Fwd Dating of the Ramayaan Period

[Guest guest]

 

 

Dear friends,

 

Mr Kaul writes that the real astronomers are not as yet sure about the actual difference between the Universal and Dynamical Time even around one thousand BCE, not to speak of 15300 years back and he is questioning as to how the people are venturing to use astronomy to find the date of Lord Rama but Mr. Kaul conveniently forgets that he himself boasts of a software, which he claims can give astronomical data correctly upto some 10,000 BCE. Why is Mr. Kaul double speaking?

 

Again Mr. Kaul questions as to how the astronomer can prove that with the Sun in Mesha and Moon in Karkata it was Shukla paksha navmi and also Punaravsu nakshatra, in connection with the data given in the Ramayana? Can he show where did Valmiki in the Treta yuga mention Mesha Rashi in the Ramayana? To my knowledge it was much later in the purana that Mesha was mentioned.

 

Further, Mr. Kaul is not aware of the fact that in the Mahabharata Lord Indra tells Lord Skanda about the fall of the Abhijit. It means that in the times of the Mahabharata ie. in the Dwapara yuga the Abhijit was considered to be one of the 28 Nakshatras in the ecliptic. As the Ramayana episodes are of the earlier Treta yuga and obviously at that time the ecliptic was not divided into 27 equal divisions like it is done in the present days. Such being the case how can Mr. Kaul question the validity of the figures given in the Bala Kanda using the present day division of the ecliptic. In fact even the the Rashi division was not exactly like it is today as the Abhijit along with Shravana was part of the Brahma rashi, as mentioned in the Mahabharata. Only later on with the exit of Abhijit that the remaining 27 Nakshatras were

distributed among the 12 Rashis and the Shravana Nakshatra then became a part of the Makara rashi.

 

Without any rhyme or reason Mr. Kaul tries to vilify the Indian scholars every time. If he wants to criticise let him be objective but not with his anti-astrology agenda.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 9/12/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:

jyotirved <jyotirved Dating of the Ramayaan Periodastronomy_activities_2009 Cc: "'subash razdan'" <subashrazdan, hinducalendar , hinducivilization, indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , Date: Saturday, September 12, 2009, 9:43 AM

 

 

Shri T. S. Krishna Moorthyji,Namastey!< Please note that me not an expert in astronomy or astrology>That is evident from your words like, “Ramayana about 15300 years back. To support the above I can give references from difference books written by expert VEDIC ASTRONOMERsâ€.By “Vedic astronomers†perhaps you mean “parokshya astronomersâ€, since “pratakshya†i.e. real astronomers would not make such foolish claims! Only “parokshya people†see what “others may missâ€.You must have heard the famous saying, “Fools rush where angels fear to treadâ€. The real astronomers are not as yet sure about the actual difference between the Universal and Dynamical Time even around one thousand BCE, not to speak of 15300 years back, but it is only “Vedic astronomers†who can “proveâ€

astronomically, as to how to manipulate and interpolate works like the Valmiki Ramayana and the Mahabharata etc. with such jyotisha combinations as can never be possible astronomically!For instance, (i) which astronomer can prove that with the Sun in Mesha and Moon in Karkata it was Shukla paksha navmi and also Punaravsu nakshatra? (ii) Similarly, which astronomer can prove the impossible that in spite of Bharata being younger than Shri Rama by a day or so, his sun was in Mina whereas that of Shri Ram was in Mesha? (iii) Then again, which astronomer can prove that whereas Bharata was born with the Sun in Mina, but Lakshamana and Shatrugana were born with the sun in Karkata, in spite of both of them being younger than Bharata by hardly a day or so?Why are you burying your head under the sand

like an ostritch?Or are you contemplating of some monstrous “astronomical†work like the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha, which calculates, in a jiffy, longitudes of planets from the very dawn of the creation to its doomsday, with, of course a uniform daily motion without any secular variations?My dear friend, pl do talk sense if you do not want to make the Hindu culture a culture by “Vedic astrologers†of “Vedic astrologers†and for “Vedic astrologersâ€.With regards,A K Kaul