Ayanamsha---the true reference point! (No shadow boxing, pl.)

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Vinay Jha,

Some one has sent me a copy of your following mail in

Vedic-astrology () forum.

As indicated to you already, I have been banned by all the

jyotisha groups, and that is why I had requested you to join HinduCalendar

forum for a discussion on all such topics. However, you want me to go to

Kashi to have a “shastrartha” but do not want to join that

forum! Why do you want to be cocooned by jyotisha forums? If you

are afraid of HinduCalendar forum, I suggest you join some other forum like

akandabaratam or or vedic_research_institute etc. where

posts are not moderated and where I can reply your mails. Otherwise, you

will go on crying in wilderness and continue the same shadow-boxing!

Best wishes,

A K Kaul

***

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

 

#115081 dt. July 16, 09 in vedic astrology ()

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: [VRI] Ayanamsha---the true reference

point!

 

To All ,

 

The current post of Mr AK Kaul is full of utterly wrong ideas being propagated

by colonialists for two centuries, and supported by brain-childs of Macaulay

(no

insult intended for Mr Kaul personally) who do not study the originals and cite

ancient texts selectively merely to prove their biases. I am here providing

proofs of his wrong ideas.

 

Kaulian logic rests on the argument that precession was unknown to Indians (

" none of the sidhanta-makers, right from Maya the mlechha to Bhaskara-II

of the

Sidhanta Shiromani had any knowledge of precession! " ).

 

I have supplied proofs of precession in both ancient Suryasiddhanta and

Siddhaanta-shiromani in many past messages, but Mr Kaul either missed them or

neglects the proofs.. Hence, I request him to read the following :

 

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha+vs+Precession

 

Bhaskar-ii cites both Suryasiuddhanta and Manjula in giving his formula for

precession. But Bhaskar-ii deliberately use a not so clear terminology, which

confuses modern commentators. Burgess quoted this passage but without even

trying to compute according to the method prescribed bt Bhaskara-ii, and so

does

Mr Kaul & c. If Mr Kaul knows Sanskrit (no insult intended), he should read

Vaasanaa-bhaashya of Siddhaanta-shiromani (this bhaashya was written by

Bhaskar-ii himself, because he knew in advance that he will be misunderstood by

Kaliyugi fools). Bhaskara says Suryasiddhantic term for sampaata-chalana quoted

by him was not from the text but from " not available Aagama

Suryasiddhanta " .

What is this " not available Aagama Suryasiddhanta " ?? It is the oral

tradition

of Suryasiddhanta which is still preserved by means of guru shishya tradition

of

brahmachaaris (in ancient India, many grihasthas were also regarded pure enough

to get this Aagama).

 

If Bhaskar-ii was wrong, why his formula gives accurate value of modern concept

of precession ?

 

Did Bhaskar not know about the Saurapakshiya Suryasiddhangta used by

Vrahamihira, Bhattotpala, & c ? Why he called his own book as

" Shiromani " of all

siddhantas, in which he puts Suryasiddhanta at par with Vedas by callikng it

Aagama ??? Varahamihira also calls Suryasiddhanta " Saavitr "

siddhanta, ie the

theory of Vedic Sun-god, which puts Suryasiddhanta at par with Veda. There were

many siddhantas in ancient India, but none of them derides Suryasiddhanta and

the Suryasiddhanta is the only extant complete siddhanta which was regarded

apaurusheya by all ancient scholars. Were all of them fools to be befooled by a

mlechchha, as Mr Kaul wants us to believe ? The answer lies in serious errors

in

Mr Kaul's statements : he says ancients did not know anbout precession, and

cites those very texts for making this wrong statement which give the correct

formula for computing modern value of precession with amazing accuracy !!!

 

Is it not a deliberate dishonesty on the part of Burgess to quote those very

verses from Siddhangta-shiromani out-of-context for proving that ancients did

not know precession ??? And Mr Kaul is just copying the logic of Burgess, a

mlechchha commentator of Suryasiddhanta who distorted it due to his ignorance.

Mr Kaul follows this real mlechchha almost word to word, but abuses Maya-asura

who rectified himself through tapasyaa and was awarded the highest of all

Vedaangas by Sun-God. Maya was the founder of not only siddhanta, without which

jyotisha could not take off, but of many other disciplines like sculpture,

iconography, temple-making, town-planning, etc. Mr Kaul suggests that Hindus

learnt all these things from mlechchhas. Hence, if he wants us to discard

nirayana astrology, he should ask us to remove all temples, icons, towns,

& c

too, and since Vedas are also composed by descendants of mlechchhas according

to

brain-cjhilds of Macaulay, Hindus should

discard Vedas too, and follow the religion of Burgess who was a Chriatian prist

and was thoroughly biased against hinduism.

 

Mr Kaul says " Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about

fifteenth

century AD " , which is falsified by the proofs from Siddhanta-shiromani

which

uses terms from oral Suryasiddhanta and Manjula in a proper way.

 

Bhaskar-ii worked on Drikpakshiya " shiromani " of siddhantas, but

called

Suryasiddhanta " Aagama " , which means he regarded his own work

shiromani only

among the siddhantas of mortals, not with respect to Suryasiddhanta which he

regarded to be DIVINE in origin .

 

All other points of Mr Kaul will automaticcly crumble once a reader reads the

proof of precession in ancient India in the link given above.

 

Mr Kaul, please do not go towards falsehood, and accept the Truth.

 

-VJ

========================== ==

 

[Guest guest]

 

One message to Respected Shri Jhaji (2 tola wine wallay) to join any of the

forum to have Shastra- Artha instead of Shadow-boxing:-

 

1) akandabaratam

2)

3) vedic_research_institute

4) HinduCalendar

5) Indian_astrology_group_daily_digest

 

Respected Jhaji come do join the group and show that you are the real Vidwan

instead of turning the tail and run away.

 

Rajput Ramveer Singh

(Rajput like sword of Tipu Sultan)

 

Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest , " jyotirved "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Dear Shri Vinay Jha,

 

Some one has sent me a copy of your following mail in Vedic-astrology

() forum.

 

As indicated to you already, I have been banned by all the jyotisha groups,

and that is why I had requested you to join HinduCalendar forum for a

discussion on all such topics.  However, you want me to go to Kashi to have

a " shastrartha " but do not want to join that forum!  Why do you want to be

cocooned by jyotisha forums?  If you are afraid of HinduCalendar forum, I

suggest you join some other forum like akandabaratam or

or vedic_research_institute etc.  where posts are not moderated and where I

can reply your mails.  Otherwise, you will go on crying in wilderness and

continue the same shadow-boxing!

 

Best wishes,

 

A K Kaul

 

***                        ******

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

******

 

 

 

#115081 dt. July 16, 09 in vedic astrology ()

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: [VRI] Ayanamsha---the true reference point!

 

 

 

To All ,

 

The current post of Mr AK Kaul is full of utterly wrong ideas being

propagated

by colonialists for two centuries, and supported by brain-childs of Macaulay

(no

insult intended for Mr Kaul personally) who do not study the originals and

cite

ancient texts selectively merely to prove their biases. I am here providing

proofs of his wrong ideas.

 

Kaulian logic rests on the argument that precession was unknown to Indians (

" none of the sidhanta-makers, right from Maya the mlechha to Bhaskara-II of

the

Sidhanta Shiromani had any knowledge of precession! " ).

 

I have supplied proofs of precession in both ancient Suryasiddhanta and

Siddhaanta-shiromani in many past messages, but Mr Kaul either missed them

or

neglects the proofs.. Hence, I request him to read the following :

 

<http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha+vs+Precession>

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha+vs+Precession

 

Bhaskar-ii cites both Suryasiuddhanta and Manjula in giving his formula for

precession. But Bhaskar-ii deliberately use a not so clear terminology,

which

confuses modern commentators. Burgess quoted this passage but without even

trying to compute according to the method prescribed bt Bhaskara-ii, and so

does

Mr Kaul & c. If Mr Kaul knows Sanskrit (no insult intended), he should read

Vaasanaa-bhaashya of Siddhaanta-shiromani (this bhaashya was written by

Bhaskar-ii himself, because he knew in advance that he will be misunderstood

by

Kaliyugi fools). Bhaskara says Suryasiddhantic term for sampaata-chalana

quoted

by him was not from the text but from " not available Aagama Suryasiddhanta " ..

 

What is this " not available Aagama Suryasiddhanta " ?? It is the oral

tradition

of Suryasiddhanta which is still preserved by means of guru shishya

tradition of

brahmachaaris (in ancient India, many grihasthas were also regarded pure

enough

to get this Aagama).

 

If Bhaskar-ii was wrong, why his formula gives accurate value of modern

concept

of precession ?

 

Did Bhaskar not know about the Saurapakshiya Suryasiddhangta used by

Vrahamihira, Bhattotpala, & c ? Why he called his own book as " Shiromani " of

all

siddhantas, in which he puts Suryasiddhanta at par with Vedas by callikng it

Aagama ??? Varahamihira also calls Suryasiddhanta " Saavitr " siddhanta, ie

the

theory of Vedic Sun-god, which puts Suryasiddhanta at par with Veda. There

were

many siddhantas in ancient India, but none of them derides Suryasiddhanta

and

the Suryasiddhanta is the only extant complete siddhanta which was regarded

apaurusheya by all ancient scholars. Were all of them fools to be befooled

by a

mlechchha, as Mr Kaul wants us to believe ? The answer lies in serious

errors in

Mr Kaul's statements : he says ancients did not know anbout precession, and

cites those very texts for making this wrong statement which give the

correct

formula for computing modern value of precession with amazing accuracy !!!

 

Is it not a deliberate dishonesty on the part of Burgess to quote those very

verses from Siddhangta-shiromani out-of-context for proving that ancients

did

not know precession ??? And Mr Kaul is just copying the logic of Burgess, a

mlechchha commentator of Suryasiddhanta who distorted it due to his

ignorance.

Mr Kaul follows this real mlechchha almost word to word, but abuses

Maya-asura

who rectified himself through tapasyaa and was awarded the highest of all

Vedaangas by Sun-God. Maya was the founder of not only siddhanta, without

which

jyotisha could not take off, but of many other disciplines like sculpture,

iconography, temple-making, town-planning, etc. Mr Kaul suggests that Hindus

learnt all these things from mlechchhas. Hence, if he wants us to discard

nirayana astrology, he should ask us to remove all temples, icons, towns, & c

too, and since Vedas are also composed by descendants of mlechchhas

according to

brain-cjhilds of Macaulay, Hindus should

discard Vedas too, and follow the religion of Burgess who was a Chriatian

prist

and was thoroughly biased against hinduism.

 

Mr Kaul says " Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about

fifteenth

century AD " , which is falsified by the proofs from Siddhanta-shiromani which

uses terms from oral Suryasiddhanta and Manjula in a proper way.

 

Bhaskar-ii worked on Drikpakshiya " shiromani " of siddhantas, but called

Suryasiddhanta " Aagama " , which means he regarded his own work shiromani only

among the siddhantas of mortals, not with respect to Suryasiddhanta which he

regarded to be DIVINE in origin .

 

All other points of Mr Kaul will automaticcly crumble once a reader reads

the

proof of precession in ancient India in the link given above.

 

Mr Kaul, please do not go towards falsehood, and accept the Truth.

 

-VJ

========================== ==

 

--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

 

 

 

Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more.

Click here http://cricket.