Guest guest Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Dear friends, Namaste, 1) Shri Kaul said that the astrological combinations of the Valmiki Ramayana are impossible astronomically. This statement of Shri kaul is absolutely not correct. Dr. P.V.Vartak had first used the precessional data to find out the approximate period in which Lord Rama lived and then did his own calculations to show that Lord Rama was born in 7323 BCE. The Vartak's book explains all these very meticulously. Shri Kaul said so as he did not understand the meaning of the Sanskrit verses in the Balakanda, which means that Bharata was born after 14 hours of Lord Rama's birth, as there were 7 Lagnas in between, and that Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born the next day. It could be that the Balakanda was interpolated but the author, whoever he was, did give the astronomical data correctly. Shri kaul should read the texts properly and then criticise. 2) However I agree with the following statement of Shri Kaul: I am sure you will be more anguished than me and may use even stronger words for such activities of some " Vedic astrologers " / " Vedic astronomers " , especially if they say that their " scienfitic findings are most accurate and there is no need for any further proofs " . This time he had rightly used the words " some Vedic astrologers / Vedic astronomers " . Now he seems to agree that all the Vedic astrologers and Vedic astronomers are not necessarily unscrupulous. Many of us have been telling all along that there are some fake astrologers but astrology is not necessarily fake. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 9/17/09, a_krishen <jyotirved wrote: a_krishen <jyotirved Re: Dating of Ramayana period. Thursday, September 17, 2009, 12:26 AM Shri Suresh Hattangadiji, Namste! Thanks for your response. <I am not siding with Mr Bhatnagar's research.I am also still not endorsing your language.> In other words, you endorse the conclusions arrived at by me that: 1. The date of birth of Bhagwan Ram as January 10, 5114 BCE is anything but correct. 2. The plaentary positions shown to be tallying exactly with that of the Valmiki Ramayana by Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar is just a manipulation. 3. That the astrological combinations of the Valmiki Ramayana are impossible astronomically. If you ponder on the consequences these false presentations/ manipulations have on the general public as a whole, I am sure you will be more anguished than me and may use even stronger words for such activities of some " Vedic astrologers " / " Vedic astronomers " , especially if they say that their " scienfitic findings are most accurate and there is no need for any further proofs " . What pains me all the more is that all the knowledgeable " Vedic astrologers " kept silent for an inefinite period even after seeing such statements that the findings. even if they ae wrong, should not be subjected to any further scrutiny! With regards, A K Kaul , " hattangadi_ suresh " <hattangadi_ suresh@.. .> wrote: > > Dear Mr. Kaul, > I am not siding with Mr Bhatnagar's research.I am also still not endorsing your language.If you go through your post again just think whether the language used by you would have been acceptable to you if somebody else had used it against you.I am certain Mr.P.V.R.Narasimha Rao would hesitate to use similar language.It is not merely point by point rebuttal but language used is also important.I hope you understand my point. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Dear friends, Namaste, 1) Shri Kaul said that the astrological combinations of the Valmiki Ramayana are impossible astronomically. This statement of Shri kaul is absolutely not correct. Dr. P.V.Vartak had first used the precessional data to find out the approximate period in which Lord Rama lived and then did his own calculations to show that Lord Rama was born in 7323 BCE. The Vartak's book explains all these very meticulously. Shri Kaul said so as he did not understand the meaning of the Sanskrit verses in the Balakanda, which means that Bharata was born after 14 hours of Lord Rama's birth, as there were 7 Lagnas in between, and that Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born the next day. It could be that the Balakanda was interpolated but the author, whoever he was, did give the astronomical data correctly. Shri kaul should read the texts properly and then criticise. 2) However I agree with the following statement of Shri Kaul: I am sure you will be more anguished than me and may use even stronger words for such activities of some "Vedic astrologers" /"Vedic astronomers" , especially if they say that their "scienfitic findings are most accurate and there is no need for any further proofs". This time he had rightly used the words "some Vedic astrologers / Vedic astronomers". Now he seems to agree that all the Vedic astrologers and Vedic astronomers are not necessarily unscrupulous. Many of us have been telling all along that there are some fake astrologers but astrology is not necessarily fake. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 9/17/09, a_krishen <jyotirved wrote: a_krishen <jyotirved Re: Dating of Ramayana period. Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 12:26 AM Shri Suresh Hattangadiji,Namste!Thanks for your response.<I am not siding with Mr Bhatnagar's research.I am also still not endorsing your language.>In other words, you endorse the conclusions arrived at by me that:1. The date of birth of Bhagwan Ram as January 10, 5114 BCE is anything but correct.2. The plaentary positions shown to be tallying exactly with that of the Valmiki Ramayana by Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar is just a manipulation.3. That the astrological combinations of the Valmiki Ramayana are impossible astronomically.If you ponder on the consequences these false presentations/ manipulations have on the general public as a whole, I am sure you will be more anguished than me and may use even stronger words for such activities of some "Vedic astrologers" /"Vedic astronomers" , especially if they say that their "scienfitic findings are most accurate and there is no need for any further proofs".What pains me all the more is that all the knowledgeable "Vedic astrologers" kept silent for an inefinite period even after seeing such statements that the findings. even if they ae wrong, should not be subjected to any further scrutiny!With regards,A K Kaul , "hattangadi_ suresh" <hattangadi_ suresh@.. .> wrote:>> Dear Mr. Kaul,> I am not siding with Mr Bhatnagar's research.I am also still not endorsing your language.If you go through your post again just think whether the language used by you would have been acceptable to you if somebody else had used it against you.I am certain Mr.P.V.R.Narasimha Rao would hesitate to use similar language.It is not merely point by point rebuttal but language used is also important.I hope you understand my point.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.