Fw: [WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more

June 26, 2009

Dear Vinay,

Â

Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am

marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other goups so that Sreenadhji and also

the other scholarsÂ from the different groups canÂ give his views. As regards

the confusion between " meenaat prabhriti " and " Meenaanprabhriti " it appears to

me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the

Sandhi on.

Â

Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings.

But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka

upanishad.Â They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that

all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a

layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to

believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the

Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing

the Upanishad. Don't you think so?

Â

ThirdlyÂ Shri Sathaye isÂ prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a

pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havirbhoo) when

the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes.

Â

Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was

done so due toÂ the Pingreean belief thatÂ the RashisÂ were imported from the

Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed

in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also.

Â

Best wishes,

Â

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Â

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum

[WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more

WAVES-Vedic

Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AM

Dear Friends,

I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the

parokSha-vAdins'

declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it,

except by following their advice.

This, to me,Â was and is a dead end discussion.

However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji.

I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

Â

These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on a

19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by using

this viewpoint.

I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my

web page.

These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for

Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0 "

added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about their

origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions.

One of these is the controversial " mInAn-prabhRRiti " verse, the second is an

innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed.

The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and

since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called

" parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there.

Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics.

As a side comment: " mInAn prabhRRiti " has grammar problems. " prabhRRiti " takes

the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't

know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes

from a tradition which uses a different start for the year!

Â It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with

actual manuscripts.

For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from

Holay's book.

I use Itrans notation:

yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA |

tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4

\[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH |

trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \]

mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH |

yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5

\[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm |

dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\]

I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional.

I suspect there are two typos as well.

1. In 4-0:

Â trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitA

as RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is!

2. In 42-0:

The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course.

Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser:

à¤®à¤£à¤¯à¥‹ à¤¯à¤¥à¤¾à¥¤

à¤®à¤¾à¤˜à¤¶à¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯

à¤ªà¥Œà¤·à¤•à¥ƒà¤·à¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤

à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤šà¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥‡à¥¥ à¥«

à¤µà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚

à¤²à¤—à¤¤à¥‹à¤½à¤¬à¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-à¥¦]

--

With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

June 27, 2009

Dear Vinay,

Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other goups so that Sreenadhji and also the other scholars from the different groups can give his views. As regards the confusion between "meenaat prabhriti" and "Meenaanprabhriti" it appears to me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the Sandhi on.

Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings. But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka upanishad. They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing the Upanishad. Don't you think so?

Thirdly Shri Sathaye is prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havirbhoo) when the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes.

Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was done so due to the Pingreean belief that the Rashis were imported from the Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha. Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum[WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once moreWAVES-Vedic Date: Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AM

Dear Friends,I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the parokSha-vAdins' declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it, except by following their advice.This, to me, was and is a dead end discussion.However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji.I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions. These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on a 19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by using this viewpoint.I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my web page. These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0" added to the number, but unfortunately does not give

explanation about their origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions.One of these is the controversial "mInAn-prabhRRiti" verse, the second is an innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed.The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called "parigraha", it clearly does not belong there. Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics. As a side comment: "mInAn prabhRRiti" has grammar problems. "prabhRRiti" takes the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes from a tradition which uses a different start for the year! It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with actual manuscripts.For everybody's

understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from Holay's book.

I use Itrans notation:yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA |tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4\[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH |trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \]mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH |yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5\[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm |dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\]

I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional.I suspect there are two typos as well.1. In 4-0: trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitAas RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is!2. In 42-0:The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course.

--

With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

June 27, 2009

Miinaan is plural form of second case (accusative) and makes the verse

meaningless. The text of VJ I possess says " miinaat prabhriti raashayah " , which

makes it clear that miina is used in the sense of raashi. Since there is only

one miina raashi, its plural form is wrong. Moreover, second case makes no

sense here, while fifth case (miinaat) makes sense :

Beginning from miina, the raashis having been traversed (bhukta) by

Brihaspati.......

For case endings, use the following site :

http://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/sktdeclin?q=miina & g=Mas & font=deva

Secondly, Saathye is refuting the genuineness of this verse on account of a

faulty assumption : " The controversial verse appears spuriously between two

introductory verses and since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of

something called " parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there. "

Mr Sathaye in incapable of understanding Sanskrit and lacks common sense too.

The verse clearly says that the raashis traversed by Brihaspati are acceptable

for the current samvatsara yuga. Brihaspati traverses 5 raashis in 5 years. If

starting from Mina, Brahaspati has traversed 11 raashis, two sets of five

raashis must be substracted for two 5-year yugas and therefore only Remainder

(shesha) " 1 " will be parigraha (accepted) for the currect yuga.

This verse helps in counting the number of 5-year samvatsara yugas in terms of

raashis traversed by Brihaspati. If 11 raashis have been bhukta, it means two

yugas plus one raashi have been bhukta since last Miina raashi's Brihaspati.

There is no reason to call this verse spurious. The very occurrence of " raashi "

is causing somne persons to call it spurious. But Chaandogya Upanishada also

speaks of raashi Vidyaa learnt by Narada Ji. The proof of this is Narada Purana,

which surpasses all other Puranas in the extent of space given to siddhanta and

phalita jyotisha. Hence, raashi in Chaandogya Upanishad in not an interpolation.

Same is the case with Yajurvedic Vedanga Jyotisha verse speaking of Mina rashi.

Mr Sathaye say " Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list

of topics. " (in Holay's book)

Mr Sathaye thinks persons like Holay and Pingree are last words in scholarship.

Holay does not put forth any argument why verse 42 should be regarded as

spurious, it is Sathaye's imagination. Verse 43 ascribes this verse 42 and the

rest to Sage Lagadha.

We should not waste time on such " scholars " who do not know Sanskrit case

endings and Sandhi rules but talk like experts of ancient texts.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Cc: ;

vedic_research_institute ; indiaarchaeology ;

Abhinavagupta ; WAVES-Vedic ; girvani

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:29:01 AM

[vedic astrology] Fw: [WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more

Dear Vinay,

Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am

marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other goups so that Sreenadhji and also

the other scholars from the different groups can give his views. As regards

the confusion between " meenaat prabhriti " and " Meenaanprabhriti " it appears to

me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the

Sandhi on.

Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings.

But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka

upanishad. They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that

all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a

layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to

believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the

Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing

the Upanishad. Don't you think so?

Thirdly Shri Sathaye is prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a

pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havirbhoo) when

the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes.

Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was

done so due to the Pingreean belief that the Rashis were imported from the

Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed

in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu> wrote:

Avinash Sathaye <sohum. edu>

[WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more

WAVES-Vedic

Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AM

Dear Friends,

I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the

parokSha-vAdins'

declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it,

except by following their advice.

This, to me, was and is a dead end discussion.

However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji.

I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on a

19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by using

this viewpoint.

I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my

web page.

These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for

Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0 "

added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about their

origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions.

One of these is the controversial " mInAn-prabhRRiti " verse, the second is an

innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed.

The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and

since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called

" parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there.

Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics.

As a side comment: " mInAn prabhRRiti " has grammar problems. " prabhRRiti " takes

the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't

know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes

from a tradition which uses a different start for the year!

It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with

actual manuscripts.

For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from

Holay's book.

I use Itrans notation:

yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA |

tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4

\[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH |

trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \]

mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH |

yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5

\[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm |

dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\]

I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional.

I suspect there are two typos as well.

1. In 4-0:

trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitA

as RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is!

2. In 42-0:

The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course.

Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser:

à¤®à¤£à¤¯à¥‹ à¤¯à¤¥à¤¾à¥¤

à¤®à¤¾à¤˜à¤¶à¥à¤•à¥à¤²à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤ªà¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤¯

à¤ªà¥Œà¤·à¤•à¥ƒà¤·à¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤

à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤šà¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥‡à¥¥ à¥«

à¤µà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚

à¤²à¤—à¤¤à¥‹à¤½à¤¬à¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-à¥¦]

--

With Best Regards,

Avinash Sathaye

Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

June 29, 2009

WAVES-Vedic , " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra wrote:

Dear Dr. Bhattacharjya,

You are just making some funny statements!

What surprises me is that the Rig-Veda is the oldest Veda and has been around

for at least about 6000 to 7000 years, if not more.

Over that period of several millennia, you are the only " chosen one " who has

been able to " decipher " through " parokshya " knowledge that there are sidereal

Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis in the Vedas!

Then there is another " Parokshya Professor " , Dr. Wilkinson, who claims that his

Guru, who has done tapasya for about forty years, has " seen " through that

tapasya, in a " parokshya " manner, nothing but Tropical Mesha etc. Rashis in the

Rig-Veda!

Don't you think this parokshya business is becoming a bit bizzare with such

claims and counter-claims, and the butt of all such ridiculous claims and

counter-claims being the Vedas, you and Dr. Wilkinson will make them lose all

their sanctity, ultimately? Don't you think that instead of explaining the

Vedas, you and Dr. Wilkinson etc. are doing a lot of disservice to the Hindu

community, with such obsession for non-existent Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis in the

Vedas?

Best wishes,

K K Mehrotra

WAVES-Vedic , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@>

wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay,

> Â

> Would you like to go through this mail and give your expert opinion. I am

marking a copy of this mail to AIA and other goups so that Sreenadhji and also

the other scholarsÂ from the different groups canÂ give his views. As regards

the confusion between " meenaat prabhriti " and " Meenaanprabhriti " it appears to

me that the first one with the Sandhi broken and the second one is with the

Sandhi on.

> Â

> Secondly Shri Sathaye and many others have no value for the Paroksha meanings.

But Paroksha meanings are more appropriate as told by the Brhadaranyaka

upanishad.Â They think that Paroksha means intangible. They do not think that

all people do not have the same receptive capacity. What can be Paroksha to a

layman can be Pratyaksha to a scholar. Either they conveniently refuse to

believe that the Upanishad indeed said so or they have utter disregard for the

Upanishad. If they think they are ridiculing me then in fact they are ridiculing

the Upanishad. Don't you think so?

> Â

> ThirdlyÂ Shri Sathaye isÂ prepared to believe that Agastya could be born in a

pitcher (or a pot) than born of his mother Prithvi (also called Havirbhoo) when

the Sun was in Kumbha Rashi. That is so far as their rationality goes.

> Â

> Fourthly the relevant verse had been sidelined and in all probability it was

done so due toÂ the Pingreean belief thatÂ the RashisÂ were imported from the

Greeks and could not have been there in the Vedanga Jyotisha, which was composed

in 1800 BCE if we accept Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha.

Anyway Shri Sathaye and his likes can be Pingreean also.

> Â

> Best wishes,

> Â

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> Â

> --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum@>

> [WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more

> WAVES-Vedic

> Friday, June 26, 2009, 3:30 AM

>

Dear Friends,

>

> I had personally withdrawn from this ongoing debate because of the

parokSha-vAdins'

> declaration that they know the truth and others are never going to see it,

except by following their advice.

> This, to me,Â was and is a dead end discussion.

>

> However, I can answer a material question by Mehrotraji.

>

> I have now a printed versions of both the Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

> Â

> These are from a book by Holay proposing that the Rigveda version was based on

a 19 year cycle and claiming to decode several more verses of the version by

using this viewpoint.

>

> I can easily scan and send them to the interested parties or leave them on my

web page.

> These are a total of 7 pages. The number of respective verses is 36 and 43 for

Rigveda and Yajurveda versions.

>

> Holay's book gives two extra verses in the Yajurveda version with a marker '0 "

added to the number, but unfortunately does not give explanation about their

origin. I imagine these to be doubtful (or less frequent) additions.

> One of these is the controversial " mInAn-prabhRRiti " verse, the second is an

innocent verse listing the topics that Lagadha has discussed.

>

> The controversial verse appears spuriously between two introductory verses and

since it is proposing to give a formula/definition of something called

" parigraha " , it clearly does not belong there.

> Note that no Rashis are mentioned in the verse 42-0 in the list of topics.

>

> As a side comment: " mInAn prabhRRiti " has grammar problems. " prabhRRiti " takes

the pa~nchamI (ablative) case, so it probably should be mInAt. However, I don't

know any standard Rashi count which begins with mIna. Perhaps, the verse comes

from a tradition which uses a different start for the year!

> Â It would be interesting to see a discussion of all this in connection with

actual manuscripts.

>

> For everybody's understanding, I am giving the verses under discussion from

Holay's book.

>

> I use Itrans notation:

>

> yathA shikhA mayUrANAM nAgAnAM maNayo yathA |

> tadvadvedA~NgashAst rANAM gaNitaM mUrdhani sthitam || 4

> \[ye bRRihaspatinA bhuktA mInAnprabhRRiti rAshayaH |

> trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA yaH sheShaH sa parigrahaH ||4-0 \]

> mAghashuklaprapanna sya pauShakRRiShNasamAp inaH |

> yugasya pa~nchavarShasya kAlaj~nAnaM prachakShate || 5

>

> \[ ityevaM mAsavarShANAM muhUrtodayaparvaNAm |

> dinartvayanamAsA~ NgaM vyAkhyAnaM lagato.abravIt ||42-0\]

>

> I have copied verses as in the book. Thus the brackets are intentional.

> I suspect there are two typos as well.

> 1. In 4-0:

> Â trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirRRitA is surely trivRRitAH pa~nchabhirhRRitA

> as RRita is not a mathematical operation, but hRRita is!

> 2. In 42-0:

> The name lagata should have been lagadha, of course.

>

> Devnagari display for those who have a good enough browser:

>

à¤®à¤£à¤¯à¥‹ à¤¯à¤¥à¤¾à¥¤

à¤ªà¥Œà¤·à¤•à¥ƒà¤·à¥à¤£à¤¸à¤®à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿à¤¨à¤ƒà¥¤

> à¤¯à¥à¤—à¤¸à¥à¤¯ à¤ªà¤žà¥à¤šà¤µà¤°à¥à¤·à¤¸à¥à¤¯

>

à¤µà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚

à¤²à¤—à¤¤à¥‹à¤½à¤¬à¥à¤°à¤µà¥€à¤¤à¥à¥¥à¥ªà¥¨-à¥¦]

>

> --

> With Best Regards,

> Avinash Sathaye

>

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

>

--- End forwarded message ---

Sign In

Fw: [WAVES-Vedic] Rashis once more

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads