Fwd: The Views of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,I shall only say that this person called Koenraad Elst gives brain-dead assertions without giving any basis or reference and his just saying "Jyotirved knows that" does not make another person called Avtar Krishen Kaul knowledgeable. It is like two fools patting each other shamelessly giving brain-dead support to each other. His comments on the Hindu Shastras including the puranas shows his hollowness. I would like to know if he knows his own religion well before his trying to dabble on others'. Decision is yours.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 12/8/09, Krishen <jyotirved wrote:Krishen <jyotirved Fwd: Re:

The Views of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 12:33 AM

 

 

 

IndiaArchaeology, "Koenraad" <koenraad.elst@ ...>

wrote:

 

IndiaArchaeology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

>

> 1)

> That the rashis are Nirayana is shown in Vamana purana, a fifth Veda

text and even if Jyotirved goes on trying life after life he will not be

able to prove it to the contrary and I am sure Lord Rama will not

tolerate the misinterpretation of the Vamana Purana. One cannot pit any

other authority other than the four Vedas to contest the Vamana purana.

>

 

What a horrible level of discussion. Hinduism is dead if you all don't

react to this braindead reasoning. The Vedas and Puranas are only books.

At best, they relay knowledge. The value of that knowledge can be

evaluated by people with equal or better knowledge. On astronomyn, our

knowledge is better than that of al Veda and Purana authors together.

Those who are donkeys carrying treasures on their backs without

realizing their value, i.e. those who merely extol the scriptures

without reading them critically, are unfit for such evaluation.

 

> 2)

> Magha is related to Purnima in the Magha nakshatra and this makes it

Sidereal.Let Jyotirved go on claiming Magha to be Sayana and that does

not mean anything to the people who knows this relation.

>

 

The star Regulus/Magha is by definition sidereal. I have already tried

to explain to Jyotirved that his attempts to (re)install the

sayana/tropical zodiac/calendar are doomed unless he is ready to

relinquish the sidereal month names. It makes no sense to jettison the

sidereal zodiac yet retain sidereal month names. Magha has no place in a

tropical calendar.

 

> 3)

> Kaushitaki did say that the Magha Amavashya and Winter solstice

coincided. Jyotirved does not know that Mahashivaratri is

celebrated in the 14th tithi of Magha Krishnapaksha (ie. the tithi

before the Magha Amavashya).<

 

You are counting Purnimadi months. Did Kaushitaki and his contemporaries

do so?

 

Good at any rate of Kaushitaki to mention the relation between the

solstice and a fixed star, Regulus/Magha. I discussed it in the

astronomy chapter of my book Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan, which is

on-line. Because winter solstice is tropical and Magha sidereal, the

coinciding of the two gives us a precise precessional chronology. One

that happens to conflict with the standard AIT chronology, though that's

not the point here.

 

What the precessional info given by Kaushitaki does not decidde, is

whether it is a factual observation or a definition. In the latter case,

Shivaratri was meant to be a solstice festival, which makes sense

because it's the longest night, logically dedicated to the moon-god

Shiva. In the former, it leaves open the possibility that Shivaratri was

a sidereal festival with no connection to any earthly cycles. That would

mean the Vedic cowherds had their heads in the sky and ignored the world

around them. I tend to think higher of them, more robust and realistic.

 

>

> 4)

> Jyotirved earlier referred to a verse by Manu where Manu had barred

the practitioners of Astrology from being invited to Pitri karya. Does

that not mean that there were Astrologers in the times of Manu. But

Jyotirved made self-contradictory statement that Astrology was not

mentioned by Manu. Such are his statements defying common sense and

logic.

>

 

Of course, in the time of the self-styled "Manu", probably 1st century

CE, there wereastrologers in India, a novelty imported from Greek

Afghanistan and beyond. That foreignness may be a typical Manu reason

for opposing them. Manu preferred the Vedas (or what he imagined the

Vedas to be) and never liked these foreign non-Vedic innovations.

 

> 5)

> ... Like the Vaman purana even Claudius Ptolemy also consideredÂ

Aldevaran (Rohini)Â to be at the middle of Taurus (Vrishava). The

Aldevaran Rohini) is not an imaginary nakshatra. Taurus is one of the

twelve divisions of the zodiac corresponding to the Vrishava Rashi. Thus

Claudius Ptolemy was also referring to the sidereal Zodiac. The western

astrologers later on opted for the use of the Tropical Zodiac for

their application. <

 

Ptolemy was already adopting the tropical zodiac in principle, though he

wasn't entirely clear on the difference yet, easy because the two

zodiacs practically coincided in his day. In discussing the system of

exaltation, he says that the sun is exalted in Aries and Saturn in Libra

because they mark spring, when the sun becomes strong, and autiumn, when

Saturnine coldness starts prevailing. So, he attached seasonal (=

tropical) phenomena to the zodiac signs.

 

>Tropical Zodiac considers only the Solar system, whereas the Sidereal

system considers the entire universe including the Solar system. The

Hindu Jyotisha is based on the Sidereal system.<

 

To their misfortune, the confused Hindu astrologers did indeed stick to

the sidereal auxiliary zodiac, useful as a visual aid for the tropical

zodiac when the two coincided, but misleading when they drifted apart.

When I see the mad fanaticism with which some Hindus cling to

ill-understood pieces of scripture (cfr. supra), I can imagine them

clinging equally ferociously to an anachronistic zodiac.

 

>

> 6)... Makar Sankranti, which is observed on the day the Sun enters the

Makar Rashi. In the 31st cenbtury BCE (ie. the century in which the

Mahabhatrata war took place) the Sun entered the Makar rashi in the

Dakshinayana and any astronomer will tell you that. Thus Makar Sankranti

has no permanent relation with the Uttarayana.

>

 

Of course, by definition the *sidereal* Makar Sankranti has no relation

to the winter solstice, whereas the tropical Makar Sankranti *is* the

winter solstice. Jyotirved obviously knows that, it's his whole point,

and if you are under the impression that this is what you needed to

explain to him, it only shows you don't understand this whole issue at

all.

 

And because the sidereal Makar Sankranti has nothing to do with the

winter solstice, it is not worth celebrating. It is only one of twelve

siderela sankrantis, which are all equal in status. By contrast, in the

tropical zodiac the Makar Sankranti is unique, because of all entrance

points of tropical signs, it is the only one that marks the Return of

the Sun to the north.

 

And now I am once more going to receive mails off-list from Hindus who

deplore that i get sidetracked into discussions with people who aren't

worth it and only waste everybody's time with their incurable

incomprehension.

 

Kind regards,

 

KE

 

--- End forwarded message ---