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

July 23, 2009

--- On Thu, 7/23/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: [VRI] Fwd: Re: Proofs that Mesha etc. rashis were imported into

India!

vedic_research_institute

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?

2

The

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_ institute

Wednesday, 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 ---

July 24, 2009

Dear friends,

1)

Existence of Rashi in Bhagavata purana, Narada purana and Vamana purana has lot

of significance. Existence of Brahmarashi in the Mahabharata has lot of

significance and Brahmarashi is the precursor of Makara Rashi of the Bhagavata

purana.

2)

Mention of Astrology in Mahabharata and Manu Smriti has lot of significance.

3)

The Calendar Reform Committee (CRC) chaired by Dr. Meghnada Saha had

conveniently avoided the Puranas, which mention the Rashis. We must condemn the

CRC for this grave lapse. Kaul's mentioning Meghnada Saha does not prove

anything..

4)

Why Brighenti alone there are many Hindu-haters like him are around.

5)

Astology has already been proven to be in the Mahabharata. This proves Kaul's

claim to be wrong.

6)

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions rashi in a verse. If some editor thinks that verse to

be interpolated then that is his personal view as he had been influenved by the

views of people like david Pingree and not necessarily the views of all

the scholars.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote:

Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved

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

vedic_research_institute

Friday, July 24, 2009, 12:02 AM

Abhinavagupta, Koenraad Elst wrote:

Abhinavagupta, Shivraj Khokra wrote:

>

> a) Kaul and Brighenti claim zodiac is an import into India.

>

> b) They were asked for evidence.

>

> c) Kaul claimed Greek import vide Saha's report and further claimed

> vide Paper AKkaulRashiVedicAst rology.pdf (Page 26)

> (http://tinyurl. com/AKKaulRashiV edicAstrology- pdf)

>

> " Non existence of Rashis in the Mahabharata has a lot of

> significance: .......<rest snipped>.... . " .

>

> Brighenti also supported Greek reference.

>

> d) They were provided some references from Mahabharat which proved

> that their claim in c) above was wrong.

> (http://tinyurl. com/Astrology- in-Bharata)

>

The Mahabharata is post-Alexandrine and contains a number of Greek loans. Their

presence is perfectly compatible with an Achaemenid-age or Alexandrine/

Seleucid- Age transmission. transmission

> e) Then they were further asked to show us primary sources for

> their claim of Greek use of Astrology in 532 B.C.

> This is a fair request since evidence from primary source of

> Mahabharata was given which falsified one of their claims in c).

>

Euktemon introduced the Zodiac, in tropical version, in Athens in ca. 450 BC.

Homer, 8th BC, contains a list of wounds to body parts that astrologers relate

to the twelve signs. (The Torah, referring to events ca. 1500 BC but edited ca.

530 BC, lists the twelve sons of Jacob as having characteristics related to the

Zodiac symbols.) Astrology in the sense of horoscopy in 532 BC in Greece is

highly unlikely. The oldest horoscope in Babylon is a whole century younger. But

Plato already refers to astrology in the 4th BC, half a century before Alexander

reached India. None of these details stands in the way of a transmission of

Hellenistic astrology to India ca. 300 BC or even later, well in time to make a

mark on the Mahabharata.

Kind regards,

Koenraad Elst

[Reply to Shivraj's post (23 July 2009) at

http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5276]

--- End forwarded message ---

July 24, 2009

Dear friends,

1)

Existence of Rashi in Bhagavata purana, Narada purana and Vamana purana has lot of significance. Existence of Brahmarashi in the Mahabharata has lot of significance and Brahmarashi is the precursor of Makara Rashi of the Bhagavata purana.

2)

Mention of Astrology in Mahabharata and Manu Smriti has lot of significance.

3)

The Calendar Reform Committee (CRC) chaired by Dr. Meghnada Saha had conveniently avoided the Puranas, which mention the Rashis. We must condemn the CRC for this grave lapse. Kaul's mentioning Meghnada Saha does not prove anything..

4)

Why Brighenti alone there are many Hindu-haters like him are around.

5)

Astology has already been proven to be in the Mahabharata. This proves Kaul's claim to be wrong.

6)

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions rashi in a verse. If some editor thinks that verse to be interpolated then that is his personal view as he had been influenved by the views of people like david Pingree and not necessarily the views of all the scholars.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote:

Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved[VRI] Fwd: Re: Proofs that Mesha etc. rashis were imported into India!vedic_research_institute Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 12:02 AM

Abhinavagupta, Koenraad Elst wrote:Abhinavagupta, Shivraj Khokra wrote:>> a) Kaul and Brighenti claim zodiac is an import into India.>> b) They were asked for evidence.>> c) Kaul claimed Greek import vide Saha's report and further claimed> vide Paper AKkaulRashiVedicAst rology.pdf (Page 26)> (http://tinyurl. com/AKKaulRashiV edicAstrology- pdf)>> "Non existence of Rashis in the Mahabharata has a lot

of> significance: .......<rest snipped>.... .".>> Brighenti also supported Greek reference.>> d) They were provided some references from Mahabharat which proved> that their claim in c) above was wrong.> (http://tinyurl. com/Astrology- in-Bharata)>The Mahabharata is post-Alexandrine and contains a number of Greek loans. Their presence is perfectly compatible with an Achaemenid-age or Alexandrine/ Seleucid- Age transmission. transmission> e) Then they were further asked to show us primary sources for> their claim of Greek use of Astrology in 532 B.C.> This is a fair request since evidence from primary source of> Mahabharata was given which falsified one of their claims in c).>Euktemon introduced the Zodiac, in tropical version, in Athens in ca. 450 BC. Homer,

8th BC, contains a list of wounds to body parts that astrologers relate to the twelve signs. (The Torah, referring to events ca. 1500 BC but edited ca. 530 BC, lists the twelve sons of Jacob as having characteristics related to the Zodiac symbols.) Astrology in the sense of horoscopy in 532 BC in Greece is highly unlikely. The oldest horoscope in Babylon is a whole century younger. But Plato already refers to astrology in the 4th BC, half a century before Alexander reached India. None of these details stands in the way of a transmission of Hellenistic astrology to India ca. 300 BC or even later, well in time to make a mark on the Mahabharata.Kind regards,Koenraad Elst[Reply to Shivraj's post (23 July 2009) athttp://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 5276]--- End forwarded message

---

July 25, 2009

vedic_research_institute , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

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?

2

The 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 wrote: