Guest guest Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Shri Kaulji, Jai Shri Ram, Your translation is wrong and your adamantly insisting it to be right will not make it right. Please do not be ashamed of admitting the facts. Shri Ramji loves truth. Shri Krishnaji told Arjuna not to be Kliva. So have the moral courage to admit that you were wrong. To err is human. It appears that you have absolutely no knowledge of astrology. Now don't tell me that you bagged a prize in astrology. That definitely was a shot in the dark. The 27 Nakshatras are the homes of the Moon for one day and Pushya was the janma nakshatra of Bharata. In the geocentric model we have two movements of the Sun round the earth. In one movement the Sun circles the earth in one day and the pratyakshadarshis see that. As you are not a pratyakshadarshi also you could not see that. During this daily circling round the earth the Sun is in the twelve rashis and in whichever rashi the Sun rises at the moment of the birth is the Lagna of the native. Shri Ramji was born at midday and any astrologer worth his salt knows that the midday hours represent the tenth house of the native. We also know from the Adhyatma Ramayana that the Sun just reached Mesha when Shri Ramji was born. So the Sun was in his tenth houes and it is obvious to an astrologer that his Lagna was Karkata. One could have found out Shri Ramji's Lagna indirectly that way also. Obviously you have not heard the verse " Raashinaam udoyu Lagna " . Bharata's janmanakshatra was Pushya and the Lagna was Mina. As regards the position of the Sun in his horoscope it is Mesha, the same as that of Lord Rama. Astrology is beyond your comprehension, So please leava it alone. Secondly you are unnecessarily making a big issue of Shri V.P.Sarma's not signing his mail. We can know his name from his email id itself, though it would have been better if he would have signed it. But no way he is an elusive person. Only when a person's email id is in an assumed name, such as yours " Jyotirved " then of course it is a must that one signs his mail. Jai Shri Ram Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 9/24/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirved <jyotirved Re: Dating the Ramayana Period asthikasamaj Cc: , hinducalendar , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , vedic_research_institute , indiaarchaeology , mukti_marg Thursday, September 24, 2009, 6:16 AM Dear unsigned friend, Jai Shri Ram, Thanks for your response. The translation quoted by me is from Gita Press editions--English tranlsatios of the Valmiki Ramayana. They have an identical translatoin in Hindi version as well. I have both the versions with me. Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar also has quoted the Gita Press translation in his article/book on the basis of which he has tried to prove that Shri Ram was born on January 10, 5114 BCE. So whatever grievances you have about " misinterpretation " of the Valmiki Ramayana translation, pl. address them to the Manager, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, UP. Regarding " kuleere abyudite ravav " , Kuleera means Karkata and " abyudite ravav " means when the sun was in meridian in that sign! Ravi cannot mean lagna by any stretch of imagination! So unless someobdy wants to deliberately subject Divine incarnations to planetary suzeranity, there is absolutely no reason for doubting its meaning! The exact translation of Gita Press edition of 1/18/15 is, " Bharata of cheefrful mind was born when the constellation Puhya was in the ascendant and the sun had entered zodiacal sign of Pisces; while the twin sons of Sumitra were born when the constellation Ashlesha was in the ascendant and the sun had reached the meridian, touching the zodiacal sing of Karkata (Cancer) " . ---Here even the curly brackets used for Cancer are from the Gita Press translation! So if the sun of Shri Ram (and even Bharata) was in Mesha (though Gita Press translation says Bharata's sun was in Mina) and that of Lakshmana and Shatrugana in Karkata, the latter were younger than the former either by four/five months or elder to Shri Ram and Bharata by eight/nine months! There is no misinterpretation of the shlokas, but it is clear that the useless jyotishi who has done those interplatoins has goofed. There are several incovnient questions which " Vedic astrologers " have created themselves for themselves by claiming that the Valmiki Ramayana is talking of Mesha etc. Rashis of Shri Ram vis-a-vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets. In the same breath, they admit that those astrological details are a much later interpolation by some jyotishi! Heads I win and tails you lose! Secondly, Shri Ram is supposed to have incarnated as per Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar in 5114 BCE, i.e. more than seven thousand years back and as per Shri Bhattacharjya in 7323 BCE i.e. more than 9000 years back! Mesha etc. Rashis vis-a-vis Mangal Shani etc. planets were used in India only after the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha---early centuries of CE! Besides, nowhere in the world were they ever used before 4000 BCE, the earliest! It is obvious that the invention of Mesha etc Rashis in the Valmiki Ramayana is a much later " sleight of hand " after Shri Ram had incarnated, whether it was " Bhatnagar Ram " or " Bhattacharjya Ram " or " Mendaki Ram " Regarding Punarvasu and Navmi tithi going on simultaneously when the sun is in Mesha and the Moon in karkata, Shri Bhattacharjya has said it himself that in earlier days in India, nakshatras were having an unequal division and that is the only way that it could have been possible. It is but natural that the equal division of nakshatras that India is following these days is a much later invention and therefore not Vedic at all! But " Vedic astrologers " make correct predictions from a non-Vedic equal division and prescribe festivals and muhurtas also from the same! What is all the more surprising is that nobody can explain as to why and how " almighty " Lahiri Ashvini nakshatra division starts ten degrees away from " Lahiri " Ashvini Star itself but Mula nakshatra starts from Lahiri Mula star itself and so on. And then the starting division of Lahiri Mesha Rashi is the Vernal Equinox of 285 AD, when it was against Chitra Star then! What a fantastic astronomy, whether sidhantic or modern! If my pointing out all such anachronisms is mis-representation, what is the correct representation according to you? And you claim you are following dharmashastra by following all such imaginary nakshatra and Rashi divisions! Regarding Britannica, why don't you write to them your views and give them proofs that Shri Ram was definitely born in some unknown era, about which nobody in India is sure as to whether it was in 157 BCE (Sreenadh) or 5114 BCE (Bhatnagar) or 7323 BCE " Bhattacharjya/ Dr. Vartak) or 7558 BCE (Prafulla Vamana Mendki) or hundreds of thousands of years back (Rama-setu) or " 1,94,83,2000 solar years " back according to someone who is afraid of disclosing his identity, but even then, every " Vedic astrologer " is sure that Shri Rama's Sun was in Mesha and Moon in karkat and that of Lakshmana and Shatrugana in Karkata, and so on, and as such, every " Vedic astrologer " knew about these things much before any other country---even if that is just our wishful thinking! Why don't you tell the forum members as to why there are no " pratyakshya " rashis in the Vedas or the Vedanga Jyotisha or a much later work viz. Atharva Jyotisha? Or even Atharva Veda Parishsishta for that matter? The difference regarding pratyakshya and parokshya, if you don't know it already, is that " phalita " is paroksya but the " consultation fees " from the same is pratyakshya! Regarding your statement, " But Ramayana is too far age to look for any evidence. It happened in the 24th Mahayuga, at the end of ist Yuga in it. Each Mahayuga is 43,20,000 years. Now we are in the 28th Mahayuga and in it completed over 91% by now. The left over in the 24th is 60%. Between we have 25th, 26th and 27th Mahayugas. Therefore the Ramayana happened more than 4.51 Mahayugas ago. That comes to 1,94,83,200 solar years ago " I am not questioning your knowledge of Pauranic lore or the duration of yugas and mahayugas as per the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! But then it is " Vedic astrologers " and " Vedic astronomers " like Sreenadh, Pushkar Bhatnagar, Prafulla Vamana Mendki and Snuil Bhattacharjya, whom you must tell all these things and convince them, since it is they who want Shri Ram to have incarnated not more than ten thousand years back, so that all these " Vedic astrologers " can practice their predictive gimmicks on the shoulders of karkata lagna and Saptama Mangal of Shri Ram. It appears you have no courage to address them with such inconvenient facts but are resorting to hair-splitting with my interpretations! You have said further, " But the way things are moving to ultimate destruction by our own delight to exhibit rationalism, humanism and personal intelligence and promotion of gurus, only partaking in its dissection and sintering their own brand with admixture of non-traditional and non_Hindu ideas instead of with substantial capability to plan and execute welfare of Hindu religion. People can be made turn around. That requires a strong link like with teachers or officers and seniors " , nobody is stopping you from doing that! I shall be very glad to accept your leadership if you want to propagate real dharma instead of blaming the wrong person or persons out of fear of annoying the powerful lobby of " Vedic astrologers " and " Vedic astronomers " . All you have to do is to tell the common man as to how could a work of " 1,94,83,2000 solar years ago " have survived with all the Mangal, Shani etc. planets vis-a-vis Mesha etc. rashis for such a long period, especially since anything other than the Vedas and the Vedic lore is Smriti and not Shruti! And that is that! Jai Shri Ram to an unsigned member, who does not want to disclose his identity either, since he is making such false allegations which only a couple of members of an Indian astrology forum usually do---like " Proselytizing " and " True Christian cannot have sympathy to others " etc.! So the cat is out of the bag since " Vedic astrologers " are cowards and that is why I have been banned from all " Vedic-astrology " forums as they are deliberately burying their heads under sand like ostrich! Aakhir unka pappi pet ka sawaal jo hai! A K Kaul PS It is a request to the moderator that since the posts to " asthikasamaj " forum are moderated, he must desist from accepting such messages as contain unsubstantiated personal insinuations about any member, which -group rules do not permit. AKK asthikasamaj@ . co.in, " veerubhotla p " <vpsarma > wrote: > > Dear All Hindus, > Sri A.K. Kaul is a self-taught highly learned person in all most all branches required to fullfil his intentions. His capabilities are no less than Euoropean scholars like Father Robert Caldwell and Professor Friedrich Max Müller clan who could dominate and undermine Hindu psyche for ever. In the difficult times for Hindus in their attempt recover the lost dignity and self-esteem, Sri A.K. Kaul is chasm in day to day religious life of Hindus with his new Hindu calendar. General Hindu mass get confused and start disbeliving what they had been doing until then and search for new religions that have confusion free calendars, for they cannot know that they are based on much bigger confusions. Mere parentage and knowledge and religious observances cannot decide what latently one is. Are not the Proselytizing groups acting like Hindus and their Acharyas and displying Hindu customs from the times of De Nobili: Roberto of 16th century. Ultimately where one leads to is what ultimately one is. > He acknowledged in the early days of introducing himself for audience, that his grand father who lived in Prayog used give correct predictions and as his grand son, he found the data he used is all wrong. > So data is not really important and it is only the person and his time are that makes the difference. I remember in mathematics that there are certain class of problems for which correct values can determined starting from wrong value and continuously substituting the result repeatedly until it becomes constant. This is not a strict parallel instance for correct predictions from astrology. My own father-in-law was astrologer and he was making panchamgams in his younger days and astrology was not his business. When I confronted him about some family issues, he said that now a days the predictions are not coming true and this is about half a century back. Astrology do not depend up accurate calculation and accurecy is incidental. That is why Astrologers do not stand for a scientific test for they their weakness. So I am not siding astrologers is clear. > Sri A.K. Kaul with all his ability, seem to took to misrepresentation by taking only what is misrepresentable to his advantage. Take here his first paragraph. If you read what he said all appear to be correct. He referred only Valmiki Ramayana, Balakanda 18/15-16. He cleverly avoided 14th sloka before it for its inclusion does not seem to speak well of what he intended to make out. The 14th one liner sloka confirms what Dr.Sunil K. Bhattacharjya (I remember to have seen he was addressed as such), said. Sri A. K. Kaul wants to take advantage of last part of first line of 15th sloka 'kuleere abyudite ravav'. My knowledge of samskrutam do not go beyond Rama sabdm (now I do not Konw even if this is correct word). Yet as I completed over 150 Sraaddhams by now with whatever sraddha I have, I cannot but hear and under stand a few words. Of which one is 'karta bhoktarauv achamya' Here the middle word ending and the above first line of 15th sloka ending represent prathama vibhakti dvi-vachanam of samskrutam. Sreemati Saumitri had two sons in that slokam. The Samskruta scholar A. K. Kaul like Christian Scholars given the meaning to it as 'Sun', there by to create utter chaos with out sympthy to our feelings. True Christian cannot have sympathy to others what outward look and attitude he presents. Encyclopedia Britannica well establishes this. > Punarvasu, Pushyami and Asreha stars are in sequence only. What big mistake is there for the 4births in two days. Should not the punarvasu end in day time of Navami as any how during Sree Ramodayam took place in 4th quarter of punarvasu. Say after 18hours that is next day Dasami should not the third lady of Raja Dasaratha give birth to Sri Bharata and 6hours later second laday give birth to two babies. Is it error. Only Sri Bharata was born in the Mena lagnam. When this 14th sloka clearly speaking of birth of Sri Bharata in Mena Lagnam. Can the author of Sri Valmiki Mahrshi swing from Lagna reference to Rasi reference for the other two births in the same day. That is why A. K. Kaul to screen away attention of reader Lagna referece of 14th sloka. The five planets referred to are slow moving planets what big thing is there that should not be inthe same rasis during a period of a day or day and quarter. Here every thing is consistent but for planners of our destroying. > Attempting dating of Ramayana is foolishness at the out set. It is not like Mahabhart dating though what goes there is not correct. About Mahabharata we have historical evidences left with though most them destroyed by haters Hindu cultrure and religion who ruled us. > But Ramayana is too far age to look for any evidence. It happened in the 24th Mahayuga, at the end of ist Yuga in it. Each Mahayuga is 43,20,000 years. Now we are in the 28th Mahayuga and in it completed over 91% by now. The left over in the 24th is 60%. Between we have 25th, 26th and 27th Mahayugas. Therefore the Ramayana happened more than 4.51 Mahayugas ago. That comes to 1,94,83,200 solar years ago. > However and to whatever intensity one may be Hindu, the minds coerced into the rational out look in a way, no other religion accepts it, do not permit to accept any intelligent and cultured life to exist in that far of time. Sure even NASA calculations will not be exact to details in that immence strech of time, A. K. Kaul and his opponents may think that they are unassialable. > Let us forget and forgive Sri A. K. Kaul and his associates for his activities. I worte in the way how I dealt with my officers who were trained USA and seniors some of who were settled USA later on. I am not good writer and not intend to communicate but limit to read. But the way things are moving to ultimate destruction by our own delight to exhibit rationalism, humanism and personal intelligence and promotion of gurus, only partaking in its dissection and synthesing their own brand with admixture of non-traditional and non_Hindu ideas instead of with substantial capability to plan and execute welfare of Hindu religion. People can be made turn arround. That requires a strong link like with teachers or officers and seniors. But this is a thorough fare difficult to withstand without quick wit and command of language. > Thank you all. with all apologies for the effected. > > > > > > > asthikasamaj@ . co.in, " jyotirved " <jyotirved@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > Jai Shri Ram, > > > > Shri Bhattacharjya is interested more in one up-manship than sifting grain > > from the chaff! > > > > 1. 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! > > 2. 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. > > 3. 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 astrologers " , 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! > > 4. 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? > > 5. 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! > > 6. 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? > > 7. 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! > > 8. 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. > > 9. 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 > > > > > > > > > > IndiaArchaeology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2009 Report Share Posted September 26, 2009 Shri Kaulji,Jai Shri Ram,Your translation is wrong and your adamantly insisting it to be right will not make it right. Please do not be ashamed of admitting the facts. Shri Ramji loves truth. Shri Krishnaji told Arjuna not to be Kliva. So have the moral courage to admit that you were wrong. To err is human. It appears that you have absolutely no knowledge of astrology. Now don't tell me that you bagged a prize in astrology. That definitely was a shot in the dark. The 27 Nakshatras are the homes of the Moon for one day and Pushya was the janma nakshatra of Bharata. In the geocentric model we have two movements of the Sun round the earth. In one movement the Sun circles the earth in one day and the pratyakshadarshis see that. As you are not a pratyakshadarshi also you could not see that. During this daily circling round the earth the Sun is in the twelve rashis and in whichever rashi the Sun rises at the moment of the birth is the Lagna of the native. Shri Ramji was born at midday and any astrologer worth his salt knows that the midday hours represent the tenth house of the native. We also know from the Adhyatma Ramayana that the Sun just reached Mesha when Shri Ramji was born. So the Sun was in his tenth houes and it is obvious to an astrologer that his Lagna was Karkata. One could have found out Shri Ramji's Lagna indirectly that way also. Obviously you have not heard the verse "Raashinaam udoyu Lagna".Bharata's janmanakshatra was Pushya and the Lagna was Mina. As regards the position of the Sun in his horoscope it is Mesha, the same as that of Lord Rama. Astrology is beyond your comprehension, So please leava it alone.Secondly you are unnecessarily making a big issue of Shri V.P.Sarma's not signing his mail. We can know his name from his email id itself, though it would have been better if he would have signed it. But no way he is an elusive person. Only when a person's email id is in an assumed name, such as yours "Jyotirved" then of course it is a must that one signs his mail.Jai Shri RamSunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 9/24/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:jyotirved <jyotirved Re: Dating the Ramayana Periodasthikasamaj Cc: , hinducalendar , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , vedic_research_institute , indiaarchaeology , mukti_marg Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 6:16 AM Dear unsigned friend, Jai Shri Ram, Thanks for your response. The translation quoted by me is from Gita Press editions--English tranlsatios of the Valmiki Ramayana. They have an identical translatoin in Hindi version as well. I have both the versions with me. Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar also has quoted the Gita Press translation in his article/book on the basis of which he has tried to prove that Shri Ram was born on January 10, 5114 BCE. So whatever grievances you have about "misinterpretation" of the Valmiki Ramayana translation, pl. address them to the Manager, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, UP. Regarding "kuleere abyudite ravav", Kuleera means Karkata and "abyudite ravav" means when the sun was in meridian in that sign! Ravi cannot mean lagna by any stretch of imagination! So unless someobdy wants to deliberately subject Divine incarnations to planetary suzeranity, there is absolutely no reason for doubting its meaning! The exact translation of Gita Press edition of 1/18/15 is, "Bharata of cheefrful mind was born when the constellation Puhya was in the ascendant and the sun had entered zodiacal sign of Pisces; while the twin sons of Sumitra were born when the constellation Ashlesha was in the ascendant and the sun had reached the meridian, touching the zodiacal sing of Karkata (Cancer)". ---Here even the curly brackets used for Cancer are from the Gita Press translation! So if the sun of Shri Ram (and even Bharata) was in Mesha (though Gita Press translation says Bharata's sun was in Mina) and that of Lakshmana and Shatrugana in Karkata, the latter were younger than the former either by four/five months or elder to Shri Ram and Bharata by eight/nine months! There is no misinterpretation of the shlokas, but it is clear that the useless jyotishi who has done those interplatoins has goofed. There are several incovnient questions which "Vedic astrologers" have created themselves for themselves by claiming that the Valmiki Ramayana is talking of Mesha etc. Rashis of Shri Ram vis-a-vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets. In the same breath, they admit that those astrological details are a much later interpolation by some jyotishi! Heads I win and tails you lose! Secondly, Shri Ram is supposed to have incarnated as per Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar in 5114 BCE, i.e. more than seven thousand years back and as per Shri Bhattacharjya in 7323 BCE i.e. more than 9000 years back! Mesha etc. Rashis vis-a-vis Mangal Shani etc. planets were used in India only after the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha---early centuries of CE! Besides, nowhere in the world were they ever used before 4000 BCE, the earliest! It is obvious that the invention of Mesha etc Rashis in the Valmiki Ramayana is a much later "sleight of hand" after Shri Ram had incarnated, whether it was "Bhatnagar Ram" or "Bhattacharjya Ram" or "Mendaki Ram" Regarding Punarvasu and Navmi tithi going on simultaneously when the sun is in Mesha and the Moon in karkata, Shri Bhattacharjya has said it himself that in earlier days in India, nakshatras were having an unequal division and that is the only way that it could have been possible. It is but natural that the equal division of nakshatras that India is following these days is a much later invention and therefore not Vedic at all! But "Vedic astrologers" make correct predictions from a non-Vedic equal division and prescribe festivals and muhurtas also from the same! What is all the more surprising is that nobody can explain as to why and how "almighty" Lahiri Ashvini nakshatra division starts ten degrees away from "Lahiri" Ashvini Star itself but Mula nakshatra starts from Lahiri Mula star itself and so on. And then the starting division of Lahiri Mesha Rashi is the Vernal Equinox of 285 AD, when it was against Chitra Star then! What a fantastic astronomy, whether sidhantic or modern! If my pointing out all such anachronisms is mis-representation, what is the correct representation according to you? And you claim you are following dharmashastra by following all such imaginary nakshatra and Rashi divisions! Regarding Britannica, why don't you write to them your views and give them proofs that Shri Ram was definitely born in some unknown era, about which nobody in India is sure as to whether it was in 157 BCE (Sreenadh) or 5114 BCE (Bhatnagar) or 7323 BCE "Bhattacharjya/ Dr. Vartak) or 7558 BCE (Prafulla Vamana Mendki) or hundreds of thousands of years back (Rama-setu) or "1,94,83,2000 solar years" back according to someone who is afraid of disclosing his identity, but even then, every "Vedic astrologer" is sure that Shri Rama's Sun was in Mesha and Moon in karkat and that of Lakshmana and Shatrugana in Karkata, and so on, and as such, every "Vedic astrologer" knew about these things much before any other country---even if that is just our wishful thinking! Why don't you tell the forum members as to why there are no "pratyakshya" rashis in the Vedas or the Vedanga Jyotisha or a much later work viz. Atharva Jyotisha? Or even Atharva Veda Parishsishta for that matter? The difference regarding pratyakshya and parokshya, if you don't know it already, is that "phalita" is paroksya but the "consultation fees" from the same is pratyakshya! Regarding your statement, "But Ramayana is too far age to look for any evidence. It happened in the 24th Mahayuga, at the end of ist Yuga in it. Each Mahayuga is 43,20,000 years. Now we are in the 28th Mahayuga and in it completed over 91% by now. The left over in the 24th is 60%. Between we have 25th, 26th and 27th Mahayugas. Therefore the Ramayana happened more than 4.51 Mahayugas ago. That comes to 1,94,83,200 solar years ago" I am not questioning your knowledge of Pauranic lore or the duration of yugas and mahayugas as per the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! But then it is "Vedic astrologers" and "Vedic astronomers" like Sreenadh, Pushkar Bhatnagar, Prafulla Vamana Mendki and Snuil Bhattacharjya, whom you must tell all these things and convince them, since it is they who want Shri Ram to have incarnated not more than ten thousand years back, so that all these "Vedic astrologers" can practice their predictive gimmicks on the shoulders of karkata lagna and Saptama Mangal of Shri Ram. It appears you have no courage to address them with such inconvenient facts but are resorting to hair-splitting with my interpretations! You have said further, " But the way things are moving to ultimate destruction by our own delight to exhibit rationalism, humanism and personal intelligence and promotion of gurus, only partaking in its dissection and sintering their own brand with admixture of non-traditional and non_Hindu ideas instead of with substantial capability to plan and execute welfare of Hindu religion. People can be made turn around. That requires a strong link like with teachers or officers and seniors", nobody is stopping you from doing that! I shall be very glad to accept your leadership if you want to propagate real dharma instead of blaming the wrong person or persons out of fear of annoying the powerful lobby of "Vedic astrologers" and "Vedic astronomers" . All you have to do is to tell the common man as to how could a work of "1,94,83,2000 solar years ago" have survived with all the Mangal, Shani etc. planets vis-a-vis Mesha etc. rashis for such a long period, especially since anything other than the Vedas and the Vedic lore is Smriti and not Shruti! And that is that! Jai Shri Ram to an unsigned member, who does not want to disclose his identity either, since he is making such false allegations which only a couple of members of an Indian astrology forum usually do---like "Proselytizing" and "True Christian cannot have sympathy to others" etc.! So the cat is out of the bag since "Vedic astrologers" are cowards and that is why I have been banned from all "Vedic-astrology" forums as they are deliberately burying their heads under sand like ostrich! Aakhir unka pappi pet ka sawaal jo hai! A K Kaul PS It is a request to the moderator that since the posts to "asthikasamaj" forum are moderated, he must desist from accepting such messages as contain unsubstantiated personal insinuations about any member, which -group rules do not permit. AKK asthikasamaj@ . co.in, "veerubhotla p" <vpsarma > wrote: > > Dear All Hindus, > Sri A.K. Kaul is a self-taught highly learned person in all most all branches required to fullfil his intentions. His capabilities are no less than Euoropean scholars like Father Robert Caldwell and Professor Friedrich Max Müller clan who could dominate and undermine Hindu psyche for ever. In the difficult times for Hindus in their attempt recover the lost dignity and self-esteem, Sri A.K. Kaul is chasm in day to day religious life of Hindus with his new Hindu calendar. General Hindu mass get confused and start disbeliving what they had been doing until then and search for new religions that have confusion free calendars, for they cannot know that they are based on much bigger confusions. Mere parentage and knowledge and religious observances cannot decide what latently one is. Are not the Proselytizing groups acting like Hindus and their Acharyas and displying Hindu customs from the times of De Nobili: Roberto of 16th century. Ultimately where one leads to is what ultimately one is. > He acknowledged in the early days of introducing himself for audience, that his grand father who lived in Prayog used give correct predictions and as his grand son, he found the data he used is all wrong. > So data is not really important and it is only the person and his time are that makes the difference. I remember in mathematics that there are certain class of problems for which correct values can determined starting from wrong value and continuously substituting the result repeatedly until it becomes constant. This is not a strict parallel instance for correct predictions from astrology. My own father-in-law was astrologer and he was making panchamgams in his younger days and astrology was not his business. When I confronted him about some family issues, he said that now a days the predictions are not coming true and this is about half a century back. Astrology do not depend up accurate calculation and accurecy is incidental. That is why Astrologers do not stand for a scientific test for they their weakness. So I am not siding astrologers is clear. > Sri A.K. Kaul with all his ability, seem to took to misrepresentation by taking only what is misrepresentable to his advantage. Take here his first paragraph. If you read what he said all appear to be correct. He referred only Valmiki Ramayana, Balakanda 18/15-16. He cleverly avoided 14th sloka before it for its inclusion does not seem to speak well of what he intended to make out. The 14th one liner sloka confirms what Dr.Sunil K. Bhattacharjya (I remember to have seen he was addressed as such), said. Sri A. K. Kaul wants to take advantage of last part of first line of 15th sloka 'kuleere abyudite ravav'. My knowledge of samskrutam do not go beyond Rama sabdm (now I do not Konw even if this is correct word). Yet as I completed over 150 Sraaddhams by now with whatever sraddha I have, I cannot but hear and under stand a few words. Of which one is 'karta bhoktarauv achamya' Here the middle word ending and the above first line of 15th sloka ending represent prathama vibhakti dvi-vachanam of samskrutam. Sreemati Saumitri had two sons in that slokam. The Samskruta scholar A. K. Kaul like Christian Scholars given the meaning to it as 'Sun', there by to create utter chaos with out sympthy to our feelings. True Christian cannot have sympathy to others what outward look and attitude he presents. Encyclopedia Britannica well establishes this. > Punarvasu, Pushyami and Asreha stars are in sequence only. What big mistake is there for the 4births in two days. Should not the punarvasu end in day time of Navami as any how during Sree Ramodayam took place in 4th quarter of punarvasu. Say after 18hours that is next day Dasami should not the third lady of Raja Dasaratha give birth to Sri Bharata and 6hours later second laday give birth to two babies. Is it error. Only Sri Bharata was born in the Mena lagnam. When this 14th sloka clearly speaking of birth of Sri Bharata in Mena Lagnam. Can the author of Sri Valmiki Mahrshi swing from Lagna reference to Rasi reference for the other two births in the same day. That is why A. K. Kaul to screen away attention of reader Lagna referece of 14th sloka. The five planets referred to are slow moving planets what big thing is there that should not be inthe same rasis during a period of a day or day and quarter. Here every thing is consistent but for planners of our destroying. > Attempting dating of Ramayana is foolishness at the out set. It is not like Mahabhart dating though what goes there is not correct. About Mahabharata we have historical evidences left with though most them destroyed by haters Hindu cultrure and religion who ruled us. > But Ramayana is too far age to look for any evidence. It happened in the 24th Mahayuga, at the end of ist Yuga in it. Each Mahayuga is 43,20,000 years. Now we are in the 28th Mahayuga and in it completed over 91% by now. The left over in the 24th is 60%. Between we have 25th, 26th and 27th Mahayugas. Therefore the Ramayana happened more than 4.51 Mahayugas ago. That comes to 1,94,83,200 solar years ago. > However and to whatever intensity one may be Hindu, the minds coerced into the rational out look in a way, no other religion accepts it, do not permit to accept any intelligent and cultured life to exist in that far of time. Sure even NASA calculations will not be exact to details in that immence strech of time, A. K. Kaul and his opponents may think that they are unassialable. > Let us forget and forgive Sri A. K. Kaul and his associates for his activities. I worte in the way how I dealt with my officers who were trained USA and seniors some of who were settled USA later on. I am not good writer and not intend to communicate but limit to read. But the way things are moving to ultimate destruction by our own delight to exhibit rationalism, humanism and personal intelligence and promotion of gurus, only partaking in its dissection and synthesing their own brand with admixture of non-traditional and non_Hindu ideas instead of with substantial capability to plan and execute welfare of Hindu religion. People can be made turn arround. That requires a strong link like with teachers or officers and seniors. But this is a thorough fare difficult to withstand without quick wit and command of language. > Thank you all. with all apologies for the effected. > > > > > > > asthikasamaj@ . co.in, "jyotirved" <jyotirved@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > Jai Shri Ram, > > > > Shri Bhattacharjya is interested more in one up-manship than sifting grain > > from the chaff! > > > > 1. 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! > > 2. 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. > > 3. 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 astrologers" , 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! > > 4. 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? > > 5. 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! > > 6. 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? > > 7. 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! > > 8. 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. > > 9. 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 > > > > > > > > > > IndiaArchaeology, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a@> wrote: > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a@> 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.