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

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 4:19 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Shri Harimalla,

 

Please stop your nonsensical talk. You don,t know the Shastras and waste everybody's time. Go and teach Kaul first.

 

You have mentioned Bhagavatam, Dharmasindhu and Kalamadhav without giving any reference. None of these has said that Uttarayana will, for ever, occur when the Sun comes to the Makar Rashi Since the 3rd century CE the Uttarayana does not occur in the Makar rashi. due to precession.

 

Vedas have mentioned about the animal forms in the sky (Satapatha Brahmana 10.2.1). Mesh (Ram) is the symbol of the Mesh Rashi, Vrshabh (Bull) has become the symbol of the Vrshabh Rashi. We need not think that these have come from the west.

 

Further you do not know that there are 27 groups of stars in the ecliptic and that each group of star is named after the main star called Yoga Tara. For example, the Krittika nakshatra is a group of 6 stars. This is the astronomical fact. In Astrology these 27 Nakshatras are divided into 12 Rashis or Asterisms or Lunar mansions.

 

There is no need of trying to educate me with your fake knowledge. However, in future if any or all of the the hundreds of the members of all the astrology groups request you to teach them, then of course you can start your teaching program. In that case please address your mail to them and not to me. Is that clear? BTW, why don't you educate your idol Kaul and his cronies first.

 

S.K.Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla <harimalla wrote:

harimalla <harimalla Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 11:10 AM

 

 

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,No problem if you would like to avoid discussiong about calendar reform.But since I have not been able to impart certain technical knowledge to you, I shall repeat here so that if you can please try to grasp,since you have failed to do, so far, inspite of my repetetions. I quote the definition given by The world Book Encyclopaedia of Constellations. It runs as follows,"Astronomer s have divided the sky into 88 constellations. ..the ancient people named these groups of stars after animals and mythological characters.For example, the contellations Leo was named after lion, Pisces after two fish,and Taurus after a bull".Do you understand that the scientists recognise each rashi as one constellations. The 27 constellations of which you have mentioned, are not the scientist's categorisaion but of the eastern daily lunar constellations, we call as nakshyatras. The scientist are not used to that.Please do not misquote

me and say "also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma, even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas."Plese listen carefully what I have said and do not misquote me for what I have not said.I have never said 88 constellations should be considered in astrology.I have said only 12 constellations are used in astrology out of total of 88, existing in the sky.I have also said,since only a few constellations (only 12)are taken out of total of 88 as known to be in the sky, it proves that the stars do not effect us directly.I have found you incapable to understand the meaning of this sentence. Is my expression in English so weak that you are

not able to understand its logic? I hope that you do not believe some stars effect us and others do not.Do you think only 12 groups of stars effect us and the remaining 76 groups categorised by science are incapable to effect us? My understanding is that if 12 groups effects us, then the other 76 groups should also have effected us.What do you think? Does this not show that actually none of the stars effect us? Another point you have not understood although universally accepted is as follows.I again quote the same enclyclopaedia on the definition of Aries."Aries is traditionally known as the first constellation of the zodiac.Aries is symbolized by a ram. In mythology,it represents the ram with the golden fleece that was sought by Jason and the Argonauts... .Technically, Aries is no longer the first zodiacal sign because the vernal equinox has moved on into the Pisces, due to the effect of the precession of the equinoxes."You see the western

people have their own story or purana about the Aries constellations 'Jason and the Argonauts'.Whereas in the hindu mythology, we have no such story.This also proves that it was not originally ours.In their concept, Aries is also equivalent to vernal equinox.Your fixed Aries concept without relationship with the vernal equinox is not only unacceptable from their concept, but also from the concept of our own puranas like the Bhagvatam about mesh rashi.Our Bhagvatam repeats again again that makar sankranti represents uttrayan.Not only that our dharmas shastra like Dharma sindhu also says so. But you being ignorant about dharma shastra like Dharma sindhu, kala madhav etc talk like a unread and non religious person. You also do not take the trouble to read them. You know only how to stick to your limited knowledge and say if we have to celebrate uttarayan then we can join Christmas parties.Well why do you not become a christian to do so rather than

recommend such a silly propopsal to fellow hindus.Saying mesh is free from the spring equinox or that makar sankranti is free from uttarayan, you people have shown the ignorance of the century.I can understand you have not read dharma shastras as mentioned above.But what I cannot understand is why do you not purchase a book and read.They are not costly books. Or go to a library and read them.But do not make the jokes of the century by saying mesh sankranti is not linked to vernal equinox and makar sankranti is not linked to winter solstice.Bhagvatam itself is full of these assertions.I have quoted the description of the Sishumar chakra too.OK then good bye for today.Take care.Hari Malla, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> Shri

Harimalla,> > > 1)> Go and discuss calendar reform in calendar group and not here. In future please do not talk to me about Calendar reform. You have harassed me enough in the AIA group with your nonsensical ideas such as need for renaming the Rashis and Nakshatras and also that instead of 12 constellations 88 constellations should be considered in astrology and that it is in the interest of Dharma even though you yourself do not believe in Phalita Jyotisha. You don't even know that the ecliptic has 27 constellations and not 12. I made you admit that nothing like consideration of 88 constellations is mentioned in the ancient texts and that these are your own wild ideas. If you want to create a new form of Jyotish shastra please go and do it yourself and publish a book and get the recognition yourself. But don't try to involve me in your absurd ideas. Please do not try

your usual trick to do useless emotional tricks like saying that you are very concerned about> the Dharma. > > 2)> Why do you say as follows?> > Quote> > Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the Vedas when all agree that it wasdealt with in the puranas?> > Unquote> > Don't you understand the English language. I have already given reference to the verses, where the Rashis appear in the Vedas, Vedanga Jyotisha and Purana. So why should we panic? It is people like you, who are against the Jyotish Shasta, are panicking. What an anti-astrology man like you is doing here?> > Tell AKK and Sathaye and others that Sayanacharya said in the foreword in his work on Rig Veda that the Vedas should be supplemented with the Itihasa and the Puranas. Sathaye could not

find the Vedanga jyotisha. I told him where to find the Vedanga Jyotisha, published by INSA. Any Vedic scholar will understand that the verses I gave show the presence of Rashi in Veda. Also tell them that all the nine grahas are also in the Veda. Sometimes the terminologies are different. For example, Rahu and Ketu are called Svarabhanu in Veda. The Sun, the Moon and Brihaspati are of course in the same name. I already told AKK that Manu had told that the Kings should consult Astrologers. thereby approving the use of Astrology. If AKK cannot find a copy of the Manu smriti you can tell him that it is in the Internet. If you people want to remain in your own self-imposed darkness I have no objection.> > I repeat. Please do not address any mail to me in connection with Calendar. If you find any other member of the group interested in discussing calendar with you then you can discuss calendar with him provided

the Modearorji approves such discussions here.> > Sincerley,> > S.K.Bhattacharjya> > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..> wrote:> > > harimalla@.. . <harimalla@. ..>> Fw: Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > Saturday, June 20, 2009, 1:46 AM> > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,> Sorry for the interrruption, but I am tempted to ask one question.What exactly is the purpose of this hot discussion wether the rashis were in the vedas or not? If a proposal of calendar reform is produced

with the rashis included, will that not satisfy you? Why have you to defend the presence of the rashis in the vedas?why so much attachment to phalit jyotish? I am assuming that the purpose of all this discussion is whether to consider the rashis in the calendar reform or not.Why do you phalit people panic to learn that the rashis were not treated in the vedas when all agree that it was dealt with in the puranas.> Since the puranas have also become part of our scriptures or culture, many people will agree to include the rashis as part of our culture.I think be satisfied with this instead of claiming the rashis to be in the vedas by fair means or false. This is just waste of time.When a method of calendar reform is available with the rashis continuing why do you not support such a method of calendar reform?> Thank you,> Hari Malla> , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

wrote:> >> > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:> > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a> > Re: [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > WAVES-Vedic> > Cc: Vedic_research_ institute, USBrahmins@gro ups.com, kk.mehrotra@ ...> > Friday, June 19, 2009, 8:09 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,> > > > 1)> > Did you not yourself opine as follows; > > > > Quote> > > > "To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar"> > > >

Unquote> > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana and you opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion on that.> > > > 2)> > You also said as follows"> > > > Quote> > > > "However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums"> > > > Unquote> > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I contested his views and that made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.> > > > 3)> > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can get know about your scholarship?> > > > 4)> > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone hold about the Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.> > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of

meanings of the Vedic words and verses.> > > > 5)> > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?> > > > 6)> > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.> > > > Sincerely,> > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:> > > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal> > WAVES-Vedic@ .

com> > 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> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >