > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..> wrote:> >> >> > harimalla@ . <harimalla@ ..>> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Rashi_Vedic_ Literature_ Chronology_ Sidereal_ Calendar> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 5:41 AM> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,> > There seems to have been some misunderstanding about my mentioning of the 88 constellations. So let me clarify. These constellations are the modern categorisation of the scientists and not of the scriptures.The modern categorisation of the whole sky from north pole to south pole is done in this fashion.Out of this total 88 contellations the 12 rashis of old are mentioned as only 12 of these same

constellations.> > As in our astrology we have only these 12 to consider, we are forgetting the remaining 76 constellations, for our astrological purposes.From this fact it can be concluded that if the stars or the constellations effected us directly then, we would have taken all the 88 constellations not only 12 which fall only on the path of the sun and the moon. this proves that the stars do not efect us directly.From this new angle if you study my mail you will surely understand what I am trying to convey.> > Your friends seem to equate me with Mr. Kaul, which is baseless, since our opinions are different.He is not in favour of the rashi and the nirayan system.But i am in favour of keeping up the rashis and the nirayan system, since it is now part of our culture, even if it may not have been so during the vedanga jyotish period.I agree that the rashis have been much deeply part of our culture and we cannot throw it away now.My

belief is that we can do calendear reform without throwing away the rashis.Thus my proposal for readjustment of the months the vedic way, as was done before.> > The fact that in astrology we take ony 12 out of 88 contellations, paves us the path to rename the 12 rashis (and the 27 nakshyatras) .I do not want to dissociate the rashis and the nakshyatra.I believe they must be kept as intergral part.Aswini, Bharini and first pada of krittika must continue to be mesh even after the reform.> > Thank you for your reconsideration. I am available to give further clarifications if needed.> > Regards.> > HAri Malla> >>