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

[Guest guest]

Dear Mehrotraji,

 

I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption

that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with

interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra,

which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum

itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views

sooner or later.

 

I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you

must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views.

To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology

on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but

please do not be judgemental like that.

 

Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

 

Quote

 

I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not

responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

 

Unquote

 

I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by

my two axioms.  I just  simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says :  " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings  and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let

him not accept that if he likes.

 

I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for

proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and

then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my

firm interpretation.

 

He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes.

 

He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

 

He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

 

 

 Sincerely,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya 

 

 

--- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote:

 

 

K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra

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

and the Sidereal

" Avinash Sathaye " <sohum

Cc: waves-vedic

Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sathayeji,

I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. 

On seeing your response, I checked the reason and  find that the mail reaches,

by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!  This happens only

with WAVES!

 

I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.  To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

 

I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya

of the Vedas.  I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

interpretations.  I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have

much knowledge of Sanskrit.

Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

K. K. Mehrotra

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu> wrote:

 

 

Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu>

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

" kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

 

 

Dear Malhotraji,

 

Thank you for agreeing with me.

I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not

responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

 

 

In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or

rational.

 

This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one

of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.

 

Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

 

Once again, thank you.

 

kk.mehrotra wrote:

Respected members,

I am a new comer to this forum.

This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in

several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

mail from Shri Sathaye.

I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

Best wishes

K K Mehrotra

WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:

 

I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

Here are my observations:

 

 

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 :

 

????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mehrotraji,

 

I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later.

 

I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that.

 

Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

 

Quote

 

I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

 

Unquote

 

I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : "paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah", which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes.

 

I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation.

 

He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the "Vedanga Jyotisha" is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes.

 

He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

 

He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote:

K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra[WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal"Avinash Sathaye" <sohumCc: waves-vedic Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sathayeji,I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES!I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.K.

K. Mehrotra--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu> wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu>Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal"kk.mehrotra" <kk.mehrotra@ >Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

Dear Malhotraji,Thank you for agreeing with me.I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational.This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall

view.Once again, thank you.kk.mehrotra wrote: Respected members,I am a new comer to this forum. This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye.I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! Best wishesK K MehrotraWAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:

I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.Here are my observations: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 : ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13) 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 rasayaHte 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

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

WAVES-Vedic

Cc: Vedic_research_institute , USBrahmins ,

kk.mehrotra

Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Mehrotra,

 

1)

Did you not yourself opine as follows;

 

Quote

 

  " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

 

Unquote

 

Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a

Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as

a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great

Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have

written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined

that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on

that.

 

2)

You also said as follows "

 

Quote

 

" However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a

Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

 

Unquote

 

Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked

about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul

sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump

to the hasty conclusion made as above.

 

3)

Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get

know about your scholarship?

 

4)

As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold

your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any

paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad

said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic

verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and

report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven

layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses.

 

5)

If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your

opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

 

6)

I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K.Bhattacharjya 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote:

 

 

kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra

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

and the Sidereal

WAVES-Vedic

Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

 

I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

 

Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

 

It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas

etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you have

done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such " hidden "

meanings!

I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where

he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and

tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me

the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it

on INSA site.

 

About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe

in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in

the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the

Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the

Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas

according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas

that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but

just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

With regaqrds,

Yours sincerely,

K K Mehrotra

 

 

WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

> Dear Mehrotraji,

>  

> I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

>  

> I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you

must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views.

To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology

on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but

please do not be judgemental like that.

>  

> Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>  

> Quote

>  

> I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not

responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>  

> Unquote

>  

> I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by

my two axioms.  I just  simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says :  " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings  and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let

him not accept that if he likes.

>  

> I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that

for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and

then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my

firm interpretation.

>  

> He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes.

>  

> He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

>  

> He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

>

>  

>  Sincerely,

>  

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya 

>  

>

> --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

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

and the Sidereal

> " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum

> Cc: waves-vedic

> Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

Dear Sathayeji,

> I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.  On seeing your response, I checked the reason and  find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!  This happens

only with WAVES!

>

> I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.  To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.  I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations.  I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> K. K. Mehrotra

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum edu> wrote:

>

>

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum edu>

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

Sidereal

> " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

> Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

>

> Dear Malhotraji,

>

> Thank you for agreeing with me.

> I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not

responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

>

> In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or

rational.

>

> This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If

one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding

of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.

>

> Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> Once again, thank you.

>

> kk.mehrotra wrote:

> Respected members,

> I am a new comer to this forum.

> This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in

several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

mail from Shri Sathaye.

> I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

> Best wishes

> K K Mehrotra

> WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

> However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> Here are my observations:

>

>

> 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 :

>

> ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

> ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> 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

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the SiderealWAVES-Vedic Cc: Vedic_research_institute , USBrahmins , kk.mehrotraDate: Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Mehrotra,

 

1)

Did you not yourself opine as follows;

 

Quote

 

"To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar"

 

Unquote

 

Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that.

 

2)

You also said as follows"

 

Quote

 

"However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums"

 

Unquote

 

Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

 

3)

Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship?

 

4)

As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses.

 

5)

If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

 

6)

I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sunil K.Bhattacharjya

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote:

kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra[WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the SiderealWAVES-Vedic Date: Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

 

 

Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know "parokshya" meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not have "pratakshya" knowledge of the Vedas either.I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and

Puranas before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda! It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any "parokshya" meanings of the mantras, the way you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such "hidden" meanings!I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have "parokshya" knowledge about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it on INSA site.About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material avaialbe in

your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be "paroskhya" in the Vedas.Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.With regaqrds,Yours sincerely,K K MehrotraWAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> > Dear Mehrotraji,> >

I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their views sooner or later. > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I said but please do not be judgemental like that.> > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:> > Quote> > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

us to accept two axioms:> 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.> 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.> We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!> > Unquote> > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms. I just simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2) says : "paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah", which means that the gods love the indirect or obscure meanings and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let him not accept that if he likes.> > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one

must read the Puranas first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my firm interpretation. > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the "Vedanga Jyotisha" is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes.> > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana . > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.> > > Sincerely,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > >

> --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:> > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>> [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> "Avinash Sathaye" <sohum> Cc: waves-vedic> Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sathayeji,> I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum. On seeing your response, I checked the reason and find that the mail reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum! This happens only with WAVES!> > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence

that we must accept only his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest. To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.> > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas. I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his interpretations. I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.> Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.> K. K. Mehrotra> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum edu> wrote:> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum edu>> Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> "kk.mehrotra" <kk.mehrotra@

>> Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM> > > Dear Malhotraji,> > Thank you for agreeing with me.> I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:> 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.> 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.> We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!> > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or rational.> > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.> > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.> > Once again, thank you.> > kk.mehrotra wrote: > Respected members,> I am a new comer to this forum. > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any mail from Shri Sathaye.> I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or match-making! > Best wishes> K K Mehrotra> WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:> > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.> However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.> Here are my

observations:> > > 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 :> > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |> ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)> > 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>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

Sorry for the interrruption,but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is

the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not?

If a proposal of calendar reform is produced with the rashis included, will that

not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the

vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose

of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform

or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated

in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas.

Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many

people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be

satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair

means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is

available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of

calendar reform?

Thank you,

Hari Malla

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

>

> sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> WAVES-Vedic

> Cc: Vedic_research_institute , USBrahmins ,

kk.mehrotra

> Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM

>

>

Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>  

> 1)

> Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>  

> Quote

>  

>   " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

>  

> Unquote

>  

> Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as

a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself

as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great

Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have

written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined

that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on

that.

>  

> 2)

> You also said as follows "

>  

> Quote

>  

> " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a

Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

>  

> Unquote

>  

> Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not talked

about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul

sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump

to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>  

> 3)

> Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get

know about your scholarship?

>  

> 4)

> As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold

your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any

paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad

said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic

verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and

report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

> You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven

layers of meanings of the Vedic words and verses.

>  

> 5)

> If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your

opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

>  

> 6)

> I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

>  

> Sincerely,

>  

> Sunil K.Bhattacharjya 

>  

>  

>

> --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

>

> kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra

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

and the Sidereal

> WAVES-Vedic

> Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

>

>

Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

>

> Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

> I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum where

he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and

tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

> Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give me

the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find it

on INSA site.

>

> About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion but

just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

> With regaqrds,

> Yours sincerely,

> K K Mehrotra

>

>

> WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Mehrotraji,

> >  

> > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

> >  

> > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that

you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

> >  

> > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> >  

> > Quote

> >  

> > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not

responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >  

> > Unquote

> >  

> > I am shocked by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put off

by my two axioms.  I just  simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses

have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says :  " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings  and dislikes the evident or obvious. Let

him not accept that if he likes.

> >  

> > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But I understand that

for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and

then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so. He does not have to accept my

firm interpretation.

> >  

> > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to him that the INSA's publication on the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in five. minutes.

> >  

> > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

> >  

> > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

> >

> >  

> >  Sincerely,

> >  

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya 

> >  

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

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

Chronology and the Sidereal

> > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

> > Cc: waves-vedic

> > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Sathayeji,

> > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.  On seeing your response, I checked the reason and  find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!  This happens

only with WAVES!

> >

> > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.  To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.  I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations.  I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> > K. K. Mehrotra

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

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

Sidereal

> > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

> > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> >

> >

> > Dear Malhotraji,

> >

> > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are not

responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> >

> > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful or

rational.

> >

> > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion. If

one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full understaanding

of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very interested.

> >

> > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> >

> > Once again, thank you.

> >

> > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> > Respected members,

> > I am a new comer to this forum.

> > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going on

in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without

any mail from Shri Sathaye.

> > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

> > Best wishes

> > K K Mehrotra

> > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> >

> > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

> > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> > Here are my observations:

> >

> >

> > 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 :

> >

> > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

> > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> >

> > 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

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>