Guest guest Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Dear friends, Shri Kaul said " Nobody has his own calculatoins, not even Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar! " . He is not well informed and that is why he said like this. Dr. Vartak made his own calculations and arrived at the most correct date uptill now. Further he gave the foremost importance to the precessional data to find out the approximate period when Lord rama was born and then only he zeroed in on the correct date using the other astronomical calculations. I also agree with Shri Hattangadi that Shri Kaul only criticises and his post do not contain any cogent reasons. Nobody expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Shri Narasimha Rao's software, anywhere. But software is helpless if the input is not proper. Even if one uses a good software one has to make sure that the input is correct. Shri Kaul has not read the Valmiki Ramayana properly if at all he read it. In 1.18.8 -11 & 15 it is clearly mentioned that Lord Rama was born in Karkata lagna and at the noontime (Abhijit Muhurta). Bharata was born in Meena Lagna and that means Bharata was born about 14 hours later. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born on the next day when the Sun rose in Ashlesha. As Shri Kaul does not know astrology he is finding fault with the data from the Ramayana. Even if the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda had been composed by someone eother than Valmiki he or she had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly. It also tallies with what is given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana from the Purana. As regards the birth in the Navami tithi in the end of Punarvasu in cancer the Moon went ahead of the Sun by just 96 degrees (for the the first eight tithis of the paksha) just before the noon time, so that it was Navami tithi by the time when Lord Rama was born. Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga and it is likely that 28 nakshatras were counted in those days and not 27 nakshatras as we do these days. This is because we find the mention of the fall of Abhijit only in the Mahabharata when Lord Indra tells Lord Skanda (who could be the composer of the Skanda Hora and Lord Indra might be asking him to go for the division of the ecliptic among 27 nakshatras.) about the fall of Abhijit, though the actual fall or drifting away had actually occurred several millennia before Lord Rama's time. So we have to consider this aspect also. It is very painful to see Shri Kaul's unjustifiable and baseless criticisms of the text of the Ramayana. If he had fair idea of when Lord Rama was born and if he could say how he arrived at that date, then only he should have thought of criticising other's work, even though Pushkar Bhatnagar proposed a wrong date. Shri Kaul made a general derogatory statement something like " Paapi pet kaa sawaal hai " to demean all those who are interested in the correct date of of Lord Rama, though his statement may be true only in case of Pushkar Bhatnagar, who has been miting money through the sale of that faulty book but not the other scholars who are genuinely interested that the true date of Lord Rama should be told. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 9/13/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirved <jyotirved Dating of Ramayana Period! Cc: indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , hinducalendar , " subash razdan " <subashrazdan Sunday, September 13, 2009, 8:30 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Dear friends, Shri Kaul said " Nobody has his own calculatoins, not even Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar! " . He is not well informed and that is why he said like this. Dr. Vartak made his own calculations and arrived at the most correct date uptill now. Further he gave the foremost importance to the precessional data to find out the approximate period when Lord rama was born and then only he zeroed in on the correct date using the other astronomical calculations. I also agree with Shri Hattangadi that Shri Kaul only criticises and his post do not contain any cogent reasons. Nobody expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Shri Narasimha Rao's software, anywhere. But software is helpless if the input is not proper. Even if one uses a good software one has to make sure that the input is correct. Shri Kaul has not read the Valmiki Ramayana properly if at all he read it. In 1.18.8 -11 & 15 it is clearly mentioned that Lord Rama was born in Karkata lagna and at the noontime (Abhijit Muhurta). Bharata was born in Meena Lagna and that means Bharata was born about 14 hours later. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born on the next day when the Sun rose in Ashlesha. As Shri Kaul does not know astrology he is finding fault with the data from the Ramayana. Even if the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda had been composed by someone eother than Valmiki he or she had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly. It also tallies with what is given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana from the Purana. As regards the birth in the Navami tithi in the end of Punarvasu in cancer the Moon went ahead of the Sun by just 96 degrees (for the the first eight tithis of the paksha) just before the noon time, so that it was Navami tithi by the time when Lord Rama was born. Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga and it is likely that 28 nakshatras were counted in those days and not 27 nakshatras as we do these days. This is because we find the mention of the fall of Abhijit only in the Mahabharata when Lord Indra tells Lord Skanda (who could be the composer of the Skanda Hora and Lord Indra might be asking him to go for the division of the ecliptic among 27 nakshatras.) about the fall of Abhijit, though the actual fall or drifting away had actually occurred several millennia before Lord Rama's time. So we have to consider this aspect also. It is very painful to see Shri Kaul's unjustifiable and baseless criticisms of the text of the Ramayana. If he had fair idea of when Lord Rama was born and if he could say how he arrived at that date, then only he should have thought of criticising other's work, even though Pushkar Bhatnagar proposed a wrong date. Shri Kaul made a general derogatory statement something like " Paapi pet kaa sawaal hai " to demean all those who are interested in the correct date of of Lord Rama, though his statement may be true only in case of Pushkar Bhatnagar, who has been miting money through the sale of that faulty book but not the other scholars who are genuinely interested that the true date of Lord Rama should be told. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 9/13/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirved <jyotirved Dating of Ramayana Period! Cc: indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , hinducalendar , " subash razdan " <subashrazdan Sunday, September 13, 2009, 8:30 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Dear friends, Namastey! An interesting discussion has been going on regarding the above topic. However, more interesting than anything else are some of the statements of Shri Bhattacharjya! e.g., his statement “Even if the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda had been composed by someone other than Valmiki he or she had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly.” Valmiki Ramayana is not a work by Maharshi Valmiki alone but by several authors! The following conclusions stick out like a sore thumb from Shri Bhatttacharjya’s statement: 1. That the Valmiki Ramayana that we have has had many more authors besides Maharshi Valmiki! 2. Nobody can be sure as to how many “co-authors” there have been. 3. Nobody can be sure about the period of compilation (interpolations!) of various portions i.e. kandas of the Valmiki Ramayana! 4. In spite of such anachronism, Shri Bhattacharjya is sure that the person or persons who have made the interpolations in the Valmiki Ramayana about the planetary positions of Shri Ram and His siblings “had given the astrological data about Lord Rama’s birth correctly”. Planetary details of Shri Ram and his siblings are non-sense interpolations by some useless jyotishis: The last point is ludicrous to such an extent that it defies imagination as to how Shri Bhattacharjya, who calls himself a historian and a “Vedic astrologer” and also a “parokshya darshi”, could have made such a fantastic statement! Let us, therefore, analyze it first of all: 1. Birth time is recorded immediately at the time of birth of a native and a horoscope erected for that time. 2. Maharshi Valmiki, who is said to be contemporaneous of Dasharatha/Shri Rama, could have been informed about such birth time and maybe, in spite of common sense Vedic lore and dharmashastras etc. being negative on that point, he would have erected birth charts of Shri Ram and His siblings. 3. But since the planetary positions of Shri Rama’s birth chart and His siblings have been interpolated by someone else at a much later date, the question arises as to what was the data that that jyotishi could have resorted to, since Valmiki Ramayana is known as Aadi-kaavya and there is no work that can be said anterior to the same about the history of Shri Ram. 4. The only reason Shri Bhattacharjya has given us for Balakanda and Uttarakanda not being the original work of Valmiki is that both the Kandas refer to Shri Ram as God instead of an ordinary human being! 5. Shri Bhattacharjya is overlooking the fact that it is because of Maharshi Valmiki being the author of (Valmiki) Ramayana that it is held in high esteem, and not because it is a work by some good for nothing jyotishis! 6. Regarding the “astrological knowledge” of the past Hindiu (Vedic!) Jyotishis the only indigenous work on predictive astrology that is said to be the oldest one is Brihat Jatakam by Varahamihira, who has said “Spashtatro Savitrah” i.e. “The Surya Sidhanta is the most accurate of all the five sidahntas”. 7. As is common knowledge by now, the Surya Sidhanta is actually the most monstrous astronomical work written by Maya the mlechha, by taking the subterfuge that it had been revealed to him by none other than Surya Bhagwa himself or his plenipotentiary! It was actually a ploy on Maya the mlechha’s part, cunning as he was, to preclude any scientific evaluation of that work! And if Varahamihira found that very work to be the most accurate for astrological predictions, you can well imagine the standard and acumen of Bharatiya Jyotishis of the past! The same Varahamihira who is said to be the “Greatest astrologer of Indian history” was actually the greatest charlatan as he could make correct predictions (only) from incorrect data! 8. It is also common knowledge that till the advent of modern astronomy from overseas observatories, India calculated planetary longitudes from one or the other or monstrous astronomical work, viz. the sidhantas or Grahalaghava by Ganesha Daivajnya (16th century AD). Thus till a couple of centuries back, correct birth charts by “Bharatiya jyotishis” was a pipe dream, making correct predictions practically impossible! 9. It is obvious that the jyotihis who have interpolated the original Valmiki/Adhyatma Ramayana with astrological jargon must have done it by concoction, i.e.; by manufacturing some astrological planetary combinations that could account for Bhagwan Ram’s divine qualities and His miseries etc. simultaneously. 10. Such a concoction is evident from the fact that those useless jyotishis have not said it anywhere, except for the Moon and Brihaspati, and maybe even the sun, as to which planet occupied which sign but have made a very shoddy work by saying, “five planets were either exalted or in their own signs”, thus leaving the matter hanging in air! If they had been sure about the planetary positions, they had already accounted for the sun being exalted, the moon in its own sign and Brihaspati in exaltation, they could easily have stated as to which of the two other planets, out of the remaining four. were in their own signs or exalted and given the whole chart of Shri Ram. These jyotishis would not have been silent about Rahu-kethu either! 11. Since prior to the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha, we do not have any astronomical work in India that tells us as to how to “manufacture” the planets vis-à-vis Mesha etc. Rashis, obviously, those interpolations for imaginary divine charts in the Valmiki and Adhyatama Ramayana also are on the basis of that very monstrous astronomical work! 12. This view is confirmed by the fact that the same useless and semi-literate jyotishis, who have done concoctions of planetary data of Lord Rama and his siblings’ charts have also said in the Balakanda that “Lord Rama was destined to rule for eleven thousand years” and then in Uttarakanda, they have said, on the basis of the same mlecchha work viz. the Surya Sidhanta “Shri Ram had ruled for eleven thousand years” because it is the Surya Sidhanta that talks of the duration of yugas in millions of years! 13. Thus it is clear that such “adulterations”/interpolations in the Valmiki and Adhyatma have been done in the post-Surya Sidhanta era, i.e. after around first century BCE and cannot be attributed to any other period earlier than that by any stretch of imagination, leave alone calculation! Even today “Vedic jyotishis” make correct predictions only from incorrect data—“paapi pet ka sawaal” It is not only in the past when India did not have any correct planetary data that correct predictions were made from the same, even today, the same thing is happening! Ninety-nine per cent of today’s “Vedic astrologers” make correct predictions (sic!) from Lahiri Ayanamsha! And that Ayanamsha is based on a so called fictitious position of the Vernal Equinox of 285 AD being opposite Star Chitra (Spica) then! That ayanamsha was invented by late N. C. Lahiri only to make his solar Snakrantis coincide with Grahalaghava Sankrantis, so as to sell his own Vishudha Sihanta Panjika in Bangla and Lahiri’s Indian Ephemeris in English---uka apnaa paapi pet ka swaal tha! That Ayanamsha is otherwise just meaningless and without any astronomical or even Shastric/sidhantic sanction! But in spite of the same, “Vedic astrologers” do make correct predictions from that very Ayanamsha! It is not that any other ayanamsha, including zero ayanamsha, is scientific or even sidhantic, but who bothers---at least not the “Vedic astrologers”. It is immaterial to them if because of the Ayanamsha curse the entire Hindu community is celebrating all the festivals on wrong days! Aakhir un jyotishiyoon ka paapi pet ka sawal jo hai! Adhyatma Ramyana and Valmiki Ramayana---both have impossible astronomical combinations! Shri Bhattacharjya has said in his post, “It also tallies with what is given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana from the Purana” The Adhyatma Ramayana, 1/3/14-15, has said, “Shri Ram was born in the month of Madhu(masa), Shukla paksha, on Navmi tithi, in Karkata lagna, in Punarvasu naksahtra, with the sun in Mesha and five planets exalted”. This planetary position also has an inherent incongruence! Madhu-masa is the first Vedic month of Vasanta Ritu. It starts exactly after two months of the Shishira Ritu which starts from the day of Uttarayana i.e. Winter Solstice. In astrological jargon of today, it can be said that Madhu-masa starts always with the ingress of the sun into so called Sayana Mina Rashi. Lunar Chaitra Shukla paksha starts with the first New Moon after that and is actually the start of Vasanti Navratra. Since a new Lunar Vasanta starts from that day, that is why it is known as vasanti Navratra. As it was the month of Madhu, it could not be the so called Sayana Mesha Surya. That just is not possible at all! That leaves us with the only alternative that it must have been some so called nirayana Mesha Surya, if at all such a sayana-versus-nirayana “disease” existed even then! That means the ayanamsha between the so called sayana surya and the so called nirayana surya must have been either minus by about 30 degrees or plus by about 330 degrees! It could not be minus thirty degrees since the ayanamsha that “Vedic astrologers” are following these days is anywhere between minus 20 and minus 26 degrees and the nirayana ahead is ahead by about one month of so called sayana sankranti i.e. if the Sayana Mesha Sankranti takes place on March 21 the nirayana falls on April 15! Thus if we take that the so called sayana sun was in Mina (Madhumasa) but nirayana sun was in Mesha with an ayanamsha of about 30 degrees, that means Bhagwan Ram incarnated only a few centuries back---after 285 AD---or as an alternative He may Incarnate in the ensuing couple of centuries, since the ayanamsha as on date is only about 20 to 26 degrees (minus), and may take another couple of centuries to cover the deficit 4 degrees! So we are left with the only alternative and that is to take the ayanamsha as plus 330 degrees! At the rate of about one degree per seventy two years, roughly, for ayanamsha, it must have been about 330 multiplied by 72 = 23760 years from zero year of “almighty Lahiri Ayanamsha” i.e. 285 AD. That means as per the concoction of some useless jyotishis in the Adyatma Ramayana and Valmiki Ramayana, Bhagwan Ram incarnated in about 23760+285 i.e., about 24000 BCE, about which no “Vedic astrologer” has said anything! However, even if we go that far into past, there also we have problems galore! It could never be the Vedic month Madhu since Lahiri Chaitra would have preceded Madhu, quite contrary to what is happening these days---Lahiri Chaitra succeeding Madhu almost after Vedic Madhumasa has ended! Thus whichever way we look at it, whether Sayana or nirayana Mesha sun could never have coincided with Vedic Madhu and lunar Chaitra! Since the interpolator in Adyatma Ramayana, whom Shri Bhattacharjya is claiming to be Vedavyasa Himself, does not appear to have had any knowledge of even sidhantic astronomy, that is why he has made such clumsy statements---clubbed the month of Vedic Madhu with Chaitra and the sun in Mesha! Ironically, it could not have been Vasanta Ritu either, whether the sun was in so called Sayana Mesha or so called nirayana Mesha! That is just not possible! That much for “Vedic Jyotishi” Bhattacharjya’s knowledge of astronomy and astrology! Bhagwan Ram was born anywhere between 157 BCE and 24000 BCE according to “Vedic astrologers” and “Vedic astronomers”---confusion worst confounded! You can well imagine as to how “correct” the planetary positions of the Valmiki and Adhyatma Ramayana are from the fact that on the basis of one and the same planetary data, there are innumerable dates of birth of Shri Ram: (i) as per Shri Sreenadh, the owner of ancinent_indian_astrology_group (), Bhagwan Ram was born on March 14, 157 BCE, but (ii) as per Pushkar Bhatnagar, He incarnated on January 10, 5114 BCE, whereas (iii) as per Dr. P. V. Vartak, He incarnated on December 4, 7323 BCE but (iv) as per Prafulla Vamana Mendki, He incarnated on February 7, 7558 BCE, but (iv) as per Sunil Bhattacharjya He had incarnated in 7319 BCE, though the last named “Vedic astrologer” seems to have changed his mind now and thinks that He incarnated in 7323 BCE. (iv) Shri T.S. Krishna Moorthy of Astronomy_activities_2009 concludes that He incarnated about fifteen thousand years back whereas the ayanamsha riddle tells us that He incarnated in about 24000 BCE! You can rest assured that all these “Vedic astrologers” have arrived at their conclusions on the basis of “Vedic astronomy” Naturally, you cannot have more “accurate” planetary positions than the ones that lead to such “consensus” of opinion---from 157 BCE to 24000 BCE! Impossible astrological and astronomical in the Valmiki & Adhyatma Ramayana! Mr. Bhattacharjya has said, “As regards the birth in the Navami tithi in the end of Punarvasu in cancer the Moon went ahead of the Sun by just 96 degrees (for the the first eight tithis of the paksha) just before the noon time, so that it was Navami tithi by the time when Lord Rama was born”. The irony is that “Vedic astrologers”, including Shri Bhattacharjya, do not known even ABC of either sidhantic or modern astronomy and that is why they exhibit their ignorance under the impression that they are proving their mastery over the same! It could also be that they understand as to how impossible it is for such astronomical combinations to take place, but just to make a fool of a common man with their technical jargon, they go on insisting on their “proofs”. Let us, therefore, analyze this point also thoroughly. Anybody knowing even a bit of sidhantic or modern astronomy must be aware that Navmi tithi starts when the Moon is away from the sun by ninety-six degrees. Thus if the sun is in Mesha—even if it is almost zero amasha, the Moon has to be in six plus degrees of karkata! But Punarvasu nakshatra ends as soon as the Moon enters 3.333 degrees of Karkata! Thus there was a difference of 6 minus 3.3333 i.e. 2.6666 degrees between the ending of Punarvasu nakshatra andthe start of Navmi tithi. Example is better than precept! Presuming that Bhagwan Ram was born at Noon on day X, when Navmi tithi had just started, and presuming that the Moon traveled at the rate of one degree in two hours, the average rate, it is clear that Navmi tithi must have started at least 2.66 multiplied by 2 = 5.3333 hours after the Punarvasu nakshatra had ended, and by that logic, Punarvasu nakshatra had already ended before seven a.m. whereas Shri Ram Incarnated at about Noon! Thus Shri Ram could not have Incarnated in Punarvasu nakshatra and Navmi tithi simultaneously at all! So three more cheers for Shri Bhattacharjya’s knowledge of jyotisha as well as astronomy! The planetary details of Bharata and Lakshmana-Shatrugana duo in the Valmiki Ramayana is imagination of some jyotishi run riot! Shri Bhattacharjya has said, “Shri Kaul has not read the Valmiki Ramayana properly if at all he read it. In 1.18.8 -11 & 15 it is clearly mentioned that Lord Rama was born in Karkata lagna and at the noontime (Abhijit Muhurta). Bharata was born in Meena Lagna and that means Bharata was born about 14 hours later. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born on the next day when the Sun rose in Ashlesha. As Shri Kaul does not know astrology he is finding fault with the data from the Ramayana”. The Gita Press translation of the shlokas 1/18/8-9 is, " In the meantime six seasons (from the last Vasanta) rolled away after the sacrifice was over. Then on the ninth lunar day of the bright fortnight of Chaitra, the twelfth month after the conclusion of the sacrifices, when the asterism Punarvasu, presided over by Aditi, was in the ascendant and as many as five planets viz. the Sun, Mars, Saturn and Venus happened to be exalted (appeared in zodiacal signs of Mesha or Aries, Makara or Capricornus, Tula or Libra, Karka or Cancer and Mina or Pisces respectively), and Jupiter in conjunction with the moon appeared in the zodiacal sign of Karka, mother Kaushalya, the eldest wife of Dhasharatha, gave birth to a highly blessed son named Shri Ram, who was no other than the Lord of the universe” Similarly, as per the same Balakanda 18/15-16, Gita Press translation states, " Bharata of cheerful mind was born when the constellation Pushya was in the ascendant and the Sun had entered the 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 sign of Karkata, i.e. Cancer " . So it is clear that Shri Bhattacharjya has himself either not read the Ramayana or has not understood the meaning or is deliberately trying to befool the common man with his “scholarship” and knowledge of history and Sanskrit! When the original Sanskrit sholka states, “saarpe jatav to saumitrav kulleere abyudete ravav”, it imeans that “the sons of Sumitra were born with the Moon in Ashlesha and the sun in Kuleera i.e. Cancer i.e. Karkata Rashi”. Even if we presume that the Gitra Press translator goofed up when he said that Bharata was born with sun in Mina instead of Mina lagna, but for anyone knowing Sanskrit there cannot be any other meaning for the shloka indicating that the “Sons of Sumitra were born with the sun in Kuleera”! And that means that that both Lakshman and Shatrugana were younger to Shri Ram and Bharata by four months or they were elder to Shri Ram and Bharata by eight months! So “Vedic Jyotishi” Bhattacharjya is deliberately not pondering on the facts himself! Goswami Tulsidas is silent about Punarvau nakshatra and exaltation of planets! Ramacharitamanasa of Goswami Tulsidas is worshipped in Northern and Central India etc. like the Valmiki Ramayana. It has said (191 Doha), “The lagna, the yoga and planets etc. were all favourable. It was navmi tithi of Madhu-masa, shukla paksha, and Abhijit muhurta, at Noon, when Shri Ram was born”. Thus Tulsidas is silent about “five planets being exalted or in their own signs” and, what is most surprising, about Punarvasu nakshatra! That itself is an indication that Tulsidas too was not very happy with planetary concoction, and he could understand that Navmi tithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, with the sun in Mesha and Moon in Karkata were just not possible, whatever “Vedic Jyotishis” like Shri Bhattacharjya may say! Interpolator Jyotishis also have said that Ram was the Lord of the universe! The main reason of Shri Bhattacharjya’s view of Balakanda and Uttarakanda being concoction by someone else is that both these “kandas” refer to Shri Ram as God (Ishwara) instead of an ordinary human being, and therefore could not have been written by Valmiki! But the useless jyotishis, who have made these jyotisha concoctions in the VR also say the same thing, “Kaushalya, the eldest wife of Dasharatha, gave birth to a highly blessed son named Shri Ram, who was no other than the Lord of the Universe”! So how does Shri Bhattacharjya reconcile with that? Similarly, does Mr. Bhatacharjya mean that it is only “Vedic astrologers” and not Valmiki or Vedavyasa who consider Shri Ram as God? If yes, then he is just misinterpreting everything deliberately, since in the Rama-Gita of Adyatma Ramayana, Shri Ram has said (shloka 61 of Rama-Gita), “yah sevate mam agunam gunat param, hrida kada va yadi va gunatmakam, so aham sva padanchit renubih sprashan, punai loka tritayam yatha ravih”. He must ponder on its meaning and shun his “Vedic jyotisha” obstinacy in subjecting divine Incarnations also to planetary suzerainty! “Vedic astrologers” have made Dwapara-yuga vanish into thin air—or is it “alpaayu-yoga”? Shri Bhattacharjya says further, “Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga and it is likely that 28 nakshatras were counted in those days and not 27 nakshatras as we do these days” This is yet another ludicrous statement! “Bhattacharjya Ram” was born in 7323 BCE and it was Treta-yuga then. According to “Vedic astrologers”, including Mr. Bhattacharjya, Kaliyuyga started in 3102 BCE. So when did Dwapara Yuga start actually and when did it end? Presuming that it started in around 7500 BCE, it must have ended latest by 3102 BCE, i.e. in about 4,500 years. We, however, know it already that as per these very “Vedic astrologers” including Bhattachajya Jyotishi, Kaliyuga has already been going on for more than five thousand years, and it is not likely to end in the near future! How can these “Vedic astrologers” make Dwapara yuga have an “alpaayu” of just about 4500 years but make Kaliyuga a Dirgajeevi of tens of thousands of years if not hundreds of thousands of years? Why are they bent on confusing the general public with their jyotisha jargon and concoction? “Bhattaacharjya Ram” died after ruling only for thirty years! In another post, Shri Bhattacharjya has said that Shri Ram ruled only for thirty years instead of eleven thousand years! This is yet another fantastic statement! Presuming that Shri Ram was exiled when He was hardly about 17/18 and after living in exile for 14 years, He returned to Ayodhya, where, as per Shri Bhattacharjya, He ruled only for thirty years! That means He passed away hardly at the age of sixty or so! That is really a shattering statement, since it means that Rakshasas like Ravana could rule for a much longer period and thus live up to their ripe ages, but Maryada Purushotam Ram had to die of an akalamrityu, though the Valmiki Ramayana says that Shri Ram ruled for eleven thousand years! You can well imagine the “omnipotence” of “Vedic astrologers” like Shri Bhattacharjya, who can literally create and kill even Divine incarnations like Shri Ram as and when it pleases them under whatever planetary jargon and concoction it suits them! Mr. Bhattacharjya, pl. give a point by point reply instead of beating about the bush! Shri Bhattacharjya has said, “I also agree with Shri Hattangadi that Shri Kaul only criticizes and his post do not contain any cogent reasons”. I am sure the forum members will see it for themselves that every point raised by Shri Bhattacharjya has been analyzed, discussed and then repudiated with cogent proofs. The criticism of “Vedic astrology” and “Vedic astrologers” has been done on the bases of the faulty data of the Valmiki Ramayana and the Adyatma Ramayana etc., and it has been proved that they are concoctions of a post Surya Sidhanta era. I hope Shri Bhattcharjya will now realize that he has been giving all the wrong reasons and logic in support of his faulty arguments and not be vindictive and continue to bark wrong trees. I would, therefore, request Shri Bhattacharjya that instead of beating about the bush, he must reply every point of this post, which has been composed after sifting the grain from the chaff. With regards, A K Kaul On Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:43 p.m. --- --- In USBrahmins , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:{ ] Dating of Ramayana Period Dear friends, Shri Kaul said " Nobody has his own calculations, not even Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar! " . He is not well informed and that is why he said like this. Dr. Vartak made his own calculations and arrived at the most correct date uptill now. Further he gave the foremost importance to the precessional data to find out the approximate period when Lord rama was born and then only he zeroed in on the correct date using the other astronomical calculations. I also agree with Shri Hattangadi that Shri Kaul only criticises and his post do not contain any cogent reasons. Nobody expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Shri Narasimha Rao's software, anywhere. But software is helpless if the input is not proper. Even if one uses a good software one has to make sure that the input is correct. Shri Kaul has not read the Valmiki Ramayana properly if at all he read it. In 1.18.8 -11 & 15 it is clearly mentioned that Lord Rama was born in Karkata lagna and at the noontime (Abhijit Muhurta). Bharata was born in Meena Lagna and that means Bharata was born about 14 hours later. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born on the next day when the Sun rose in Ashlesha. As Shri Kaul does not know astrology he is finding fault with the data from the Ramayana. Even if the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda had been composed by someone other than Valmiki he or she had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly. It also tallies with what is given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana from the Purana. As regards the birth in the Navami tithi in the end of Punarvasu in cancer the Moon went ahead of the Sun by just 96 degrees (for the the first eight tithis of the paksha) just before the noon time, so that it was Navami tithi by the time when Lord Rama was born. Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga and it is likely that 28 nakshatras were counted in those days and not 27 nakshatras as we do these days. This is because we find the mention of the fall of Abhijit only in the Mahabharata when Lord Indra tells Lord Skanda (who could be the composer of the Skanda Hora and Lord Indra might be asking him to go for the division of the ecliptic among 27 nakshatras.) about the fall of Abhijit, though the actual fall or drifting away had actually occurred several millennia before Lord Rama's time. So we have to consider this aspect also. It is very painful to see Shri Kaul's unjustifiable and baseless criticisms of the text of the Ramayana. If he had fair idea of when Lord Rama was born and if he could say how he arrived at that date, then only he should have thought of criticising other's work, even though Pushkar Bhatnagar proposed a wrong date. Shri Kaul made a general derogatory statement something like " Paapi pet kaa sawaal hai " to demean all those who are interested in the correct date of of Lord Rama, though his statement may be true only in case of Pushkar Bhatnagar, who has been miting money through the sale of that faulty book but not the other scholars who are genuinely interested that the true date of Lord Rama should be told. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 9/13/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirvedjyotirved Dating of Ramayana Period Cc: indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , hinducalendar , " subash razdan " <subashrazdan Sunday, September 13, 2009, 8:30 AM 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Dear friends,Dear friends, Namastey! An interesting discussion has been going on regarding the above topic. However, more interesting than anything else are some of the statements of Shri Bhattacharjya! e.g., his statement " Even if the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda had been composed by someone other than Valmiki he or she had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly. " Valmiki Ramayana is not a work by Maharshi Valmiki alone but by several authors! The following conclusions stick out like a sore thumb from Shri Bhatttacharjya's statement: 1. That the Valmiki Ramayana that we have has had many more authors besides Maharshi Valmiki! 2. Nobody can be sure as to how many " co-authors " there have been. 3. Nobody can be sure about the period of compilation (interpolations!) of various portions i.e. kandas of the Valmiki Ramayana! 4. In spite of such anachronism, Shri Bhattacharjya is sure that the person or persons who have made the interpolations in the Valmiki Ramayana about the planetary positions of Shri Ram and His siblings " had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly " . Planetary details of Shri Ram and his siblings are non-sense interpolations by some useless jyotishis: The last point is ludicrous to such an extent that it defies imagination as to how Shri Bhattacharjya, who calls himself a historian and a " Vedic astrologer " and also a " parokshya darshi " , could have made such a fantastic statement! Let us, therefore, analyze it first of all: 1. Birth time is recorded immediately at the time of birth of a native and a horoscope erected for that time. 2. Maharshi Valmiki, who is said to be contemporaneous of Dasharatha/Shri Rama, could have been informed about such birth time and maybe, in spite of common sense Vedic lore and dharmashastras etc. being negative on that point, he would have erected birth charts of Shri Ram and His siblings. 3. But since the planetary positions of Shri Rama's birth chart and His siblings have been interpolated by someone else at a much later date, the question arises as to what was the data that that jyotishi could have resorted to, since Valmiki Ramayana is known as Aadi-kaavya and there is no work that can be said anterior to the same about the history of Shri Ram. 4. The only reason Shri Bhattacharjya has given us for Balakanda and Uttarakanda not being the original work of Valmiki is that both the Kandas refer to Shri Ram as God instead of an ordinary human being! 5. Shri Bhattacharjya is overlooking the fact that it is because of Maharshi Valmiki being the author of (Valmiki) Ramayana that it is held in high esteem, and not because it is a work by some good for nothing jyotishis! 6. Regarding the " astrological knowledge " of the past Hindiu (Vedic!) Jyotishis the only indigenous work on predictive astrology that is said to be the oldest one is Brihat Jatakam by Varahamihira, who has said " Spashtatro Savitrah " i.e. " The Surya Sidhanta is the most accurate of all the five sidahntas " . 7. As is common knowledge by now, the Surya Sidhanta is actually the most monstrous astronomical work written by Maya the mlechha, by taking the subterfuge that it had been revealed to him by none other than Surya Bhagwa himself or his plenipotentiary! It was actually a ploy on Maya the mlechha's part, cunning as he was, to preclude any scientific evaluation of that work! And if Varahamihira found that very work to be the most accurate for astrological predictions, you can well imagine the standard and acumen of Bharatiya Jyotishis of the past! The same Varahamihira who is said to be the " Greatest astrologer of Indian history " was actually the greatest charlatan as he could make correct predictions (only) from incorrect data! 8. It is also common knowledge that till the advent of modern astronomy from overseas observatories, India calculated planetary longitudes from one or the other or monstrous astronomical work, viz. the sidhantas or Grahalaghava by Ganesha Daivajnya (16th century AD). Thus till a couple of centuries back, correct birth charts by " Bharatiya jyotishis " was a pipe dream, making correct predictions practically impossible! 9. It is obvious that the jyotihis who have interpolated the original Valmiki/Adhyatma Ramayana with astrological jargon must have done it by concoction, i.e.; by manufacturing some astrological planetary combinations that could account for Bhagwan Ram's divine qualities and His miseries etc. simultaneously. 10. Such a concoction is evident from the fact that those useless jyotishis have not said it anywhere, except for the Moon and Brihaspati, and maybe even the sun, as to which planet occupied which sign but have made a very shoddy work by saying, " five planets were either exalted or in their own signs " , thus leaving the matter hanging in air! If they had been sure about the planetary positions, they had already accounted for the sun being exalted, the moon in its own sign and Brihaspati in exaltation, they could easily have stated as to which of the two other planets, out of the remaining four. were in their own signs or exalted and given the whole chart of Shri Ram. These jyotishis would not have been silent about Rahu-kethu either! 11. Since prior to the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha, we do not have any astronomical work in India that tells us as to how to " manufacture " the planets vis-à-vis Mesha etc. Rashis, obviously, those interpolations for imaginary divine charts in the Valmiki and Adhyatama Ramayana also are on the basis of that very monstrous astronomical work! 12. This view is confirmed by the fact that the same useless and semi-literate jyotishis, who have done concoctions of planetary data of Lord Rama and his siblings' charts have also said in the Balakanda that " Lord Rama was destined to rule for eleven thousand years " and then in Uttarakanda, they have said, on the basis of the same mlecchha work viz. the Surya Sidhanta " Shri Ram had ruled for eleven thousand years " because it is the Surya Sidhanta that talks of the duration of yugas in millions of years! 13. Thus it is clear that such " adulterations " /interpolations in the Valmiki and Adhyatma have been done in the post-Surya Sidhanta era, i.e. after around first century BCE and cannot be attributed to any other period earlier than that by any stretch of imagination, leave alone calculation! Even today " Vedic jyotishis " make correct predictions only from incorrect data- " paapi pet ka sawaal " It is not only in the past when India did not have any correct planetary data that correct predictions were made from the same, even today, the same thing is happening! Ninety-nine per cent of today's " Vedic astrologers " make correct predictions (sic!) from Lahiri Ayanamsha! And that Ayanamsha is based on a so called fictitious position of the Vernal Equinox of 285 AD being opposite Star Chitra (Spica) then! That ayanamsha was invented by late N. C. Lahiri only to make his solar Snakrantis coincide with Grahalaghava Sankrantis, so as to sell his own Vishudha Sihanta Panjika in Bangla and Lahiri's Indian Ephemeris in English---uka apnaa paapi pet ka swaal tha! That Ayanamsha is otherwise just meaningless and without any astronomical or even Shastric/sidhantic sanction! But in spite of the same, " Vedic astrologers " do make correct predictions from that very Ayanamsha! It is not that any other ayanamsha, including zero ayanamsha, is scientific or even sidhantic, but who bothers---at least not the " Vedic astrologers " . It is immaterial to them if because of the Ayanamsha curse the entire Hindu community is celebrating all the festivals on wrong days! Aakhir un jyotishiyoon ka paapi pet ka sawal jo hai! Adhyatma Ramyana and Valmiki Ramayana---both have impossible astronomical combinations! Shri Bhattacharjya has said in his post, " It also tallies with what is given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana from the Purana " The Adhyatma Ramayana, 1/3/14-15, has said, " Shri Ram was born in the month of Madhu(masa), Shukla paksha, on Navmi tithi, in Karkata lagna, in Punarvasu naksahtra, with the sun in Mesha and five planets exalted " . This planetary position also has an inherent incongruence! Madhu-masa is the first Vedic month of Vasanta Ritu. It starts exactly after two months of the Shishira Ritu which starts from the day of Uttarayana i.e. Winter Solstice. In astrological jargon of today, it can be said that Madhu-masa starts always with the ingress of the sun into so called Sayana Mina Rashi. Lunar Chaitra Shukla paksha starts with the first New Moon after that and is actually the start of Vasanti Navratra. Since a new Lunar Vasanta starts from that day, that is why it is known as vasanti Navratra. As it was the month of Madhu, it could not be the so called Sayana Mesha Surya. That just is not possible at all! That leaves us with the only alternative that it must have been some so called nirayana Mesha Surya, if at all such a sayana-versus-nirayana " disease " existed even then! That means the ayanamsha between the so called sayana surya and the so called nirayana surya must have been either minus by about 30 degrees or plus by about 330 degrees! It could not be minus thirty degrees since the ayanamsha that " Vedic astrologers " are following these days is anywhere between minus 20 and minus 26 degrees and the nirayana ahead is ahead by about one month of so called sayana sankranti i.e. if the Sayana Mesha Sankranti takes place on March 21 the nirayana falls on April 15! Thus if we take that the so called sayana sun was in Mina (Madhumasa) but nirayana sun was in Mesha with an ayanamsha of about 30 degrees, that means Bhagwan Ram incarnated only a few centuries back---after 285 AD---or as an alternative He may Incarnate in the ensuing couple of centuries, since the ayanamsha as on date is only about 20 to 26 degrees (minus), and may take another couple of centuries to cover the deficit 4 degrees! So we are left with the only alternative and that is to take the ayanamsha as plus 330 degrees! At the rate of about one degree per seventy two years, roughly, for ayanamsha, it must have been about 330 multiplied by 72 = 23760 years from zero year of " almighty Lahiri Ayanamsha " i.e. 285 AD. That means as per the concoction of some useless jyotishis in the Adyatma Ramayana and Valmiki Ramayana, Bhagwan Ram incarnated in about 23760+285 i.e., about 24000 BCE, about which no " Vedic astrologer " has said anything! However, even if we go that far into past, there also we have problems galore! It could never be the Vedic month Madhu since Lahiri Chaitra would have preceded Madhu, quite contrary to what is happening these days---Lahiri Chaitra succeeding Madhu almost after Vedic Madhumasa has ended! Thus whichever way we look at it, whether Sayana or nirayana Mesha sun could never have coincided with Vedic Madhu and lunar Chaitra! Since the interpolator in Adyatma Ramayana, whom Shri Bhattacharjya is claiming to be Vedavyasa Himself, does not appear to have had any knowledge of even sidhantic astronomy, that is why he has made such clumsy statements---clubbed the month of Vedic Madhu with Chaitra and the sun in Mesha! Ironically, it could not have been Vasanta Ritu either, whether the sun was in so called Sayana Mesha or so called nirayana Mesha! That is just not possible! That much for " Vedic Jyotishi " Bhattacharjya's knowledge of astronomy and astrology! Bhagwan Ram was born anywhere between 157 BCE and 24000 BCE according to " Vedic astrologers " and " Vedic astronomers " ---confusion worst confounded! You can well imagine as to how " correct " the planetary positions of the Valmiki and Adhyatma Ramayana are from the fact that on the basis of one and the same planetary data, there are innumerable dates of birth of Shri Ram: (i) as per Shri Sreenadh, the owner of ancinent_indian_astrology_group (), Bhagwan Ram was born on March 14, 157 BCE, but (ii) as per Pushkar Bhatnagar, He incarnated on January 10, 5114 BCE, whereas (iii) as per Dr. P. V. Vartak, He incarnated on December 4, 7323 BCE but (iv) as per Prafulla Vamana Mendki, He incarnated on February 7, 7558 BCE, but (iv) as per Sunil Bhattacharjya He had incarnated in 7319 BCE, though the last named " Vedic astrologer " seems to have changed his mind now and thinks that He incarnated in 7323 BCE. (iv) Shri T.S. Krishna Moorthy of Astronomy_activities_2009 concludes that He incarnated about fifteen thousand years back whereas the ayanamsha riddle tells us that He incarnated in about 24000 BCE! You can rest assured that all these " Vedic astrologers " have arrived at their conclusions on the basis of " Vedic astronomy " Naturally, you cannot have more " accurate " planetary positions than the ones that lead to such " consensus " of opinion---from 157 BCE to 24000 BCE! Impossible astrological and astronomical in the Valmiki & Adhyatma Ramayana! Mr. Bhattacharjya has said, " As regards the birth in the Navami tithi in the end of Punarvasu in cancer the Moon went ahead of the Sun by just 96 degrees (for the the first eight tithis of the paksha) just before the noon time, so that it was Navami tithi by the time when Lord Rama was born " . The irony is that " Vedic astrologers " , including Shri Bhattacharjya, do not known even ABC of either sidhantic or modern astronomy and that is why they exhibit their ignorance under the impression that they are proving their mastery over the same! It could also be that they understand as to how impossible it is for such astronomical combinations to take place, but just to make a fool of a common man with their technical jargon, they go on insisting on their " proofs " . Let us, therefore, analyze this point also thoroughly. Anybody knowing even a bit of sidhantic or modern astronomy must be aware that Navmi tithi starts when the Moon is away from the sun by ninety-six degrees. Thus if the sun is in Mesha-even if it is almost zero amasha, the Moon has to be in six plus degrees of karkata! But Punarvasu nakshatra ends as soon as the Moon enters 3.333 degrees of Karkata! Thus there was a difference of 6 minus 3.3333 i.e. 2.6666 degrees between the ending of Punarvasu nakshatra andthe start of Navmi tithi. Example is better than precept! Presuming that Bhagwan Ram was born at Noon on day X, when Navmi tithi had just started, and presuming that the Moon traveled at the rate of one degree in two hours, the average rate, it is clear that Navmi tithi must have started at least 2.66 multiplied by 2 = 5.3333 hours after the Punarvasu nakshatra had ended, and by that logic, Punarvasu nakshatra had already ended before seven a.m. whereas Shri Ram Incarnated at about Noon! Thus Shri Ram could not have Incarnated in Punarvasu nakshatra and Navmi tithi simultaneously at all! So three more cheers for Shri Bhattacharjya's knowledge of jyotisha as well as astronomy! The planetary details of Bharata and Lakshmana-Shatrugana duo in the Valmiki Ramayana is imagination of some jyotishi run riot! Shri Bhattacharjya has said, " Shri Kaul has not read the Valmiki Ramayana properly if at all he read it. In 1.18.8 -11 & 15 it is clearly mentioned that Lord Rama was born in Karkata lagna and at the noontime (Abhijit Muhurta). Bharata was born in Meena Lagna and that means Bharata was born about 14 hours later. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born on the next day when the Sun rose in Ashlesha. As Shri Kaul does not know astrology he is finding fault with the data from the Ramayana " . The Gita Press translation of the shlokas 1/18/8-9 is, " In the meantime six seasons (from the last Vasanta) rolled away after the sacrifice was over. Then on the ninth lunar day of the bright fortnight of Chaitra, the twelfth month after the conclusion of the sacrifices, when the asterism Punarvasu, presided over by Aditi, was in the ascendant and as many as five planets viz. the Sun, Mars, Saturn and Venus happened to be exalted (appeared in zodiacal signs of Mesha or Aries, Makara or Capricornus, Tula or Libra, Karka or Cancer and Mina or Pisces respectively), and Jupiter in conjunction with the moon appeared in the zodiacal sign of Karka, mother Kaushalya, the eldest wife of Dhasharatha, gave birth to a highly blessed son named Shri Ram, who was no other than the Lord of the universe " Similarly, as per the same Balakanda 18/15-16, Gita Press translation states, " Bharata of cheerful mind was born when the constellation Pushya was in the ascendant and the Sun had entered the 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 sign of Karkata, i.e. Cancer " . So it is clear that Shri Bhattacharjya has himself either not read the Ramayana or has not understood the meaning or is deliberately trying to befool the common man with his " scholarship " and knowledge of history and Sanskrit! When the original Sanskrit sholka states, " saarpe jatav to saumitrav kulleere abyudete ravav " , it imeans that " the sons of Sumitra were born with the Moon in Ashlesha and the sun in Kuleera i.e. Cancer i.e. Karkata Rashi " . Even if we presume that the Gitra Press translator goofed up when he said that Bharata was born with sun in Mina instead of Mina lagna, but for anyone knowing Sanskrit there cannot be any other meaning for the shloka indicating that the " Sons of Sumitra were born with the sun in Kuleera " ! And that means that that both Lakshman and Shatrugana were younger to Shri Ram and Bharata by four months or they were elder to Shri Ram and Bharata by eight months! So " Vedic Jyotishi " Bhattacharjya is deliberately not pondering on the facts himself! Goswami Tulsidas is silent about Punarvau nakshatra and exaltation of planets! Ramacharitamanasa of Goswami Tulsidas is worshipped in Northern and Central India etc. like the Valmiki Ramayana. It has said (191 Doha), " The lagna, the yoga and planets etc. were all favourable. It was navmi tithi of Madhu-masa, shukla paksha, and Abhijit muhurta, at Noon, when Shri Ram was born " . Thus Tulsidas is silent about " five planets being exalted or in their own signs " and, what is most surprising, about Punarvasu nakshatra! That itself is an indication that Tulsidas too was not very happy with planetary concoction, and he could understand that Navmi tithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, with the sun in Mesha and Moon in Karkata were just not possible, whatever " Vedic Jyotishis " like Shri Bhattacharjya may say! Interpolator Jyotishis also have said that Ram was the Lord of the universe! The main reason of Shri Bhattacharjya's view of Balakanda and Uttarakanda being concoction by someone else is that both these " kandas " refer to Shri Ram as God (Ishwara) instead of an ordinary human being, and therefore could not have been written by Valmiki! But the useless jyotishis, who have made these jyotisha concoctions in the VR also say the same thing, " Kaushalya, the eldest wife of Dasharatha, gave birth to a highly blessed son named Shri Ram, who was no other than the Lord of the Universe " ! So how does Shri Bhattacharjya reconcile with that? Similarly, does Mr. Bhatacharjya mean that it is only " Vedic astrologers " and not Valmiki or Vedavyasa who consider Shri Ram as God? If yes, then he is just misinterpreting everything deliberately, since in the Rama-Gita of Adyatma Ramayana, Shri Ram has said (shloka 61 of Rama-Gita), " yah sevate mam agunam gunat param, hrida kada va yadi va gunatmakam, so aham sva padanchit renubih sprashan, punai loka tritayam yatha ravih " . He must ponder on its meaning and shun his " Vedic jyotisha " obstinacy in subjecting divine Incarnations also to planetary suzerainty! " Vedic astrologers " have made Dwapara-yuga vanish into thin air-or is it " alpaayu-yoga " ? Shri Bhattacharjya says further, " Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga and it is likely that 28 nakshatras were counted in those days and not 27 nakshatras as we do these days " This is yet another ludicrous statement! " Bhattacharjya Ram " was born in 7323 BCE and it was Treta-yuga then. According to " Vedic astrologers " , including Mr. Bhattacharjya, Kaliyuyga started in 3102 BCE. So when did Dwapara Yuga start actually and when did it end? Presuming that it started in around 7500 BCE, it must have ended latest by 3102 BCE, i.e. in about 4,500 years. We, however, know it already that as per these very " Vedic astrologers " including Bhattachajya Jyotishi, Kaliyuga has already been going on for more than five thousand years, and it is not likely to end in the near future! How can these " Vedic astrologers " make Dwapara yuga have an " alpaayu " of just about 4500 years but make Kaliyuga a Dirgajeevi of tens of thousands of years if not hundreds of thousands of years? Why are they bent on confusing the general public with their jyotisha jargon and concoction? " Bhattaacharjya Ram " died after ruling only for thirty years! In another post, Shri Bhattacharjya has said that Shri Ram ruled only for thirty years instead of eleven thousand years! This is yet another fantastic statement! Presuming that Shri Ram was exiled when He was hardly about 17/18 and after living in exile for 14 years, He returned to Ayodhya, where, as per Shri Bhattacharjya, He ruled only for thirty years! That means He passed away hardly at the age of sixty or so! That is really a shattering statement, since it means that Rakshasas like Ravana could rule for a much longer period and thus live up to their ripe ages, but Maryada Purushotam Ram had to die of an akalamrityu, though the Valmiki Ramayana says that Shri Ram ruled for eleven thousand years! You can well imagine the " omnipotence " of " Vedic astrologers " like Shri Bhattacharjya, who can literally create and kill even Divine incarnations like Shri Ram as and when it pleases them under whatever planetary jargon and concoction it suits them! Mr. Bhattacharjy, pl. give a point by point reply instead of beating about the bush! Shri Bhattacharjya has said, " I also agree with Shri Hattangadi that Shri Kaul only criticizes and his post do not contain any cogent reasons " . I am sure the forum members will see it for themselves that every point raised by Shri Bhattacharjya has been analyzed, discussed and then repudiated with cogent proofs. The criticism of " Vedic astrology " and " Vedic astrologers " has been done on the bases of the faulty data of the Valmiki Ramayana and the Adyatma Ramayana etc., and it has been proved that they are concoctions of a post Surya Sidhanta era. I hope Shri Bhattcharjya will now realize that he has been giving all the wrong reasons and logic in support of his faulty arguments and not be vindictive and continue to bark wrong trees. I would, therefore, request Shri Bhattacharjya that instead of beating about the bush, he must reply every point of this post, which has been composed after sifting the grain from the chaff. With regards, A K Kaul On Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:43 p.m. Dating of Ramayana Period <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Dear friends, Shri Kaul said " Nobody has his own calculations, not even Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar! " . He is not well informed and that is why he said like this. Dr. Vartak made his own calculations and arrived at the most correct date uptill now. Further he gave the foremost importance to the precessional data to find out the approximate period when Lord rama was born and then only he zeroed in on the correct date using the other astronomical calculations. I also agree with Shri Hattangadi that Shri Kaul only criticises and his post do not contain any cogent reasons. Nobody expressed any doubt about the accuracy of Shri Narasimha Rao's software, anywhere. But software is helpless if the input is not proper. Even if one uses a good software one has to make sure that the input is correct. Shri Kaul has not read the Valmiki Ramayana properly if at all he read it. In 1.18.8 -11 & 15 it is clearly mentioned that Lord Rama was born in Karkata lagna and at the noontime (Abhijit Muhurta). Bharata was born in Meena Lagna and that means Bharata was born about 14 hours later. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born on the next day when the Sun rose in Ashlesha. As Shri Kaul does not know astrology he is finding fault with the data from the Ramayana. Even if the Bala Kanda and the Uttara Kanda had been composed by someone other than Valmiki he or she had given the astrological data about Lord Rama's birth correctly. It also tallies with what is given by Vedavyasa in the Adhyatma Ramayana from the Purana. As regards the birth in the Navami tithi in the end of Punarvasu in cancer the Moon went ahead of the Sun by just 96 degrees (for the the first eight tithis of the paksha) just before the noon time, so that it was Navami tithi by the time when Lord Rama was born. Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga and it is likely that 28 nakshatras were counted in those days and not 27 nakshatras as we do these days. This is because we find the mention of the fall of Abhijit only in the Mahabharata when Lord Indra tells Lord Skanda (who could be the composer of the Skanda Hora and Lord Indra might be asking him to go for the division of the ecliptic among 27 nakshatras.) about the fall of Abhijit, though the actual fall or drifting away had actually occurred several millennia before Lord Rama's time. So we have to consider this aspect also. It is very painful to see Shri Kaul's unjustifiable and baseless criticisms of the text of the Ramayana. If he had fair idea of when Lord Rama was born and if he could say how he arrived at that date, then only he should have thought of criticising other's work, even though Pushkar Bhatnagar proposed a wrong date. Shri Kaul made a general derogatory statement something like " Paapi pet kaa sawaal hai " to demean all those who are interested in the correct date of of Lord Rama, though his statement may be true only in case of Pushkar Bhatnagar, who has been miting money through the sale of that faulty book but not the other scholars who are genuinely interested that the true date of Lord Rama should be told. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 9/13/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: jyotirvedjyotirved Dating of Ramayana Period Cc: indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , hinducalendar , " subash razdan " <subashrazdan Sunday, September 13, 2009, 8:30 AM 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.