An important matter i.e. naked-eyed-jyotishis

[Guest guest]

Shri Sunil Bhattacharjyaji,

Namaskar!

Thanks for your response (# 2607 of

20.02.09 WAVES-VEDIC forum).  You have asked very pertinent questions and, as

such, pl. bear with me for detailed replies.  I too expect a point by point

response from you.

SKB:1) It is

wrong to say rashis are non-Vedic

This is because the " rashis'

are mentioned in the puranas including the Bhagavat purana and the rashis came

to be used only towards the end of the Dwapara yuga i.e. towards the end of the

4th Millennium BCE.>

AKK:

1. Would you pl. give me the

chronological dates of different Vedas, Upanishadas and Puranas, substantiating

them with proofs so that we have some idea as to when Mesha etc. rashis were

used in India

for the first time.

2. Pl. also let me know as to

what type of Rashis are mentioned in which Veda and which Purana?  Pl. quote

the exact shlokas.

3. When did Satya-yuga start and

end according to you and what are the pramanas?

4. When did Treta-yuga start and

end according to you and what are the pramanas?

5. When did Dwapara-yuga start and

end according to you and what are the pramanas?

6. When did Kali Era start

according to you and what are the pramanas?  Any idea when Kaliyuga is likely

to end?

SKB:< You

also know from the Chandogya upanishad that purana is considered to be the

fifth Veda.>

AKK: Chhandogya

Upanishad is a part of the Talwakar Brahmana of the Samaveda. Do you mean to

say the Samaveda came into existence after the Puranas?  When did that happen

i.e. what is the date of the Samaveda and what are the dates of Puranas?

SKB:< I

am sure you know that the Valmiki Ramayana of the Treta yuga mentions the

position of the Moon in a particular nakshatra at the time of the birth of Lord

Rama. But the Adhyatma Ramayana, composed by Vedavyasa in the Dwapara yuga,

mentions the position of the Sun in Mesha rashi at the time of Lord Rama's

birth..>

AKK: Do you

mean to say that while Maharshi Valmiki noted the planetary position of Bhagwan

Rama only vis-à-vis the nakshatras it was only Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa who

“transposed” them to Mesha etc. rashis?  How have the  Moon and

Brihaspati in Karkata lagna been mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana then? Are they

an interpolation?

SKB: <

This is because the rashis have been used in India in the 4th Millennium BCE.>

AKK: Since the

Valmiki Ramayana was written in  8th Millennium BCE according to you, that means that the mention

of Rashis in the VR is definitely an after-thought according to you. Pl.

clarify your stand.

SKB: <Your

date of Varahamihira is also wrong as in Varahamihira's time Saka kala was not

there. Sakakala, which Brahmagupta calls Shakanta kala, came at the end of the

Shaka rule in 78 CE. Varahamihira mentions Shakendra kala, which was at the

beginning of the Shaka rule Therefore my request to you is that kindly revise

your Rotary document immediately.>

AKK: What is the difference between

Shaka Kala and Shakanta-kala and Shakendra-Kala according to you and why? When

did Shaka Kala and Shakaanta kala and Shakendra-Kala start? What are the

pramanas? 

SKB: <

This is because the " Rashi " by definition means a group. You can

check that in your favourite Monier-Williams. Rashis are a group of Nakshatras.

To the ancient jyotishis the twelve clusters of nakshatras in the ecliptic

appeared like different figures. For example, the Vrashabha rashi appeared like

a bull. This they did that by imagining some lines joining the nakshatras

within the rashi.>

AKK: Astronomically, Zodiac, i.e. Rashi-chakra is an

“imaginary belt”. So how can the “animals” in that

“Circle of animals” be real?

1. The definition of Rashis you are

giving is actually the definition of Babylonian constellations Aries, Taurus

etc. 

According to Monier-Williams

Sanskrit-English dictionary also, Rashi means “a sign of the

zodiac” and “Rashichakra” means “Zodiacal circle;

zodiac”.  So what is new about it?  How is his definition different from

that of Oxford English Dictionary or Webster’s etc.?  As astronomically

zodiac is an imaginary belt, where has Monier-Williams said that it is a

“real belt” and has not been imported from Greece?  Monier-Williams

was not a Vedic seer of pre-Alexander’s time.  So his talking about Mesha

etc. rashis does not prove them to be of Indian origin!

2.  Wherefrom does the Rashichakra

start according to you?  If it is Mesha Rashi, what is the zero i.e. the

starting point of that Mesha Rashi and how has it been worked out?  What are

the pramanas?

3. If the zodiac i.e. the

Rashichakra itself is an “imaginary belt”, how can the twelve

“animals” like Ram and Bull and Scorpions etc. be real in that

“circle of animals”?

4. You have said, “Rashis are

group of nakshatras”.  What is the definition of nakshatra according to

you?  Is that also a cluster of stars or is it something else?  Did those

nakshatras resemble some figures or was it just an arbitrary nomenclature?  If

it is the former, which nakshatra resembled which figure and if not, why were

these nakshatra  given those names i.e. why is Hasta named as Hasta if it did

not resemble a “Hasta” (hand) and so on?

5. Besides, are those nakshartas

equal to one another i.e. is Ashvini division equal to Bharni division and so

on in dimension or are they unequal?   If the nakshatras “appeared like

different figures in the ecliptic”, what were those figures or is it that

only rashis appeared like different figures?

6. Why did the nakshatras start

from Krittika during the Vedic period and wherefrom should they start now and

why?  What was the starting point i.e. zero of Krittika nakshatra division?  I

mean, did Krittika nakshatra start from some Star or from some other

astronomical body?  What are the starting points of Asvini, Bharni etc. and

why?

7. Are any particular yogataras (Junction

Stars) of those nakshatras related to them or not?  i.e. has the star Beta

Arietis anything to do with Ashvini nakshatra division and the star Alpha

Virginis anything to do with Chitra nakshatra division and so on  or not

according to you?  If yes, what should the position of yogataras vis-à-vis

their nakshatras be e.g. should Beta Arietis be at the beginning of Ashvini

nakshatra or at the middle or at the end of that nakshatra division?  If they

are unrelated to yogataras of their names, how do we determine nakshatras then?

8. You say, “for example, the

vrishaba rashi appeared like a bull”.  But that is the Babylonian

definition of Taurus!  Do you mean to say that Indian jyotishis could see that

“Bull” only after Babylonian astrologers had seen it or is it the

other way round?  What are the pramanas?  Which “jyotishi” has

talked about Vrishaba Rashi in which Veda?

PL DO QUOTE THE EXACT SHLOKAS/MANTRAS

AND REFERENCES WHEREVER YOU REFER

TO THEM AS IT BECOMES A FISHING EXPEDITION OTHERWISE.

 Pl. also do enlighten me whether

the Bull you are talking about is equal to Scorpion or Twins or Ram etc. etc.

or are they of different sizes?  Pl. quote the relevant pramanas

9. How do those nakshatras fit into

rashis according to you? Is it in whole-numbers or is it in fractions?  Which

astronomical work has clubbed nakshatras with rashis for the first time?  Pl.

quote pramanas.

SKB: <

This they did that by imagining some lines joining the nakshatras within the

rashi. It is true that an unimaginative person may not be able to visualise the

shape or form, but the nakshtras within the rashis are very real.>

AKK: Mesha etc. Rashis are imagination run riot!

1. Are you discussing science of

astronomy or “science of imagination”, I mean hallucinations?  If

imagination has to run riot, then I think you should respect the tapasya and

yoga of Sushri Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet and also Dr. Robert E. Wilkinson

besides other sayana yogis, tapasvis and astrologers who visualize,

through their tapasya and yoga, a Crocodile (Makara Sankranti!) in the sky

always at the time of Uttarayana i.e. Winter Solstice, and according

to whom, the Vedas invariably refer to a sayana rashichakra. Whereas according

to your hallucination, a “crocodile” appears in the skies only

after about 24 days of the Winter Solstice i.e. Uttarayana!

Dr. Wilkinson and the

“Thea” have quoted the interpretations of one of the greatest

yogis, Viz. Aurobindo, in support of their hallucinations. They have also

quoted Vedic mantras from the Rig-Veda and Atharva Veda (Pl. see Sushri

Patrizia’s Q & A article “Secrets of the earth”) in support

of their arguments for a sayana rashichakara.  They have, to vindicate their

stand, linked the ten Avataras of Vishnu to the same so called Sayana

Rashichakra.

According to them, it is

nirayanawalas like you, who have not done any tapasya or performed any yoga, and

are, therefore, ignorant of the real Vedic ethos and creating confusion through

imaginary nirayana rashis through the wrong interpretations of the Vedas?  In

other words, according to them your hallucination that there is a

“Crocodile” in the skies after 24 days of Winter Solstice is wrong

whereas their hallcinaion is correct! Why should we not believe their imaginary

statements based on their tapasya and yoga that “Makar Sankranti and

Uttarayana are always one and the same thing as against your imaginary

statements that they are two different things now a days, since jyotishis

" imagined some lines joining the nakshtras within the rashis " thus

giving rise to imaginary nirayana rashichakra of nirayanawals?

2. Has any Vedic seer whispered it

in your ears that he saw Bulls and Twins and Scorpions, or are you presuming

that the Seers saw them, because you appear to have a lot of imagination

(hallucinations!?) yourself!

3. Regarding your comment,

“nakshatras within the rashis are very real”, it means that they

can never be of equal dimensions!  It can be only imagination that can

visualize everything equal to everything else!   Or is that they are actually

equal?  Pl. quote the pramanas.

SKB: <In

olden days the seasons occurred in different rashis at different times due to

the precession of the earth.>

AKK: Would u

pl. educate me as to what the precession has to do with seasons!

SKB:  <Madhu

and Madhava etc. occurred at different nakshatras and rashis at different

times. You know that Varahamihira too indicated this.>

AKK Pl. quote

the pramanas as to which season occurred in which different rashi in the past

as per which Purana!  Pl. also quote pramans that Madhu and Madhava took place in

different rashis in the past i.e. pl quote the shlokas from the Puranas etc.

that say that Madhu was not known as Mina/Chaitra but by some other name in the

Puranas.

SKB: <Further

the western jyotishis concentrated their attention on the Tropical Zodiac

system and imagined the fake rashis. (Please refer to the definition of rashi).

>

AKK: Imaginary

attributes of an imaginary zodiac! “nirayana” Rashis are neither

Vedic, nor Pauranic nor even Greek!  But then so are the sayana rashis though

they are at least Pauranic and Greek!

1. Since zodiac itself is an

imaginary belt, how many such “imaginary belts” are there according

to you and why?   What is the definition of Tropical Zodiac and why?  Pl quote

astronomical works that talk of a Tropical Zodiac.

2. What do you mean by fake

rashis?  As far as I know, IAU decides the nomenclature of constellations these

days, and they follow a very scientific system.  Even then those divisions

(constellations) are “sight of eye” effect.  Thus all those

constellations are also fake, in a sort of way.   How can your

“constellations” which you call rashis or whatever, be true? The

sun actually “enters” Capricorn constellation these days on January

19 (not January 14 i.e. Lahiri); Aquarius: February 16 (not February 13);

Pisces: March 12 (not March 14), Aries: April 18 (not April 14); Taurus: May 14

(Lahiri Taurus is almost the same date!); Gemini: June 21 (not June 14); Cancer:

July 20 (not July 16); Leo: August 10 (not August 16); Virgo: September 16

(Lahiri Virgo is also the same!); Libra: October 31 (not October 16); Scorpio:

Nov. 23 (not Nov 15); Sagittarius: Dec. 17 (not December 15). 

Thus if you want to really

“celebrate” Greek constellations even today, why don’t you

adjust your Lahiri dates accordingly, as otherwise these “true”

rashis that you claim to be celebrating today are neither Vedic nor Pauranic and

nor even Greek! They are all “almighty” Lahiri imaginary constellations

and nothing else!  

3. Are your Bulls looking like real

Bulls and your Twins looking like real Twins and your Scorpions looking like real

Scorpions even today?  If yes, what are the pramanas? If not, why do you call

them Bulls and Twins etc. etc. now?

4.  It is thus evident that the

Sayana Rashis being clubbed with Equinoxes and Solstices in the Vishnu Purana,

Shiva Purana, Bhagavata  etc. also are imaginary, just based on the Surya

Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha!

SKB: <

However the Indian jyotishis did not give up the link between their jyotish

and  the nakshatras>

AKK: “Nakshatra-soochis

are Brahmana Chandalas”—Bhishma!

Yes, that is evident from

“Atharva-Veda parishishta” etc. jyotisha works. Indian

jyotishis tried to link planets with nakshatras (AND

NOT RASHIS, SINCE RASHIS WERE THEN UNKNOWN IN INDIA!) for hoodwinking the public

by pretending that they could peep into the future of the kings and queens

and princes and maybe even ordinary people!   Those “peeping Toms”

were known, as such, as nakshatra jeevis and/or nakshatra-soochis.  And that is

why the real well-wishers of Bharatavarsha like the Manu, Bhishma Pitamaha,

Atri Rishi, Gautama the Budha and even Chanakya have called such

“nakshatra-jeevis” and “nakshatra-soochis” as

“Brahmana-chandalas”. 

SKB: <They

determined the positions of the grahas and nakshatras through the naked eye.

They could tell which graha was in which nakshatra and rashi.>

AKK: “Naked-eyed-jyotishis”---a

joke or what?

What type of a joke is this?

Or are you really serious? You have said yourself, " I am sure you

know that the Valmiki Ramayana of the Treta yuga  mentions the position of the

Moon in a particular nakshatra at the time of the birth of Lord Rama. "

Bhagwan Ram is said to have incarnated at exact Noon on Chaitra Shukla Navmi in Punarvasu nakshatra.

Do you mean to say that the jyotishi, whosoever he was, at the time of that

divine Incarnation, who " recorded " the positions of planets at

Bhagwan Ram's birth, looked at the sky at exact noon, then saw with

his naked eye as to in which nakshatra and rashi the sun was, and also the

moon---even at mid-day, and that also of Chaitra Shukla Navmi in

Vasanta Ritu---and Mangal, Shani, etc. etc. planets! Of course, that

jyotishi must have seen, with naked eyes, the mathematical point (without any

dimensions!) known as lunar node, called Rahu in Jyotisha jargon! And no

doubt that jyotishi must have seen the counter-part of that Rahu viz.

Kethu, that also at the high-noon and with naked-eyes, and recorded it

faithfully in Bhagwan Ram's Janmapatri! What about Karkata Lagna of

Bhagwan Ram?  Was that also seen with “naked eyes” by that

“naked-eyes-jyotishi”?

At least I had not expected that

type of a joke from you, my dear Bhattacharjyaji!

But, on second thoughts, may be you

are serious and telling us truth and nothing but truth, since there definitely

is a lot of confusion in the planetary position of even Bhagwan Ram as given in

the Valmiki Ramayana etc.  That confusion has gone to the extent of madness without

method!  We have about half a dozen Janma-patris of Bhagwan Ram floating around! 

The one prepared by you is for 7319  BCE

and the latest one by the owner-cum-moderator of -

forum viz. Shri Sreenadh, is for 157 BCE

since according to him that planetary combination of the Valmiki Ramayana could

not have taken place on any other date!  And both of you claim that you are

reproducing faithfully the planetary position as “recorded by

naked-eyes-jyotishis” in the Valmiki and Adhyatma Ramayana!

We have also Janmaaptri of Bhagwan

Ram by Prafulla Vamana Mendki and that is for February 7 of 7558 BCE!

Then there is Dr. Vartak, according

to whom Bhagwan Ram Incarnated only on December 4, 7323 BCE!

What is all the more surprising is that

even the Income Tax Commissioner Bhatnagar has talked of those very planetary

positions of Bhagwan Ram as per Valmiki Ramayana but that Incarnation could not

have taken place on any other date except January 10, 5114 BCE according to him!  And His Holiness Sri Sri

Ravi Shankar has put his “stamp of approval” on that date of 5114 BCE!  And Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a name to reckon

with, being a yogi and tapasiv of very high order, as compared to your

“imaginary zodiacs” and “naked-eyes-jyotishis”.

My God!  You are certainly right

that some jyotishi had definitely “seen” the planetary position of Bhagwan

Ram with “naked eyes” and then “recorded it

faithfully”!  The only difference is that that jyotishi has done it much

later after the birth of Bhagwan Ram, nay even the Valmiki Ramayana, and used

his imagination instead of some real astronomy, since there could not have been

such a plethora of birth charts from 157 BCE

to 7558 BCE of one and the same

divine Incarnation otherwise!  And that is what has happened with quite a few

Puranas also like Narada, Vishnu-dharmotara-purana or even the Surya Sidhanta etc.

etc. thanks to those “naked-eyed jyotishis” who must be worshipped for

their jugglery according to “Vedic astrologers” like you!

We have also horoscopes of Bhagwan

Krishna floating around! Bhagwan Krishna is said to have Incarnated at midnight at Mathura jail, when there were torrential

rains!  And as per your asseveration, there must have been some “naked-eyed-jyotishi”

in that prison also. How does it matter that Bhagwan Krishna Incarnated when

everybody in the prison except for Devaki and Vasudev, were asleep!  The “naked-eyed-jyotishi”

must have been alert, after having got special permission from the King Kansa---who

was dead against the eighth issue of his sister Devaki---to record the

planetary position at His birth!  And that “naked-eyes-jyotishi”

must have then, from the prison cell itself, in that deadly rainy dark night,

cast a glance at the skies and visualized as to in which nakshatra and Rashi

the sun was!---how does it matter if it was midnight--- and where the moon

was--how does it matter if it was Krishna paksha ashtami and the sky was

overcast with clouds!---and Mangal, Shani etc. planets were!  Then of course,

the non-dimensional Rahu and Kethu also must have been “seen” by

that “naked-eyes-jyotishi” with his naked eyes!  Oh, I forgot that

the “naked-eyed-jyotishi” must have even seen the Lagna of Bhagwan

Krishna also!

Did every

household in India

have a “naked-eyed-jyotishi” in the past?

Since there were no astronomical

works for calculating planets vis-à-vis rashis/nakshatras available in India prior to

Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha, i.e. till about second century BCE, and according to you everybody had to depend

on “naked-eyed-jyotishis” for “seeing the nakshatras and

rashis in which the planets were”.  The

“naked-eyed-jyotishis” had also to be used for “seeing”

the ayanamsha, the nodes and even Delta time! Does it mean that every household

had such a “super-specialized”  “naked-eyed-jyotishi”

then?  What a fantastic idea!

“Vedic

astrologers” are more than sufficient to make a laughing stock of the

Hindu community!

Obviously, we certainly do not need

movies like ”Water” or “Slumdog Millionaire” or “certificates”

from videshis to mock at us with the comments that India is a land of snake charmers

and tantriks and jugglers etc!  “Naked-eyed-Jyoitishis” like you

are more than sufficient to make a laughing stock of the Hindu community in the

eyes of the whole world, all in the name of “Vedic astrology” (or

is it “naked-eyes-astrology”?).

SKB: < So

they wanted the measure of precessional shift, called " Ayanamsha " to

correct the Tropical Zodiac positions of the grahas so that they can relate the

corrected graha positions to the positions of the non-moving nakshatras.>

AKK: A red-herring

of Ayanamsha vis-à-vis precession! And “shifting” and

“non-shifting” zodiacs galore!

That piece really takes the cake!

What are non-moving nakshatras and what are moving nakshatras?  And what about

this Ayanamsha “factor”?  Was it a wild card entry or is it

something planted by some “foreigners”?  When do we find that word

for the first time in Indian or Western astronomy?  How was it calculated and

by whom and from what date and when?  Did “naked-eyes-jyotishis”

“see” ayanamsha as well with their naked eyes? Or did they calculate

it for 7319 BCE?  Was it Lahiri or

Raman or Chandra-Hari or what Ayanamsha?  Have you adjusted it in “your

chart” of Bhagwan Ram? What was that Ayanamsha and why? And what on earth

has Ayanamsha to do with precession?

SKB: < As

the Tropical Zodiac shifts according to precession it is called Sayana (sa=

with, ayana= movement) or with precessional shift. The non-moving Zodiac, i.e.

the original Indian system, began to be called Nirayana (Nih= no or without,

ayana= movement). So you must have noticed that the word Sayana and Nirayana

could not have been there in the ancient times. Today one refers to the ancient

system as the Nirayana system.>

AKK: 1. My

God, are we discussing astronomy or Arabian Nights (Alif Laila)?  Would you

please let me know as to how the imaginary (Tropical) Zodiac can shift and (the

same imaginary sidereal zodiac) not shift at one and the same time?  Is it something

like delineation of one and same horoscope by different jyotishis which according

to some jyotishis may “shift” but according to other jyotishis

“not shift”?

2. You say the “non-moving

zodiac is the original Indian system”.  But in the first para itself you said,

“the rashis came to be used only towards the end of the Dwapara

yuga”.  How could the “original non-moving zodiac” be the original

system then as there must have been some other system prior to the introduction

of Rashis in India? 

 

3. And since according to you

yourself, Bhagwan Ram Incarnated in Treta Yuga, that means that there was no

Karkata Lagna or Moon in Karka or Sun in Mesha etc. since there were no Rashis

prevailing then. Then how did you calculate His horoscope for the position of

planets vis-à-vis Mesha etc. rashis  for 7319 BCE

as per the Ramayana? 

4. Now that we are discussing

astronomy, could you pl. tell me as to how “the naked-eye-jyotishis”

determined Delta Time in the past, since the Ephemeris Time was at least as

many as six days ahead of Bharatiya Ghati-pal Time in 7319 BCE and about at least one day in 3102 BCE, the supposed date of the start of Kaliyuga!

Hey Ram, aap jyotishiyoon

ke dar se kahan  chhipe hain! (O Lord Rama, where are you hiding out of the

fear of “Vedic astrologers”?)

My dear Bhattacharjyaji, since you,

like quite a few other jyotishis, claim to have prepared the horoscope of

Bhagwan Ram as per the planetary position given in the Balakanda, 18th

Canto/Sarga of Valmiki Ramayana, would you please enlighten me as to how you

have taken the year as 7319 BCE,

when that is only less than 9500 years prior to today’s date? 

Did no

“naked-eyed-jyotishi” tell you that Bhagwan Ram is destined to rule

for as many as eleven thousand years?   The same VR, in the same Balakanda, 15th

Canto/Sarga, has said in shlokas 29 and 30, “After killing the cruel

Ravana, who is a terror for gods, I SHALL REMAIN IN THE MORTAL PLAIN RULING

OVER THE GLOBE  FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS”.  Then at the end in

Uttarakanda, Sarga/Canto 110, in shlokas 6 and 7, the same Valmiki Ramayana has

said, “AFTER HAVING RULED FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS, Bhagwan Rama took

(Jal)-Samadhi in the Saryu river”  Thus we find a promise in the

Balakanda by Vishnu that He would rule for eleven thousand years as Rama, and

in the last but one sarga of the same Valmiki Ramayana, we find that after

having kept that promise and having RULED FOR ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS, Bhgwan Ram

took Jal Samadhi!

As Bhagwan Ram incarnated in 7319 BCE according to you, that means He is still

reigning and will continue to reign for another about two thousand years!  It

also means that it is still Tretayuga then, whereas it is being said that more

than five thousand years of Kaliyuga have already passed! Where has Dwapara

yuga vanished?

What is also surprising is that His

Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of he Art of Living agrees with Shri Bhatnagar

that Bhagwan Ram Incarnated only about 7100 years back i.e. in 5114 BCE, which means that Bhagwn Ram will rule for

another at least four thousand years and that Treta Yuga will last for at least

that number of years!

Do these Jyotishis, including you,

and His Holinesses mean to say that we are living in Rama Rajya still or is it

that neither they nor you believe in the Valmiki Ramayana?

Would you pl. let me know the

actual chronology, as such, and also whether you believe in the VR or not?

SKB: <

You have excessively trusted some of the western scholars, one of whom had the

topic of his PhD thesis as the " Materials to prove that Indians got

everything from the Greeks " . >

AKK: Not Western

but Indian “scholars” are making the Hindus a laughing stock!

As seen above, I think it is “naked-eyed-jyotihis”

who call themselves  “Vedic astrologers” these days, who are making

a fool of the entire Hindu community by resorting to such mockery of their

intelligence that in 7319 BCE our “naked-eye-jyotishis”

saw not only planets but even Ayanamsha and Rashis and nakshatras and even Delta

Time and “lagnas” (Ascendants) with naked eyes!  Nay they could

even see the non-existent mathematical points like Rahu and Kethu! No Western

scholar has said such a ludicrous thing anywhere till date!  Or is it your

imagination (hallucination!) that is telling you that Western scholars and not

you have said so?

Hindu astronomers and

not Western scholars have said, by implication, that predictive gimmicks are niradhar

i.e. without any basis or foundation!

That the Rashichkara is an

imaginary belt was not conveyed to me, to start with, by any Western scholar

but by Lahiri’s Indian Ephemeris, year after year, through its definition

of the zodiac as “AN IMAGINARY BELT stretching 9° North and 9° South of

the APPARENT i.e. IMAGINARY path of the Sun within which the moon and planets

remain within course of their movement.”  Being an imaginary belt, any

“naked-eyed-jyotishi” or even “covered-eyed-jyotishi”

can divide it into 12 or 27 or 360 or any number of divisions, and each

division will be more imaginary than the “original” imaginary

belt!  And then each division can be “allocated” to any thing or

anybody like the inanimate wandering planet Mars being the Lord of the first

imaginary division, another inanimate wandering body viz. Venus of the second

imaginary division and so on!  And since that “lordship” is also

imaginary, one can rest assured that there are not going to be any hassles that

they are any “benami” transactions!

Being an IMAGINARY BELT, anybody

can claim that it starts from any IMAGINARY point, that is anybody can claim

that the Zero of that belt is where it suits him most!  And the difference

between that imaginary starting point and the Vernal Equinox can be called

Ayanamsha!  Thus there can be any ayanamsha, right from zero to 359.99999 degrees! 

Who is going to stop us!

But the MOST IRONIC THING IS THAT

these “naked-eyed-jyotishis” will then prepare Birth Charts of Bhagwan

Ram and Bhagwan Krishna and Gautama the Budha on the basis of imaginary

divisions of that very imaginary belt, with imaginary ownership having been

ascribed to imaginary over-lords like Mars and Saturn! 

And a joke the like of which nobody

must have ever heard is that mathematical points like Lunar North and South

Nodes too will be given overlordship of an imaginary division like “the

Virign” and “the Fishes”.

SKB: < Though

the majority of the western scholars could be genuine there are some blacksheeps

too among them. So beware of the half-baked ones among them.>

AKK: My

inspiration is from Hindu shastras and not Western scholars!

From all this lengthy discussion,

it is evident that no Western “blacksheep” has prompted me to write

all these unpleasant things about the Indian “whitesheeps” who call

themselves Vedic astrologers these days.  It is my own shastras/scriptures,

especially the Yogavasishtha Maharamayana that have told me to accept or reject

a proposition only after analyzing it thoroughly.  And NEED I TO REMIND YOU

THAT I WAS MYSELF A “naked-eyed-jyotishi” till a few decades back,

but woke up to the situation before it was too late!  What made me delve deep

into the “building blocks” of predictive gimmicks viz. the

“imaginary belt of imaginary animals” was the categorical

depreciation by Bhishma, Manu, Atri  etc. etc.  Rishis that

“nakshatra-socchis/jeevis/darshis” were “Brahmana

Chandalas”.  After all, why should those Rishis have warned the Hindu

community that they should not involve any of “those whitesheep” in

any daiva or pitra karya!  ONLY BECAUSE THE ZODIAC, WHICH THE “VEDIC

ASTROLOGERS” CALL RASHICHAKRA, IS AN IMAGINARY BELT i.e. AN

“IMAGINARY CIRCLE OF IMAGINARY ANIMALS”.  How can any such

imaginary creatures “foresee”, much less affect, anybody’s

lives/future?

***                              **                    **                                ****                            *****              ***

No wonder, it is such “Vedic

astrologers” (“naked-eyed-jyotishis”!), and not some

“Western blacksheeps” who are making us kill our own dharma by

compelling us to celebrate all the festivals and muhurtas on wrong days, all in

the name of “Vedic astrology” i.e.

“naked-eyes-jyotish”, so that they can “discuss the chart of

Bhagwan Ram and Bhagwan Krishna and Lalu and Kalu etc.” on the basis of

baseless (niradhar!) “imaginary animals of an imaginary belt”.

Do I need say anything more?

Many thanks, once again, for giving

me a chance to put the records straight!

A K Kaul

  --- In

WAVES-Vedic , Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Dear Shri Kaulji,

Namaste,

1) It is wrong to say rashis are

non-Vedic

This is because the " rashis'

are mentioned in the puranas including the Bhagavat purana and the rashis came

to be used only towards the end of the Dwapara yuga ie. towards the end of the

4th Millennium BCE. I am sure you

know that the Valmiki Ramayana of the Treta yuga mentions the position of the

Moon in a particular nakshatra at the time of the birth of Lord Rama. But the

Adhyatma Ramayana, composed by Vedavyasa in the Dwapara yuga, mentions the

position of the Sun in Mesha rashi at the time of Lord Rama's birth. You also

know from the Chandogya upanishad that purana is considered to be the fifth

Veda. So it is wrong to say that " Rashis " are non-Vedic. You must be

aware that reading of this fifth Veda is a prerequisite for reading the four

Vedas.

 2) It is wrong to say that rashis

are imported from Babylonia.

 This is because the rashis have

been used in India

in the 4th Millennium BCE. You

date of Varahamihira is also wrong as in Varahamihira's time Saka kala was not

there . Sakakala, which Brahmagupta calls Shakanta kala, came at the end of the

Shaka rule in 78 CE. Varahamihira mentions Shakendra kala, which was at the

beginning of the Shaka rule Therefore my request to you is that kindly revise

your Rotary document immediately.

3) Your argument towards Nirayana

versus Sayana needs revision too.

This is because the

" Rashi " by definition means a group. You can check that in your

favourite Monier-Williams. Rashis are a group of Nakshatras. To the ancient

jyotishis the twelve clusters of nakshatras in the ecliptic appeared like

different figures. For example, the Vrashabha rashi appeared like a bull. This

they did that by imagining some lines joining the nakshatras within the rashi.

It is true that an unimaginative person may not be able to visualise the shape

or form, but the nakshtras within the rashis are very real. In olden days the

jyotishis were not like the arm-chair jyotishis of today. They determined the

positions of the grahas and nakshatras through the naked eye. They could tell

which graha was in which nakshatra and rashi. Today this system is termed as

Nirayana. In olden days the seasons occurred in different rashis at different

times due to the precession of the earth. Madhu and Madhava etc. occurred at

different nakshatras and rashis at different times. You know that Varahamihira

too indicated this.

 Further the western jyotishis

concentrated their attention on the Tropical Zodiac system and imagined the

fake rashis. (Please refer to the definition of rashi). However the Indian

jyotishis did not give up the link between their jyotish and  the nakshatras

and the true rashis but they gave up observing the grahas and the nakshatras

with the naked eye. So they wanted the measure of precessional shift, called

" Ayanamsha " to correct the Tropical Zodiac positions of the grahas so

that they can relate the corrected graha positions to the positions of the

non-moving nakshatras. As the Tropical Zodiac shifts according to precession it

is called Sayana (sa= with, ayana= movement) or with precessional shift. The

non-moving Zodiac, ie. the original Indian system, began to be called Nirayana

(Nih= no or without, ayana= movement). So you must have noticed that the word

Sayana and Nirayana could not have been there in the ancient times. Today one

refers to

the ancient system as the Nirayana

system.

You have excessively trusted some

of the western scholars, one of whom had the topic of his PhD thesis as the

" Materials to prove that Indians got everything from the Greeks " . 

Though the majority of the  western scholars could be genuine there are some

blacksheeps too among them. So beware of the half-baked ones among them.

With regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya