Fw: [VRI] Fwd: Proofs that Mesha etc. rashis were imported into India!

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 7/23/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: [VRI] Fwd: Re: Proofs that Mesha etc. rashis were imported into India!vedic_research_institute Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 6:00 AM

 

 

Dear friends,Namaste,At the outset I wish to tell you that here we are discussing the antiquity of Hindu astrology and not whether astrology is valid or not. Now coming to Kaul's manipulation of the antiquity of Hindu astrlogy for decades kindly read the following comments.1)Kaul is playing delaying tactics and Sunthar appears to support him. Kaul has been claiming for many years that the Hindus got knowledge of the astrology and the Zodiac from the Greeks, without having any proof and when cornered now he wants time to search for the evidence. No court of law ever allows such delaying tactic. But Sunthar is different

as at heart he favours Kaul. Sunthar's spouse, Elizabeth, may a non- Hindu. Is Sunthar also a non-Hindu and is that the reason why he is not at all disturbed by the anti-Hindu tirade of Kaul?2The

Calendar Reform Committe (CRC) wrote that as there is no mention of Zodiac in the ritualistic Brahmana texts then there is a probability that the zodiac could have been imported from the Greeks, as probaby around 532 BCE the Greeks knew astrology.. CRC had evaded about the Puranas, which are non-ritualistic ancient Hindu texts, where there is mention of Zodiac. Purana is considered by the Upanishads to be the fifth Veda and is not considered any less that the Brahmanas. This itself proves that the views of CRC are partial but a blind person like Sunthar cannot see that.3)Kaul says that Dr. Meghnad Saha said that the Hindus imported Astrology and Zodiac from the Greeks. Dr. Meghnad Saha was the chairman of the CRC and the chairman agrees with the decision of the committee and the chairman gives his vote only if there is a tie. So it is not proper for Kaul to say that it was Meghnad Saha's opinion that the Hindus

imported Zodiac from the Greeks. Only a schemer like Kaul can say that and a only shallow person like Sunthar cannot understand this simple thing. Moreover it is not proper to implicate Dr. Saha's name into this controversy as he is dead and gone and cannot defend himself.4)As it was shown to Kaul that the Mahabharata mentions astrology now he (Kaul) is asking people to prove that the date of Mahabharata is before 532 BCE. Only abnormal people like Kaul and Sunthar can see the possibility of the date of the Mahabharata war being after 532 BCE.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> wrote:Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com>[VRI] Fwd: Re: Proofs that Mesha etc. rashis were imported into India!To:

vedic_research_ instituteWednesday, July 22, 2009, 11:20 PM

 

 

Abhinavagupta, Shivraj Khokra wrote:

 

Shivraj,

 

While I would agree that we should all make a concerted attempt to get as close to the primary sources as possible, such an insistence should at the same time not become a pretext for refusing to consider any claims that are contrary to our own views. Since Prof. Saha was apparently not only a professional specialist but also deemed credible enough to be vested with authority by a govt. commission to determine the truth behind such matters, it is up to Avtar's detractors to come up with counter-arguments from the primary sources or at least cite equally (if not more trustworthy) secondary sources. When the primary sources are in foreign languages, like Greek, or even worse, dead languages, like Sumerian or Akkadian, it makes no sense to appeal to texts that few of us can read. So such insistence could just as well be a diversionary tactic, which is the impression left by your posts here from the beginning.

 

However, I'd agree that while Avtar may continue to claim that astrology is all bunkum and that the zodiac is a late foreign import, he should desist from claiming, at least on this forum, to be the staunch upholder of Hindu traditions (against ignorant distortions, etc.), until he can explain the favorable reception of astrology (and the zodiac) in the Purânas (and even perhaps in the Mahâbhârata). There is much in later Hindu tradition that is referred to as 'vaidika' (including temple-worship, of which the 9 planets have become an integral part), that its absence in the Vedic corpus does not, in itself, invalidate its traditional legitimacy.

 

Sunthar

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (03 July) on Shivraj's post (02 July 2009) at

 

http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5247]

 

-----------

 

Avtarji,

 

Abhinavagupta, Avtar Krishen Kaul wrote:

 

> Pl. rest assured that these are no delaying tactics, but an honest

> effort to arrive at Truth and nothing but Truth.

>

 

I am afraid these are just delaying tactics. Number of questions

have been directed at you. You saying (in 2009) Greeks were doing astrology in 532 B.C. because Dr. Saha said so in 19xx's does not cut

it. *We need* primary sources as

evidence for your claims. Please reply to each question that Sunthar

has raised and I have raised, in previous posts, individually and not by pointing to a pdf.

 

Here is the definition of Primary source from wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Primary_source

 

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied."

 

Shivraj

 

[Response to Avtarji's post of 06 July 2009 at

 

http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5258]

 

--- End forwarded message ---