[VRI] Fwd: References of Rashis in the Vedaas and the Vedanga Jyotisha.

July 4, 2009

Friends,

1)

Sunthar told me that he is suspending me at least for six months, which

obviously meant indefinitely, which for all purpose is equivalent to banning as

he is the Lord and master of the Abhinavagupta group. That is his prerogative.

But he is not telling the truth He wrote to me that he suspended me as what I

wrote was not correct. Mind that it is his view and he may have some like-minded

people. Now he writes in this mail that I had taken so much bandwidth that he

has problem. Trule speaking he has given more space to Kaul and others who are

denigrating the antiquity of the Hindu Jyotish shastra and also saying that in

The california History text book controversy the Hindu group has totally lost

but both are not facts. Had I known that Sunthar belongs to the category of

anti-hindu people I would not have joined that group. Even after banning me he

is allowing other posts of the same topic to go on unopposed so that they can

pat each other.

2)

Sunthar ridiculed me when I said that the Veda prefers the Paroksha meaning and

if I nremember correctly I have already sent that mail to you to see.

3)

Sunthar does not know that Agastya's mother's name was prithvi and she was also

called Havirbhoo. First he claimed that he suggested to me earlier.that Kumbha

can be Kumbhodara though in reality he did not tell me that. When I saw his

claim I refuted that he has not suggested and that if Agastya was born the

Agstya's mother's womb with Varuna's seed the implications are that Varuna

violated Agastya's mother. Now he writes in his group as follows;

Quote

What I immediately pointed out was that the 'pot' (kumbha) is an ubiquitous

metaphor for the womb (udara), which explains the meaning of the former in myth

and ritual. The common compound kumbhodara, which I last mentioned, merely shows

that this equation is commonplace in Hinduism (with variants, such as lambodara,

mahodara, etc., for Ganeza, and even the vidÃ»Saka). The mythical account of

Mitra and Varuna shedding their seed " in common " (sounds like an orgy?) into the

pot-womb of the courtesan UrvazÃ® is from the PurÃ¢nas (check, for example,

Vettam Mani's _Puranic Encyclopedia_ for the variants...). So you now have the

option of charging the Fifth Vedas (also) with perversity (surely not suitable

for the California textbooks?) or exercising your unique flair for parokSa

meanings to derive some innocuous hidden wisdom. You could perhaps start by

noting that Agastya's 'mother' is the 'ritual fire' (havis) from which he is

(re-?) 'born' (bhU) - how do you 'rape' the sacrifice?

Unquote

Now he wants to say that Agastya's mother is " ritual fire " . Poor Sunthar. With

half knowledge he wants to argue. He does not know that Ahgstya's mothr's name

was Prithvi and she was also called Havirbhoo.. If some one has the name of

Krishna does it make him Lord Krishna?

Also see his mocking at the Vedic verse which says about the Paroksha view and

implying that there is perversity in the fifth Veda, ie. Purana. Does this not

show his anti-Hindu views?

4)

Now coming to the verse in Vedanga Jyotisha Sunthar says as follows:

Quote

It's common practice for even 'critical' editions (of the MBh, etc.) to retain

extra versus found even only in a single manuscript (among dozens) even while

marking them out in someway (even when relegated to the footnotes). Those who

claim that those VJ Rashi references are " interpolations " have adduced internal

reasons (e.g. lack of coherence with the surrounding text) earlier in this

thread. Of course, you rarely (hear, let alone) address the key points made by

your interlocutors (but resort instead to straw man refutations).

Unquote

Another example of half knowledge of Sunthar. Dr. Sukhtankar asked the members

to follow western methods of editing the critical adition of the Mahabharata and

accordingly those verses which were not common in all the versions were

sidelined. But later on just before his death Dr. Sukhtankar retracted his

views. Dr. Sukhtankar delivered the three of his last four lectures in the

Asiatic Society in Mumbai and died in the morning when he was to deliver the

fourth lecture. In that lecture Dr. Sukhtankar brought in as authentic the

sidelined verses and the editor of the the lecture seried had commented in

writing that Dr. Sukhtankar negated his lifelong principle employed in the

editing of the critical edition.

Now coming to the VJ the verse mentioning the Meena Rashi is authentic as

otherwise the verse would not have been retained. I explained that Pingree's

view was that the Hindus learnt astrolgy more than a millennium after the VJ,

which according to Colebrooke was composed in 1400 BCE so it is common sense

that the scholars would doubt the verse wihich mentions Meena Rashi. It is

rightly that somebody said " The horses has horse-sense man does not have common

sense " In this it is obvious that they are referred to who lacks common sense.

5)

Sunthat said that Indus Valley Civilisation IVC) does not prove the antiquity of

the puranas as no temple has been found in IVC sites. This shows ignorance of

Sunthar. Archaeologists Dr. Vats and Dr. B.B.Lal found shivalingas in worshipful

condition in this sites. There is mention of tirthasthanas along the Saraswati

river which Balarama visited at the time of the Mahabharata war. This is given

in the Mahabharata. The saraswati Purana of the Jains also mention about the

Saraswati as a titha. The yajna kunda has been also found in the IVC site. Yet

Sunthar is bent on reducing the antiquity of IVC and its link with the Hindus..

6)

Now he says

Quote

Why thank Avtar for the opportunity to respond to my comments, when you could

have taken the initiative of forwarding them to those other forums with your own

responses?

Unquote

I have to thank Avtar again for the second time even though Avtar and Sunthar

are in the same league. It is only because of Avtar's forwarding the mail to

another forum that I can reply to Sunthar. Let Sunthat give his unfounded

views to his group. He removed me from his group and wants to continue an

unequal fight when he is not facing me. Now he can load his group with mails in

favour of Avtar's views as there is none to oppose him.

Regards,

Sunil

PS. I shall reply to Francesco separately.

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote:

Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved

[VRI] Fwd: Re: References of Rashis in the Vedaas and the Vedanga

Jyotisha.

vedic_research_institute

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:08 AM

Abhinavagupta, Francesco Brighenti wrote:

Friends,

Sunil's entrenched views, repeated here ad nauseam, on the Rashi debate and on

the California Textbook Controversy, are taking up so much bandwidth that it

leaves us little room to discuss other more relevant issues (Marriott, Tilak,

rasa-theory and Bollywood, etc.) and the moderator little time to for his own

research and contributions. Moreover, he keeps posting the same thing several

times a day, often failing to trim his posts despite repeated notices.

So his posting privileges to this list are being suspended (including the right

to reply to any of his pending posts that might be approved).

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (30 June) on Sunil's post (26 June

2009) at

http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5233]

Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

> BTW, has Kaulji found any reference in the Babylonian / Greek

> literature as to why and also since when the Greeks used the names

> of animals to represent the Rashis, i.e. as to the origin of the

> animal representation of the Rashis in Babylonian/Greek astrology?

> Unless he can prove that, his insistence that the Indians imported

> the rashis from Babylonia/Greeks will be unethical.

Unethical? Why? Mr. Kaul is fully correct in his statements. The evidence

indicates that the Greeks borrowed the 12-signs zodiacal scheme from the

Babylonians around the late 6th century BCE (at which time Babylonians and

Ionian Greeks were subjects of a unified Persian Empire which also included

modern Pakistan). The Babylonian constellations which were to form the final

zodiacal 12, though established over time, were formulated into a zodiacal

scheme of 12 around the 7th century BCE. Long before that time, some

constellations that later formed part of the Babylonian zodiac had been known to

the various peoples of Mesopotamia by the same names they bore when they started

to be used as zodiacal signs. Some of them, perhaps originally used as seasonal

markers, are already mentioned in texts dating from circa 2000 BCE, and possibly

even in earlier ones. Some of these old constellations bore animal names such as

the Lion, the Bull of Heaven, the Scorpion,

the Crab etc. -- what's strange with that? Such constellations named after

animals became part of the 12-signs Babylonian zodiac long after the Sumerians

or the Akkadians had named them so! These constellations were favourably placed

within the " right " 30° sectors of the ecliptic, which fact caused them to be

chosen as markers of some of the twelve " signs " of the zodiac; it is not their

" fault " if they were observed in those very positions by ancient Babylonian

astronomers!

Thus, the " animal-names " of certain signs of the Babylonian (and then Greek,

Indian etc.) zodiac came *before* the creation of the 12-signs zodiac.

Is this clear to you or not?

Regards,

Francesco

[Reply to Sunil's post (24 June, 2009) at

http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5222]

--- End forwarded message ---

July 4, 2009

Friends,

1)

Sunthar told me that he is suspending me at least for six months, which obviously meant indefinitely, which for all purpose is equivalent to banning as he is the Lord and master of the Abhinavagupta group. That is his prerogative. But he is not telling the truth He wrote to me that he suspended me as what I wrote was not correct. Mind that it is his view and he may have some like-minded people. Now he writes in this mail that I had taken so much bandwidth that he has problem. Trule speaking he has given more space to Kaul and others who are denigrating the antiquity of the Hindu Jyotish shastra and also saying that in The california History text book controversy the Hindu group has totally lost but both are not facts. Had I known that Sunthar belongs to the category of anti-hindu people I would not have joined that group. Even after banning

me he is allowing other posts of the same topic to go on unopposed so that they can pat each other.

2)

Sunthar ridiculed me when I said that the Veda prefers the Paroksha meaning and if I nremember correctly I have already sent that mail to you to see.

3)

Sunthar does not know that Agastya's mother's name was prithvi and she was also called Havirbhoo. First he claimed that he suggested to me earlier.that Kumbha can be Kumbhodara though in reality he did not tell me that. When I saw his claim I refuted that he has not suggested and that if Agastya was born the Agstya's mother's womb with Varuna's seed the implications are that Varuna violated Agastya's mother. Now he writes in his group as follows;

Quote

What I immediately pointed out was that the 'pot' (kumbha) is an ubiquitous metaphor for the womb (udara), which explains the meaning of the former in myth and ritual. The common compound kumbhodara, which I last mentioned, merely shows that this equation is commonplace in Hinduism (with variants, such as lambodara, mahodara, etc., for Ganeza, and even the vidÃ»Saka). The mythical account of Mitra and Varuna shedding their seed "in common" (sounds like an orgy?) into the pot-womb of the courtesan UrvazÃ® is from the PurÃ¢nas (check, for example, Vettam Mani's _Puranic Encyclopedia_ for the variants...). So you now have the option of charging the Fifth Vedas (also) with perversity (surely not suitable for the California textbooks?) or exercising your unique flair for parokSameanings to derive some innocuous hidden wisdom. You could

perhaps start by noting that Agastya's 'mother' is the 'ritual fire' (havis) from which he is (re-?) 'born' (bhU) - how do you 'rape' the sacrifice?

Unquote

Now he wants to say that Agastya's mother is "ritual fire". Poor Sunthar. With half knowledge he wants to argue. He does not know that Ahgstya's mothr's name was Prithvi and she was also called Havirbhoo.. If some one has the name of Krishna does it make him Lord Krishna?

Also see his mocking at the Vedic verse which says about the Paroksha view and implying that there is perversity in the fifth Veda, ie. Purana. Does this not show his anti-Hindu views?

4)

Now coming to the verse in Vedanga Jyotisha Sunthar says as follows:

Quote

It's common practice for even 'critical' editions (of the MBh, etc.) to retain extra versus found even only in a single manuscript (among dozens) even while marking them out in someway (even when relegated to the footnotes). Those who claim that those VJ Rashi references are "interpolations" have adduced internal reasons (e.g. lack of coherence with the surrounding text) earlier in this thread. Of course, you rarely (hear, let alone) address the key points made by your interlocutors (but resort instead to straw man refutations).

Unquote

Another example of half knowledge of Sunthar. Dr. Sukhtankar asked the members to follow western methods of editing the critical adition of the Mahabharata and accordingly those verses which were not common in all the versions were sidelined. But later on just before his death Dr. Sukhtankar retracted his views. Dr. Sukhtankar delivered the three of his last four lectures in the Asiatic Society in Mumbai and died in the morning when he was to deliver the fourth lecture. In that lecture Dr. Sukhtankar brought in as authentic the sidelined verses and the editor of the the lecture seried had commented in writing that Dr. Sukhtankar negated his lifelong principle employed in the editing of the critical edition.

Now coming to the VJ the verse mentioning the Meena Rashi is authentic as otherwise the verse would not have been retained. I explained that Pingree's view was that the Hindus learnt astrolgy more than a millennium after the VJ, which according to Colebrooke was composed in 1400 BCE so it is common sense that the scholars would doubt the verse wihich mentions Meena Rashi. It is rightly that somebody said "The horses has horse-sense man does not have common sense" In this it is obvious that they are referred to who lacks common sense.

5)

Sunthat said that Indus Valley Civilisation IVC) does not prove the antiquity of the puranas as no temple has been found in IVC sites. This shows ignorance of Sunthar. Archaeologists Dr. Vats and Dr. B.B.Lal found shivalingas in worshipful condition in this sites. There is mention of tirthasthanas along the Saraswati river which Balarama visited at the time of the Mahabharata war. This is given in the Mahabharata. The saraswati Purana of the Jains also mention about the Saraswati as a titha. The yajna kunda has been also found in the IVC site. Yet Sunthar is bent on reducing the antiquity of IVC and its link with the Hindus..

6)

Now he says

Quote

Why thank Avtar for the opportunity to respond to my comments, when you could have taken the initiative of forwarding them to those other forums with your own responses?

Unquote

I have to thank Avtar again for the second time even though Avtar and Sunthar are in the same league. It is only because of Avtar's forwarding the mail to another forum that I can reply to Sunthar. Let Sunthat give his unfounded views to his group. He removed me from his group and wants to continue an unequal fight when he is not facing me. Now he can load his group with mails in favour of Avtar's views as there is none to oppose him.

Regards,

Sunil

PS. I shall reply to Francesco separately.

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote:

Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved[VRI] Fwd: Re: References of Rashis in the Vedaas and the Vedanga Jyotisha.vedic_research_institute Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:08 AM

Abhinavagupta, Francesco Brighenti wrote:Friends,Sunil's entrenched views, repeated here ad nauseam, on the Rashi debate and on the California Textbook Controversy, are taking up so much bandwidth that it leaves us little room to discuss other more relevant issues (Marriott, Tilak, rasa-theory and Bollywood, etc.) and the moderator little time to for his own research and contributions. Moreover, he keeps posting the same thing several times a day, often failing to trim his posts despite repeated notices.So his posting privileges to this list are being suspended (including the right to reply to any of his pending posts that might be approved).Sunthar[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (30 June) on Sunil's post (26 June 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5233]Abhinavagupta, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:> BTW, has Kaulji found any reference in the Babylonian / Greek> literature as to why and also since when the Greeks used the names> of animals to represent the Rashis, i.e. as to the origin of the> animal representation of the Rashis in Babylonian/Greek astrology?> Unless he can prove that, his insistence that the Indians imported> the rashis from Babylonia/Greeks will be unethical.Unethical? Why? Mr. Kaul is fully correct in his statements. The evidence indicates that the Greeks borrowed the 12-signs zodiacal scheme from the Babylonians around the late 6th century BCE (at which time Babylonians and Ionian Greeks were subjects of a unified Persian Empire which also included modern Pakistan). The Babylonian constellations which were to form the final zodiacal 12, though established over time, were formulated into a zodiacal scheme of 12 around the 7th century BCE. Long before that time, some constellations that later formed part of the Babylonian zodiac had been known to the various peoples of Mesopotamia by the same names they bore when they started to be used as zodiacal signs. Some of them, perhaps originally used as seasonal markers, are already mentioned in texts dating from circa 2000 BCE, and possibly even in earlier ones. Some of these old constellations bore animal names such as the Lion, the Bull

of Heaven, the Scorpion, the Crab etc. -- what's strange with that? Such constellations named after animals became part of the 12-signs Babylonian zodiac long after the Sumerians or the Akkadians had named them so! These constellations were favourably placed within the "right" 30° sectors of the ecliptic, which fact caused them to be chosen as markers of some of the twelve "signs" of the zodiac; it is not their "fault" if they were observed in those very positions by ancient Babylonian astronomers!Thus, the "animal-names" of certain signs of the Babylonian (and then Greek, Indian etc.) zodiac came *before* the creation of the 12-signs zodiac.Is this clear to you or not?Regards,Francesco[Reply to Sunil's post (24 June, 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu

pta/message/ 5222]--- End forwarded message ---

July 6, 2009

Sunil Da,

Those who lack arguments can either abuse or expel you.

-VJ

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

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic_research_institute

Cc: Vedic-astrology ; ;

indiaarchaeology ; WAVES-Vedic;

USBrahmins

Saturday, July 4, 2009 7:54:13 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: [VRI] Fwd: Re: References of Rashis in the

Vedaas and the Vedanga Jyotisha.