Guest guest Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Dear friends,  Shri Kaul does not understand Sanskrit at all as seen from the fact that he had given the wrong translation of the Ramayana verse. He also does not understand the Hindu astrology as well as the Hindu Astronomy,  as we have seen during these discussions. He could not understnd even that in 24 hours all the 12 Lagnas can occur. He calls me a Paroksha professor. He himself is neither a Paroksha professor nor a Pratyaksha professor. What professor will he like me to call him?  He is calling my showing that  he has given a wrong translation as one up-manship and it automatically happens when one person points out another person's misinterpretations. I have already sifted the grain from the chaff by showing that Shri Kaul have given the wrong translation of the Sanskrit verse.  Lord Rama was born at midday ie. noon. Bharata was born 14 hours after that and everybody will understnd that Bharata was born  after 2 pm at night. The day is counted from the Sunrise to the next Sunrise. Shri Kaul should please refer to my mail in which I have given the original Sanskrit verse regarding the birth of Bharata, Lakshman and Shatrughna. Lakshman and Shatrughna were born in the Karkata lagna the next day. No astrologer will have any difficulty in understanding that. as Shri Kaul does not know astrology he should not pose as an expert in the area he is not familiar with.  The main issue is that the data given in the Valmiki Ramayana are correct and adequate to find the date of Lord Rama and Dr. P.V.Vartak has already shown from the precessional calculations followed by other astronomical calculations that Lord Rama was born in 7323 BCE. If anybody thinks that he has a more accurate date he may be welcome to present his findings. The discussion on the issue on the data on the birth of Lord Rama is closed from my side. If any other member wants to continue he or she may.   Not knowing Sanskrit and not knowing Astrology is not a crime. or a deficiency. My advice to Shri Kaul is not to talk about Astrology, the subject which he does not really know.  He should not contest the Hindu Panchaanga also as he wants to leave out the nakshatras. It is known to the scholars that nakshatra is one of the inseparable anga (or limb) among the five angas of the Panchaanga (five-limbed calendar). Without the nakshatras one can make only a Chaturanga (four-limbed calendar) and not the widely accepted Panchaanga. If anybody has any wothwhile suggestion for improvement it has to be comapatible with all the fine angas taken together.  Regards,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya   --- On Tue, 9/22/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirved <jyotirved [VRI] Dating the Ramayana Period vedic_research_institute Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 12:18 AM     Dear friends, Jai Shri Ram, Shri Bhattacharjya is interested more in one up-manship than sifting grain from the chaff! If the Valmiki Ramayana, Balakanda 18/15-16, itself says, “saarpe jatav tu saumitree kuleere abyudite ravav†how can anybody interpret it that Bharata and Shatrugana were born the next day after Shri Ram when their sun was in Karkata whereas the sun of Shri Ram was in Mesha? Thus Mr. Bhattacharjya himself is displaying publicly his own ignorance! The planetary data given in the Adyatma Ramayana and Valmiki Ramayana is the same because both are interpolations, either by one and the same good for nothing jyotishi or the Adyatma Ramayana interpolator has copied the jyotisha interpolations of the VR. Such activities are very common with Jyotishis in India---Narada Purana has interpolations of Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha shlokas, which in themselves are interpolations of a much later date in the Surya Sidhanta itself! Vishnudharmotara- Purana talks of a Paitamaha Sidhanta that has actually been purloined from Brahma Sphuta Sidhanta of Brahma-gupta and so on. If unequal division of nakshatras was followed in India in the past, that means the system of muhurta, predictions and also festivals being followed these days by these very “Vedic astrologersâ€, including Shri Bhattacharjya, on the basis of equal nakshatra division is wrong! So all the jyotisha shastras, inlcudng Brihat jatakam and Brihat (Varahi) Samhita etc., being followed at present also are wrong! No wonder, “Vedic jyotishis†like Shri Bhattacharjya are making correct predictions from those very works from incorrect division of nakshatras! That vindicates my stand that “Vedic jyotishis†can make correct predictions only from incorrect data! Since Shri Bhattacharjya is a Paroskhya-darshi, he alone can see through his “paroskhya knowledge†that by eleven thousand years of Ramarajya the good for nothing interpolator jyotihsi had meant that a so called “divya varsha†of Shri Rama had been taken as 30.5 years of mankind! But then Shri Bhattacharjya must explain as to how could Shri Rama’s fourteen years of exile mean only fourteen years or his marriage at the age of about seventeen mean only seventeen years! Why are they not divya-varshas? Shri Bhattacharjya says that Dr. Vartak has calculated the date of Shri Ram as December 4, 7323 on the basis of planetary position of the VR and AR correctly. That means that Dr. Vartak and Shri Bhattacharjya presume Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis and Mangal, Shani etc. planets were being calculated in India more than 9000 years back! India, however, does not have any records talking of Mesha etc. Rashis vis-à -vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets before the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha---a work of about early centuries of Common Era! Mesha etc. Rashis vis-a-vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets were not known anywhere in the world till about five to six thousand years back, earliest! But Dr. Vartak and Shri Bhattacharjya discovered them even much earlier---9000 years back and that also in the VR! Thus Shri Bhattacharjya is again using his “parkoshya knowledge†of having “seen†Mesha etc. Rashis and Mangal, Shani etc. planets before anybody else! He is actually making a fool of a common man! Or is it himself? As per Dr. Vartak’s “most accurate calculations†the Mahabharata war started on October 16, 5561 BCE.  If Dr. Vartak is a scholar of that high caliber and a mathematical wizard according to Shri Bhattacharjya, why does he not agree with Dr. Vartak on the Mbh date? Why does Shri Bhattacharjya insist that the Mahabharata war took place only after July 19, 3228 BCE, since “Vedic astrologers†like Dr. B. V. Raman have erected “correct birth chart†(sic!) of Bhagwan Krishna for that date in his Notable Holroscopes. Heads I win and tails you lose! Shri Bhattacharya says that the Manu has advised kings to consult jyotishis! He is again taking the general public for a ride, since he has as yet to quote the exact references. There are hundreds of thousands of jyotishis in India, but Shri Bhattacharjya is the only one who is being prompted to counter the shastriac as well as astronomical facts!!! Need I say anything more? Jai Shri Ram A K Kaul  --- InRe: [VRI] Re: Dating of Ramayana Period!  Dear friends,  Namaste,  1) Shri Kaul did not understad how Bharata could be born on the same day as Lord Rama and how Lakshmana and Shatrughna could be born on the next day as he did not know that the Sanskrit verse in the Bala Kanda clearly gave the Lagnas and not the Rashis. Let him first admit that he did not know that. With such kind of knowledge he is criticising the astrological data given in the Balakanda. Shri Kaul should first gracefully admit that he has been misleading the members through his wrong interpretation of the verses and let him not try to cover up his ignorance by writing a long mail.  2) The data given in the Balakanda could be right as that data on the birth of Lord Rama, given in that, matches with the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana in the Brahmanda purana. It appears that Shri Kaul is not aware of that.  3) Shri Kaul is not aware that at one time in the past the Abhijit nakshatra was considered in ecliptic and the Mahabharata says that the Brahma rashi had Abhijit and Shravana nakshatra in that. It is obvious that Makar rashi is the erstwhile Brahma rashi but Shri Kaul had not read the Mahabharata otherwise he would have understood this. Had he understood that he would also understood that the spread of the nakshatras were not considered to be the same as what it is considered to be today and that equal division of the ecliptic into 108 nashatra-padas was not practised in the days of Ramayana. My regret is that without recognising all these factors he is condemning the data of Ramayana. Let Shri Kaul first understand the data given in the Ramayana and then only wear the cap of the critic.   4) He ridiculed the figure of 11,000 years of reign by Lord Rama. Many scholars are of the opinion that Lord Rama had been projected as God in Balakanda and Uttara kanda and this shows that these two kandas might not have been composed by Valmiki, who treats Lord Rama as a human being in the five middle kandas. This can be seen by anybody who reads Balakanda and tha Uttara kanda. It appears that Shri Kaul had not read the original Valmiki Ramayana and that was the reason why he ridiculed the figure of 11,000 years of reign given in the Balakanda of the Ramayana. I explained how the Divya varsha could have been misinterpreted and 30.5 years of reign could have been converted some scholars by following the Siddhantic rule of one year of god is equal to 360 human years. We know from the Vayu purana that Divya varsha is Solar year.  5) Shri Kaul is in no mood to appreciate that Dr. Vartak had first considered the precessional data to zero in on the date of Lord Rama. He knows only to criticise the scholars without any basis.  6) Shri Kaul says  " Maharshi Valmiki who is said to be contemporaneous of dasaratha, Shri rama could have been informed about the time and may be insptite of ommon sense vedic lore and dharmashastras etc. being negative on that point, he would haveerected birth charts ofShri rama and his siblings. "  Nothing can be further from truth. The premier dharmashastra Manu Smriti clearly advises the Kings to consult astrologers.  7) He is mentioning about Varahamihira, whom he more often than not calls the greatest charlatan and says that Varahamihira copied from the work of Yavanacharya and also considers the Yavanacharya to be a Greek scholar. He says so as he has not read the Raja Tarangini by the great past historian Kalhana of Kashmir. Kalhana talks about the Yona Brahmins and obviously the Yavanacharya was a Yona brahmin.  It could be true that some Yonas went out of India eventually became Greeks but it is not necessary that Yavanacharya was a Greek. More so as no Greek astrological literature corresponding to the work of Yavanacharya had been found in the Greek language. That the Yavanacharya could have been a Yona brahmin (of Kashmir?) is alluded to in a verse by Varahamihira, when he means that when even a Yona with knowledge of astrology is respected then what to speak of a Brahmin (Yona).  8) In my opinion Dr. Vartak's finding of the date of birth of Lord Rama as 7323 BCE is the best astronomical work to date and the historian in me finds this acceptable as from the yuga calculations alone it falls within the Treta yuga period from circa 9102 BCE to circa  6700 BCE. Dr. Vartak's date fits in the Treta yuga and also agrees with the precessional data. I agree with Dr. Narahari Achar's date of Lord Buddha's Nirvana in 1807 BCE as that agrees with my research findings using historical records like the " Dotted Recrord " . Dr. Vartak also mentions a Buddhist document according to which Lord Rama entered Sri Lanka some 5481 years before the Nirvana of Lord Buddha. and this means that actual birth year of Lord Rama could be 7319 BCE.   9) Shri Kaul continues his false statements thinking that Bhattacharjya will get tired and give up sooner or later and then he (Shri kaul) can continue his anti-shastraic tirades. I may be getting tired of countering his false statements and may give up soon but will the other Hindu scholars allow all these false statements of Shri Kaul to continue? Whatever course the Hindu intellectuals may choose it is upto them. But from my side  I would earnestly request Shri Kaul not to denigrate the Ramayana and Hindu Dharmashastras through his false statements due to his ignorance, if not wilful act.  Regards,  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sat, 9/19/09, jyotirved <jyotirved@.. .> wrote  vedic_research_ institute, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: >  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 Dear friends, Shri Kaul does not understand Sanskrit at all as seen from the fact that he had given the wrong translation of the Ramayana verse. He also does not understand the Hindu astrology as well as the Hindu Astronomy, as we have seen during these discussions. He could not understnd even that in 24 hours all the 12 Lagnas can occur. He calls me a Paroksha professor. He himself is neither a Paroksha professor nor a Pratyaksha professor. What professor will he like me to call him? He is calling my showing that he has given a wrong translation as one up-manship and it automatically happens when one person points out another person's misinterpretations. I have already sifted the grain from the chaff by showing that Shri Kaul have given the wrong translation of the Sanskrit verse. Lord Rama was born at midday ie. noon. Bharata was born 14 hours after that and everybody will understnd that Bharata was born after 2 pm at night. The day is counted from the Sunrise to the next Sunrise. Shri Kaul should please refer to my mail in which I have given the original Sanskrit verse regarding the birth of Bharata, Lakshman and Shatrughna. Lakshman and Shatrughna were born in the Karkata lagna the next day. No astrologer will have any difficulty in understanding that. as Shri Kaul does not know astrology he should not pose as an expert in the area he is not familiar with. The main issue is that the data given in the Valmiki Ramayana are correct and adequate to find the date of Lord Rama and Dr. P.V.Vartak has already shown from the precessional calculations followed by other astronomical calculations that Lord Rama was born in 7323 BCE. If anybody thinks that he has a more accurate date he may be welcome to present his findings. The discussion on the issue on the data on the birth of Lord Rama is closed from my side. If any other member wants to continue he or she may. Not knowing Sanskrit and not knowing Astrology is not a crime. or a deficiency. My advice to Shri Kaul is not to talk about Astrology, the subject which he does not really know. He should not contest the Hindu Panchaanga also as he wants to leave out the nakshatras. It is known to the scholars that nakshatra is one of the inseparable anga (or limb) among the five angas of the Panchaanga (five-limbed calendar). Without the nakshatras one can make only a Chaturanga (four-limbed calendar) and not the widely accepted Panchaanga. If anybody has any wothwhile suggestion for improvement it has to be comapatible with all the fine angas taken together. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Tue, 9/22/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirved <jyotirved[VRI] Dating the Ramayana Periodvedic_research_institute Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 12:18 AM Dear friends, Jai Shri Ram, Shri Bhattacharjya is interested more in one up-manship than sifting grain from the chaff! If the Valmiki Ramayana, Balakanda 18/15-16, itself says, “saarpe jatav tu saumitree kuleere abyudite ravav†how can anybody interpret it that Bharata and Shatrugana were born the next day after Shri Ram when their sun was in Karkata whereas the sun of Shri Ram was in Mesha? Thus Mr. Bhattacharjya himself is displaying publicly his own ignorance! The planetary data given in the Adyatma Ramayana and Valmiki Ramayana is the same because both are interpolations, either by one and the same good for nothing jyotishi or the Adyatma Ramayana interpolator has copied the jyotisha interpolations of the VR. Such activities are very common with Jyotishis in India---Narada Purana has interpolations of Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha shlokas, which in themselves are interpolations of a much later date in the Surya Sidhanta itself! Vishnudharmotara- Purana talks of a Paitamaha Sidhanta that has actually been purloined from Brahma Sphuta Sidhanta of Brahma-gupta and so on. If unequal division of nakshatras was followed in India in the past, that means the system of muhurta, predictions and also festivals being followed these days by these very “Vedic astrologersâ€, including Shri Bhattacharjya, on the basis of equal nakshatra division is wrong! So all the jyotisha shastras, inlcudng Brihat jatakam and Brihat (Varahi) Samhita etc., being followed at present also are wrong! No wonder, “Vedic jyotishis†like Shri Bhattacharjya are making correct predictions from those very works from incorrect division of nakshatras! That vindicates my stand that “Vedic jyotishis†can make correct predictions only from incorrect data! Since Shri Bhattacharjya is a Paroskhya-darshi, he alone can see through his “paroskhya knowledge†that by eleven thousand years of Ramarajya the good for nothing interpolator jyotihsi had meant that a so called “divya varsha†of Shri Rama had been taken as 30.5 years of mankind! But then Shri Bhattacharjya must explain as to how could Shri Rama’s fourteen years of exile mean only fourteen years or his marriage at the age of about seventeen mean only seventeen years! Why are they not divya-varshas? Shri Bhattacharjya says that Dr. Vartak has calculated the date of Shri Ram as December 4, 7323 on the basis of planetary position of the VR and AR correctly. That means that Dr. Vartak and Shri Bhattacharjya presume Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis and Mangal, Shani etc. planets were being calculated in India more than 9000 years back! India, however, does not have any records talking of Mesha etc. Rashis vis-à -vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets before the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha---a work of about early centuries of Common Era! Mesha etc. Rashis vis-a-vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets were not known anywhere in the world till about five to six thousand years back, earliest! But Dr. Vartak and Shri Bhattacharjya discovered them even much earlier---9000 years back and that also in the VR! Thus Shri Bhattacharjya is again using his “parkoshya knowledge†of having “seen†Mesha etc. Rashis and Mangal, Shani etc. planets before anybody else! He is actually making a fool of a common man! Or is it himself? As per Dr. Vartak’s “most accurate calculations†the Mahabharata war started on October 16, 5561 BCE. If Dr. Vartak is a scholar of that high caliber and a mathematical wizard according to Shri Bhattacharjya, why does he not agree with Dr. Vartak on the Mbh date? Why does Shri Bhattacharjya insist that the Mahabharata war took place only after July 19, 3228 BCE, since “Vedic astrologers†like Dr. B. V. Raman have erected “correct birth chart†(sic!) of Bhagwan Krishna for that date in his Notable Holroscopes. Heads I win and tails you lose! Shri Bhattacharya says that the Manu has advised kings to consult jyotishis! He is again taking the general public for a ride, since he has as yet to quote the exact references. There are hundreds of thousands of jyotishis in India, but Shri Bhattacharjya is the only one who is being prompted to counter the shastriac as well as astronomical facts!!! Need I say anything more? Jai Shri Ram A K Kaul --- InRe: [VRI] Re: Dating of Ramayana Period! Dear friends, Namaste, 1) Shri Kaul did not understad how Bharata could be born on the same day as Lord Rama and how Lakshmana and Shatrughna could be born on the next day as he did not know that the Sanskrit verse in the Bala Kanda clearly gave the Lagnas and not the Rashis. Let him first admit that he did not know that. With such kind of knowledge he is criticising the astrological data given in the Balakanda. Shri Kaul should first gracefully admit that he has been misleading the members through his wrong interpretation of the verses and let him not try to cover up his ignorance by writing a long mail. 2) The data given in the Balakanda could be right as that data on the birth of Lord Rama, given in that, matches with the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana in the Brahmanda purana. It appears that Shri Kaul is not aware of that. 3) Shri Kaul is not aware that at one time in the past the Abhijit nakshatra was considered in ecliptic and the Mahabharata says that the Brahma rashi had Abhijit and Shravana nakshatra in that. It is obvious that Makar rashi is the erstwhile Brahma rashi but Shri Kaul had not read the Mahabharata otherwise he would have understood this. Had he understood that he would also understood that the spread of the nakshatras were not considered to be the same as what it is considered to be today and that equal division of the ecliptic into 108 nashatra-padas was not practised in the days of Ramayana. My regret is that without recognising all these factors he is condemning the data of Ramayana. Let Shri Kaul first understand the data given in the Ramayana and then only wear the cap of the critic. 4) He ridiculed the figure of 11,000 years of reign by Lord Rama. Many scholars are of the opinion that Lord Rama had been projected as God in Balakanda and Uttara kanda and this shows that these two kandas might not have been composed by Valmiki, who treats Lord Rama as a human being in the five middle kandas. This can be seen by anybody who reads Balakanda and tha Uttara kanda. It appears that Shri Kaul had not read the original Valmiki Ramayana and that was the reason why he ridiculed the figure of 11,000 years of reign given in the Balakanda of the Ramayana. I explained how the Divya varsha could have been misinterpreted and 30.5 years of reign could have been converted some scholars by following the Siddhantic rule of one year of god is equal to 360 human years. We know from the Vayu purana that Divya varsha is Solar year. 5) Shri Kaul is in no mood to appreciate that Dr. Vartak had first considered the precessional data to zero in on the date of Lord Rama. He knows only to criticise the scholars without any basis. 6) Shri Kaul says "Maharshi Valmiki who is said to be contemporaneous of dasaratha, Shri rama could have been informed about the time and may be insptite of ommon sense vedic lore and dharmashastras etc. being negative on that point, he would haveerected birth charts ofShri rama and his siblings." Nothing can be further from truth. The premier dharmashastra Manu Smriti clearly advises the Kings to consult astrologers. 7) He is mentioning about Varahamihira, whom he more often than not calls the greatest charlatan and says that Varahamihira copied from the work of Yavanacharya and also considers the Yavanacharya to be a Greek scholar. He says so as he has not read the Raja Tarangini by the great past historian Kalhana of Kashmir. Kalhana talks about the Yona Brahmins and obviously the Yavanacharya was a Yona brahmin. It could be true that some Yonas went out of India eventually became Greeks but it is not necessary that Yavanacharya was a Greek. More so as no Greek astrological literature corresponding to the work of Yavanacharya had been found in the Greek language. That the Yavanacharya could have been a Yona brahmin (of Kashmir?) is alluded to in a verse by Varahamihira, when he means that when even a Yona with knowledge of astrology is respected then what to speak of a Brahmin (Yona). 8) In my opinion Dr. Vartak's finding of the date of birth of Lord Rama as 7323 BCE is the best astronomical work to date and the historian in me finds this acceptable as from the yuga calculations alone it falls within the Treta yuga period from circa 9102 BCE to circa 6700 BCE. Dr. Vartak's date fits in the Treta yuga and also agrees with the precessional data. I agree with Dr. Narahari Achar's date of Lord Buddha's Nirvana in 1807 BCE as that agrees with my research findings using historical records like the "Dotted Recrord". Dr. Vartak also mentions a Buddhist document according to which Lord Rama entered Sri Lanka some 5481 years before the Nirvana of Lord Buddha. and this means that actual birth year of Lord Rama could be 7319 BCE. 9) Shri Kaul continues his false statements thinking that Bhattacharjya will get tired and give up sooner or later and then he (Shri kaul) can continue his anti-shastraic tirades. I may be getting tired of countering his false statements and may give up soon but will the other Hindu scholars allow all these false statements of Shri Kaul to continue? Whatever course the Hindu intellectuals may choose it is upto them. But from my side I would earnestly request Shri Kaul not to denigrate the Ramayana and Hindu Dharmashastras through his false statements due to his ignorance, if not wilful act. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sat, 9/19/09, jyotirved <jyotirved@.. .> wrote vedic_research_ institute, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > 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.