Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re:Originality of Suryasiddhanta Friday, May 15, 2009, 3:22 PM Nowhere (whether before or after 1902CE) it is mentioned that the Kaliyuga was extended to 432,000 years. We are unnecessarily prolonging the discussions.  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 5/14/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki <prafulla_mendki wrote: prafulla Vaman Mendki <prafulla_mendki Re:Originality of Suryasiddhanta Thursday, May 14, 2009, 8:18 PM prafulla_mendki@ .co. in writes: Mahabharata v.231.18/19/ 20/21 also mentions human years(not Divya years).According to these vesres, Krut,Treta ,Dwapar and Kali are 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 human years resp. v.231.18 clearly mentions " Ratryahani Jivaloukike " which means human days and nights.(which refers to days and night made by Sun as given in v.231.15) Also purans are not written at one time. They contain mixure of old and new verses. Some verses are written when Kaliyug was about to end (i.e.before 1902BC.) Prafulla Prafulla ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Vinayji, > > 1) > I have no problem if you think that Lord Rama was born Million years ago according to the Yuga calculations you follow. You can live with your date of Lord Rama. But I shall go by the Pauranic Vamshavali from Kashyap to Manu and by the descriptions of the two Vamshas ie. Surya Vamsha and the Chandra Vamsha (mentioned in the purana). These details convince me that Lord Rama was born around 9,300 years ago and not Million years ago as you think. This is further confirmed by the work of Dr. Vartak. >  > 2) > Good that you clarified that according to you Burgess gave wrong translation only in some places and his translation is largely correct > . > 3) > You imagioned that I have not read the Suryasiddhanta and advised me to read the Suryasiddhanta published by several others and at the same time you said that you will not allow me to see your book from your website. How do you know that I have not read Suryasiddhanta? If you do not want me to see your book that is okay with me but do not give false excuses that you consider me to be a drunkard and that is why you do not want to give me your book. You seem to be obsessed with wine and you so frequently mention about wine. In the AIA group you said that Tantra is anti-Vedic and you meant that people following the Tantric practices have to drink wine and do other undesirable practices. In reply to that I said that Kularnava Tantra says that it is based on Veda. I also mentioned that the folowers of Tantra are not necessarily drunkards. I said that in case of wine Tantra recommends several alternatives. To a non-drinker it has given the substitutes. > The drinkers can take alipan or can take upto 2 tolas. Talking about how much wine Tantra recommends does not make me a drinker. Think about it. > >  -Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > >  >  > > --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:05 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Ji, > > > > Here are pointwise answers to wrong points raised by you : > > > > <<< > > 1)Yes, the concept of 4320,000 years for the Mahayuga is wrong as Lord Rama was born only about 9300 years ago in the Treta yuga. > > >>> > > Earlier you said the concept of 4320000 years for the Mahayuga was my > > invention, now you say this concept is wrong but do not specify whether > > I introduced this supposedly wrong concept or it existed before I was > > born. Lord Rama born about 9300 years ago is your invention, having no > > evidence of any sort. It is based on your fictious assumption of 12000 > > human years in a mahayuga. > > > > <<< > > 2)When you criticise Burgess's translation as inaccurate then is it not > > shameful to quote from the same translation of Burgess. Instead of > > gracefully accepting your lapse you are telling me that I am poking fun > > at you. Did you expect me to praise you for your double standard? > > >>> > > Burgess made many serious mistakes in translating some portions, but it > > does not mean he is 100% wrong everywhere. In an English forum, I am > > forced to cite the only available English translator of Suryasiddhanta, > > and when I find some wrong portions in such translations, I have to > > point out the errors. It is a valid stand, which you call " shameful " , > > " lapse " , " double standard " ! I also sent you names of Sanskrit, Hindi > > and Bengali translators of Suryasiddhanta, which you omit to mention > > and divert the discussion from length of divya varsha in Suryasiddhanta > > to a discussion on my " shameful " character , yet charging me of playing > > " diversionary tactics " ! > > > > <<< > > 3)You need not give me any unsolicited details as to where to get which > > book when you yourself said that you are removing your book from your > > website so that I should not be able to see that. Should I send you > > back your email to refresh your memory? Another example of your > > double-standard. Is that the nobility of a Brahmachari? > > >>> > > Only 300 copies of my books were printed, and not a single copy was > > sold. It was given to chosen persons, none of whom had praised the > > virtues of wine before me. I cannot give my book to such a person at > > any cost, unless he vows never to drink again. Manusmriti says one > > should not even talk to a person who drinks wine. Communication through > > email is not tantamount to talking. Please do not take it personally, > > it is my anability to break my principles. I knew sending reference to > > websites which offer ancient texts freely will offend and provok you , > > because these ancient siddhantic texts invariably speak of 4320000 > > solar years for a mahayuga. For instance, in the first verse of > > Dashageetikaa of Aryabhatiya, Sun's bhagana number per (maha)yuga is 4320000 and Earth's rotations are given to be 1582237500(15822378 28in Suryasiddhanta, this minor difference being due to Sunrise system of > > day count in Aryabhatiya in contrast to midnight system ofSuryasiddhanta) . Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta( BSS) repeats the mathematics of Mahabharata (MBh-v-231) in its first chapter verses 4-7, in which 4320000 normal > > solar years of humans are said to make one mahayuga (see verses 5-6) > > and 1000 such mahayugas are said to make one Kalpa (BSS, ch-i, verse > > 10). Hence, Suryasiddhanta, Aryabhatiya and Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta > > all clearly say one mahayuga to be equal to 4320000 years and not > > 43200000 days as you wrongly tried to prove by misquoting texts. Should > > I cite your previous mails to remind you of your own stand ? When I > > requested you to see original texts and offered you website addresses > > where these texts are freely available, why you became infuriated ? Is > > truth so abominable to you that you cannot restraint your violent > > nature and start abusing my supposedly " shameless " character ? You > > stand is refuted by all these ancient texts : Suryasiddhanta, > > Aryabhatiya and Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta, Mahabharata, NaradaPurana, Vishnu Dharmottara Purana, etc, all of which unanimously say > > that one mahayuga is of 4320000 years or 1582237828 days which is equal > > to 12000 divine years. > > > > <<< > > 4)Prafulla may be right but he has to give me the reference where it is > > said that the span of the Kaliyuga has been selectively extended, as > > claimed by him. > > >>> > > The span of the Kaliyuga having been selectively extended is an > > invention of Prafulla ji, there is no proof anywhere. But it means he > > knows the siddhanta texts which clearly declare a mahayuga to be of > > 12000 divya and 4320000 human years, which he imagines to be a later > > extension of original 12000 years for a mahayuga which he infers from > > an out-f-context reading of MBh-ii-188, forgetting to consult MBh-v-231 > > where same verse is repeated in fuller context. > > > > <<< > > 5)The verse in the Mahabharata says about Daiva Varsha, and that is the > > same as the polar year where the daylight is there for six months long > > and the night is also six months long. Daiva here means the year of the > > Devas. In Mahabharata the span is given in terns of Solar years. > > >>> > > It is welcome that you at least accept the existence of Daiva varsha in > > Mahabharata( MBh), but here again you are deliberately distorting the > > verses of MBh. MBh does not say its daiva varsha is meant for the > > (imaginary) residents of Poles, but says what I earlier communicated. I > > know you will not accept truth, because you have no faith neither in > > Suryasiddhanta( SS) nor in MBh, but I am here quoting verses of MBh > > which falsify your stand : > > > > MBh-khanda 5-chapter 231-verse15 says " ahoraatre vibhajate Suryau > > maanushalaukike " , which means days and nights of manushya loka is > > made/divided by Surya. verse 17 says " Daive raatryahanee varsham > > pravibhaagastayoh punah , ahastatrodagayanam raatrih syad > > dakshinaayanam " : in which " Daive raatryahanee varsham " means " varsha > > is equal to day+night of gods " . Here varsha is varsha of > > maanushalaukike which is to be taken from preceding two verses. Rest of > > verse 17 means " this daiva day+night is divided thus : uttara (ayana) > > is divine day and dakshinaayana is divine night " . MBh clearly says that > > the maanushalaukika year is solar year : see verse 15 above which says > > that Sun divides/makes day and night in maanushalaukika (but not in > > devaloka). > > > > <<< > > 6) What the verses say is that as revealed by Brahma he is going to > > tell about the span of the yugas. (We all know that Brahma'sday is one > > Kalpa and that is equal to 1000 Mahayugas and His night is also of the > > same length and these are not included in those few verses.) > > >>> > > No Sir, you are deliberately misquoting this verse (MBh,v,231,18) which says : > > > > " ye te raatryahanee poorvam keertite Jeevalaukike , > > tayoh samkhyaaya varshaagram Braahme vakshyaamyahahkshap e " . > > > > It means : > > " These days and nights of Jeevaloka which have been told in preceding verses (verses 15-17) > > On the basis of those year numbers I (Vyaasa Ji) am now telling days and nights of brahmaa (in following verses) " > > > > In those 'following " verses, Vyaasa ji describes 12000 years in a > > mahayuga divided into four yugas, but verse 18 clearly says these > > durations of year are according to the ratios described in preceding > > verses, esp verse 17 which says one human year is equal to one divine year. Hence, > > chronology of Brahmaa Ji cannot be as per maanava varsha but as per > > divine varsha, if Vyaasa Ji took Brahmaa to be a divinity. > > > > Apply this sentence to yourself : " Please read my mail carefully and > > reply to the point if you want to and not play some diversionary > > tactics. " > > > > Now I have lost all hopes that you will ever listen to either fact or > > reason. You have to distort ancient texts according to your imaginary > > conceptions. But why you charged me wrongly of inventing a concept of > > 4320000 years for a mahayuga, when it is clearly said in all relevant > > ancient texts ? If you have to disown and refute these ancient texts, > > no one can prevent you, but do it honestly, instead of taking recourse > > to deceitful tactics. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ========= = ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology > > Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:50:07 PM > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Vinayji, > > > > 1) > > Yes, the concept of 4320,000 years for the Mahayuga is wrong as Lord Rama was born only about 9300 years ago in the Treta yuga. > > 2) > > When you criticise Burgess's translation as inaccurate then is it not shameful to quote from the same translation of Bur5gess. Instead of gracefully accepting your lapse you are telling me that I am poking fun at you. Did you expect me to praise you for your double standard? > > 3) > > You need not give me any unsolicited details as to where to get which book when you yourself said that you are removing your book from your website so that I should not be able to see that. Should I send you back your email to refresh your memory? Another example of your double-standard. Is that the nobility of a Brahmachari? > > 4) > > Prafulla may be right but he has to give me the reference where it is said that the span of the Kaliyuga has been selectively extended, as claimed by him. > > 5) > > The verse in the Mahabharata says about Daiva Varsha, and that is the same as the polar year where the daylight is there for six months long and the night is also six months long. Daiva here means the year of the Devas. In Mahabharata the span is given in terns of Solar years. > > 6) > > What the verses say is that as revealed by Brahma he is going to tell about the span of the. yugas. (We all know that Brahma'sday is one Kalpa and that is equal to 1000 Mahayugas and His night is also of the same length and these are not included in those few verses.) > > > > Please read my mail carefully and reply to the point if you want to and not play some diversionary tactics. > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Sunday, May 10, 2009, 11:52 PM > > > > To All, esp. Sunil Ji and Prafull ji, > > > > Sunil Ji is trying hard to prove that the Vedic-Puranic- Siddhaantic yuga > > > > concept of 4320,000 years is a misinterpretation or deliberate lie of > > > > Vinay Jha. He wrongly says that divya year was equal to normal solar > > > > year. When I sent him citations from Suryasiddhanta, he poked fun at me > > > > for quoting the English translation of Burgess. Then, I sent his website > > > > addresses for procuring Bengali and names of publishers of Sanskrit > > > > versions, after which he ignored the evidence of Suryasiddhanta and > > > > diverted the topic to Mahabharata. Mr Prafulla Mendki has joined him, by > > > > quoting verses of MBh out of context. > > > > Prafulla Ji quoted rightly, the Gita Press version of MBh contains same > > > > verses with exactly same verse number and chapter number as Prafull Ji > > > > cited (MBh 2.188.22-28, Markandeya Samasyaparva) . This chapter > > > > 188 does not make it clear whether divya year is meant or normal year. > > > > But as I earlier sent the reference to Sunil Ji which he ignored, > > > > exactly same verse (2.188.22) occurs in MBh again in > > > > Moksha-dharma- parva 5.231.20 without a single word differing. But > > > > verses 2.188.23-25 have been summarized succinctly in 5.231.21, without > > > > any difference in meaning. But these verses should be read in proper > > > > context of preceding verses : verses 5.231.17-19 make it clear that the > > > > year is divya, equal to 360 normal years. This does not > > > > allow me to attach file in the files sections, hence I am sending the > > > > scanned copy of this page of Gita Press edition which is in Hindi to > > > > personal email ID of Sunil Ji. If he ignores this proof as he has done > > > > so far, I will upload this scanned page to some website and request > > > > members to see how Sunil Ji is playing with facts and calling me names > > > > for stating the truth. > > > > Please also see the only online version of complete MBh at > > > > http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ , esp its 5.231 > > > > chapter at > > > > http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ mahabharata_ 12b058.php > > > > whose relevant portions are as : > > > > <<<<< " Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. > > > > Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the > > > > tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty > > > > Muhurtas make up one day and night. Thirty days and nights are called a > > > > month, and twelve months are called a year. Persons conversant with > > > > mathematical science say that a year is made up of two ayanas (dependent > > > > on sun's motion), viz., the northern and the southern. The sun makes the > > > > day and the night for the world of man. The night is for the sleep of > > > > all living creatures, and the day is for the doing of action. A month of > > > > human beings is equal to a day and night of the Pitris. That division > > > > (as regards the Pitris) consists in this: the lighted fortnight (of men) > > > > is their day which is for the doing of acts; and the dark fortnight is > > > > their night for sleep. A year (of human beings) is equal to a day and > > > > night of the gods. The division (as regards the gods) consists in this: > > > > the half year for which the sun travels from the vernal to the autumnal > > > > equinox is the day of the deities, and the half year for which the sun > > > > travels from the latter to the former is their night. Computing by the > > > > days and nights of human beings about which I have told thee, I shall > > > > speak of the day and night of Brahman and his years also. I shall, in > > > > their order, tell thee the number of years, that are (thus) for > > > > different purposes computed differently in respect of the Krita, the > > > > Treta, the Dwapara, and the Kali yugas. Four thousand years (of the > > > > deities) is the duration of the first or Krita age. The morning of that > > > > epoch consists of four hundred years and its evening is of four hundred > > > > years. (The total duration, therefore, of the Krita yuga is four > > > > thousand and eight hundred years of the deities). As regards the other > > > > yugas, the duration of each gradually decreases by a quarter in respect > > > > of both the substantive period with the conjoining portion and the > > > > conjoining portion itself. (Thus the duration of the Treta is three > > > > thousand years and its morning extends for three hundred years and its > > > > evening for three hundred). The duration of the Dwapara also is two > > > > thousand years, and its morning extends for two hundred years and its > > > > evening also for two hundred. The duration of the Kali yuga is one > > > > thousand years, and its morning extends for one hundred years, and its > > > > evening for one hundred. " >>>>> > > > > I had sent this reference to Sunil Ji, which he ignored. Sunil ji will > > > > get the scanned copy of Gita Press version within a few minutes through > > > > email. But I know he will ignore the evidence of MBh as he did of > > > > Suryasiddhanta, and will try to find some other text where no > > > > differentiation is made between divya and human years due to brevity, > > > > and use such " proofs " for advancing his wrong theory of 12000 human > > > > years for a Mahayuga. > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > ============ ====== ==== > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > You made the statement: > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Quote > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > > > > > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Unquote > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Do I have to ask you for the Mahabharata reference for this > > > > statementà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ or have I to accept your word for it? I think it would > > > > have been betterà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ if you would have substantiated that statement. > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Suni K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > The answer toyour quetion is: > > > > > Ifà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ Kaliyug was not extended ,then it would have ended in 1902BC > > > > and there would have been only eight Avatars. > > > > > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > > > > > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > > > > > We can not change whatever happened in history because it is past. > > > > > But we can redefine Yug system in future again if all agree. > > > > > Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/5/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > > > > > > Cc: " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ..., > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > Thursday, 7 May, 2009, 4:32 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > So you mean to say that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE (3102-1200 > > > > = 1902) and the ninth Avatara of Lord Buddhaà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ has occurred inà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > the Satya yuga. So in the last Mahayuga there were only eight > > > > Avataras.à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:40 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > Chatvari ahu: sahastrani varshanam tat ktrutam yugamà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ | > > > > > tasya tavat shati sanshya sandyansha: cha tathavidha:à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ || > > > > 2.188.22|| > > > > > trini varshasahastrani tretayugam iha uchyate| > > > > > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandyansha: cha tat: param|| 2.188.23|| > > > > > tatha varshasahastre dve dwaparam parimanat: | > > > > > tasya api dwi shati sandhya sandhyansha: cha tathavidha :|| 2.188.24|| > > > > > sahatrasm ekam varshanam tat: kaliyugam smrutam| > > > > > tasya varshshatam sandhi: sandhyansha: cha tat: param|| > > > > > sandhi sandhyanshyo: tulayam pramanam updharaya|| 2.188.25|| > > > > > prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Cc: , > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > Tuesday, 5 May, 2009, 11:15 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > I am referring to the textavailable from the " Sacred texts " site. Why > > > > don't you give the five verses that you are referring to? > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > I am refering to Gitapress Khanda 2(Vanparva and Viratparva) in which > > > > > Markandeya Samasyaparva is present.188. 22 is on page 1482.Are you > > > > refering to Gitapress or some other Edition? > > > > > Prafulla > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 30/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Thursday, 30 April, 2009, 7:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Mahabharata Book - 2 is Sabha-Parva and that does not have the > > > > Markandeya-Samasya Parva. Only the Book - 3 is Vana-Parva or > > > > Aranya-Parva and that has the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. In the > > > > Markandeya-Samasya Parva there is no verse like you have quoted. > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjyaà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > I am refering to MBH2( not 3) 188.22 to 188.26( Gitapress) pages 1482 > > > > & 1483 > > > > > Chatvaryahu: sahastrani varshanam tat krutam yugam > > > > > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandhyansha: à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ ch tathavidha: .... > > > > > Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 29/4/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " prafulla Vaman Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 5:05 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > The verse (MBH 3.188.22) is as follows: > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±Ã\ ¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà ¸±â‚¬\ à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°\ à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " Ã\ ¸°' > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸šà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚†" `à ¸±\ â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸žà ¸±â‚Â\ ¬Ã ¸°à ¸•à ¸°`à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•â€ " à ¸±â‚¬à \ ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à Â\ ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸\ °à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½ > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸ƒà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿\ ½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°'à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚••à \ ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±ââ€\ šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸\ °à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸‚ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Šà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸žà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•�\ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸ï¿\ ½Ã ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸° " > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Œà ¸±Ã\ ¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸šà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•� > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•�\ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ïÂ\ ¿Â½Ã ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿½à ¸\ ±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸…à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•�à Â\ ¸Â±Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸ " à ¸° " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " \ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°â€ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±\ â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•� > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸�à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸ï\ ¿½Ã ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•â\ € " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà \ ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â\ ‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re:Originality of Suryasiddhanta Friday, May 15, 2009, 3:22 PM Nowhere (whether before or after 1902CE) it is mentioned that the Kaliyuga was extended to 432,000 years. We are unnecessarily prolonging the discussions.  Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 5/14/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki <prafulla_mendki wrote: prafulla Vaman Mendki <prafulla_mendki Re:Originality of Suryasiddhanta Thursday, May 14, 2009, 8:18 PM prafulla_mendki@ .co. in writes: Mahabharata v.231.18/19/ 20/21 also mentions human years(not Divya years).According to these vesres, Krut,Treta ,Dwapar and Kali are 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 human years resp. v.231.18 clearly mentions " Ratryahani Jivaloukike " which means human days and nights.(which refers to days and night made by Sun as given in v.231.15) Also purans are not written at one time. They contain mixure of old and new verses. Some verses are written when Kaliyug was about to end (i.e.before 1902BC.) Prafulla Prafulla ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Vinayji, > > 1) > I have no problem if you think that Lord Rama was born Million years ago according to the Yuga calculations you follow. You can live with your date of Lord Rama. But I shall go by the Pauranic Vamshavali from Kashyap to Manu and by the descriptions of the two Vamshas ie. Surya Vamsha and the Chandra Vamsha (mentioned in the purana). These details convince me that Lord Rama was born around 9,300 years ago and not Million years ago as you think. This is further confirmed by the work of Dr. Vartak. >  > 2) > Good that you clarified that according to you Burgess gave wrong translation only in some places and his translation is largely correct > . > 3) > You imagioned that I have not read the Suryasiddhanta and advised me to read the Suryasiddhanta published by several others and at the same time you said that you will not allow me to see your book from your website. How do you know that I have not read Suryasiddhanta? If you do not want me to see your book that is okay with me but do not give false excuses that you consider me to be a drunkard and that is why you do not want to give me your book. You seem to be obsessed with wine and you so frequently mention about wine. In the AIA group you said that Tantra is anti-Vedic and you meant that people following the Tantric practices have to drink wine and do other undesirable practices. In reply to that I said that Kularnava Tantra says that it is based on Veda. I also mentioned that the folowers of Tantra are not necessarily drunkards. I said that in case of wine Tantra recommends several alternatives. To a non-drinker it has given the substitutes. > The drinkers can take alipan or can take upto 2 tolas. Talking about how much wine Tantra recommends does not make me a drinker. Think about it. > >  -Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > >  >  > > --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:05 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Ji, > > > > Here are pointwise answers to wrong points raised by you : > > > > <<< > > 1)Yes, the concept of 4320,000 years for the Mahayuga is wrong as Lord Rama was born only about 9300 years ago in the Treta yuga. > > >>> > > Earlier you said the concept of 4320000 years for the Mahayuga was my > > invention, now you say this concept is wrong but do not specify whether > > I introduced this supposedly wrong concept or it existed before I was > > born. Lord Rama born about 9300 years ago is your invention, having no > > evidence of any sort. It is based on your fictious assumption of 12000 > > human years in a mahayuga. > > > > <<< > > 2)When you criticise Burgess's translation as inaccurate then is it not > > shameful to quote from the same translation of Burgess. Instead of > > gracefully accepting your lapse you are telling me that I am poking fun > > at you. Did you expect me to praise you for your double standard? > > >>> > > Burgess made many serious mistakes in translating some portions, but it > > does not mean he is 100% wrong everywhere. In an English forum, I am > > forced to cite the only available English translator of Suryasiddhanta, > > and when I find some wrong portions in such translations, I have to > > point out the errors. It is a valid stand, which you call " shameful " , > > " lapse " , " double standard " ! I also sent you names of Sanskrit, Hindi > > and Bengali translators of Suryasiddhanta, which you omit to mention > > and divert the discussion from length of divya varsha in Suryasiddhanta > > to a discussion on my " shameful " character , yet charging me of playing > > " diversionary tactics " ! > > > > <<< > > 3)You need not give me any unsolicited details as to where to get which > > book when you yourself said that you are removing your book from your > > website so that I should not be able to see that. Should I send you > > back your email to refresh your memory? Another example of your > > double-standard. Is that the nobility of a Brahmachari? > > >>> > > Only 300 copies of my books were printed, and not a single copy was > > sold. It was given to chosen persons, none of whom had praised the > > virtues of wine before me. I cannot give my book to such a person at > > any cost, unless he vows never to drink again. Manusmriti says one > > should not even talk to a person who drinks wine. Communication through > > email is not tantamount to talking. Please do not take it personally, > > it is my anability to break my principles. I knew sending reference to > > websites which offer ancient texts freely will offend and provok you , > > because these ancient siddhantic texts invariably speak of 4320000 > > solar years for a mahayuga. For instance, in the first verse of > > Dashageetikaa of Aryabhatiya, Sun's bhagana number per (maha)yuga is 4320000 and Earth's rotations are given to be 1582237500(15822378 28in Suryasiddhanta, this minor difference being due to Sunrise system of > > day count in Aryabhatiya in contrast to midnight system ofSuryasiddhanta) . Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta( BSS) repeats the mathematics of Mahabharata (MBh-v-231) in its first chapter verses 4-7, in which 4320000 normal > > solar years of humans are said to make one mahayuga (see verses 5-6) > > and 1000 such mahayugas are said to make one Kalpa (BSS, ch-i, verse > > 10). Hence, Suryasiddhanta, Aryabhatiya and Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta > > all clearly say one mahayuga to be equal to 4320000 years and not > > 43200000 days as you wrongly tried to prove by misquoting texts. Should > > I cite your previous mails to remind you of your own stand ? When I > > requested you to see original texts and offered you website addresses > > where these texts are freely available, why you became infuriated ? Is > > truth so abominable to you that you cannot restraint your violent > > nature and start abusing my supposedly " shameless " character ? You > > stand is refuted by all these ancient texts : Suryasiddhanta, > > Aryabhatiya and Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta, Mahabharata, NaradaPurana, Vishnu Dharmottara Purana, etc, all of which unanimously say > > that one mahayuga is of 4320000 years or 1582237828 days which is equal > > to 12000 divine years. > > > > <<< > > 4)Prafulla may be right but he has to give me the reference where it is > > said that the span of the Kaliyuga has been selectively extended, as > > claimed by him. > > >>> > > The span of the Kaliyuga having been selectively extended is an > > invention of Prafulla ji, there is no proof anywhere. But it means he > > knows the siddhanta texts which clearly declare a mahayuga to be of > > 12000 divya and 4320000 human years, which he imagines to be a later > > extension of original 12000 years for a mahayuga which he infers from > > an out-f-context reading of MBh-ii-188, forgetting to consult MBh-v-231 > > where same verse is repeated in fuller context. > > > > <<< > > 5)The verse in the Mahabharata says about Daiva Varsha, and that is the > > same as the polar year where the daylight is there for six months long > > and the night is also six months long. Daiva here means the year of the > > Devas. In Mahabharata the span is given in terns of Solar years. > > >>> > > It is welcome that you at least accept the existence of Daiva varsha in > > Mahabharata( MBh), but here again you are deliberately distorting the > > verses of MBh. MBh does not say its daiva varsha is meant for the > > (imaginary) residents of Poles, but says what I earlier communicated. I > > know you will not accept truth, because you have no faith neither in > > Suryasiddhanta( SS) nor in MBh, but I am here quoting verses of MBh > > which falsify your stand : > > > > MBh-khanda 5-chapter 231-verse15 says " ahoraatre vibhajate Suryau > > maanushalaukike " , which means days and nights of manushya loka is > > made/divided by Surya. verse 17 says " Daive raatryahanee varsham > > pravibhaagastayoh punah , ahastatrodagayanam raatrih syad > > dakshinaayanam " : in which " Daive raatryahanee varsham " means " varsha > > is equal to day+night of gods " . Here varsha is varsha of > > maanushalaukike which is to be taken from preceding two verses. Rest of > > verse 17 means " this daiva day+night is divided thus : uttara (ayana) > > is divine day and dakshinaayana is divine night " . MBh clearly says that > > the maanushalaukika year is solar year : see verse 15 above which says > > that Sun divides/makes day and night in maanushalaukika (but not in > > devaloka). > > > > <<< > > 6) What the verses say is that as revealed by Brahma he is going to > > tell about the span of the yugas. (We all know that Brahma'sday is one > > Kalpa and that is equal to 1000 Mahayugas and His night is also of the > > same length and these are not included in those few verses.) > > >>> > > No Sir, you are deliberately misquoting this verse (MBh,v,231,18) which says : > > > > " ye te raatryahanee poorvam keertite Jeevalaukike , > > tayoh samkhyaaya varshaagram Braahme vakshyaamyahahkshap e " . > > > > It means : > > " These days and nights of Jeevaloka which have been told in preceding verses (verses 15-17) > > On the basis of those year numbers I (Vyaasa Ji) am now telling days and nights of brahmaa (in following verses) " > > > > In those 'following " verses, Vyaasa ji describes 12000 years in a > > mahayuga divided into four yugas, but verse 18 clearly says these > > durations of year are according to the ratios described in preceding > > verses, esp verse 17 which says one human year is equal to one divine year. Hence, > > chronology of Brahmaa Ji cannot be as per maanava varsha but as per > > divine varsha, if Vyaasa Ji took Brahmaa to be a divinity. > > > > Apply this sentence to yourself : " Please read my mail carefully and > > reply to the point if you want to and not play some diversionary > > tactics. " > > > > Now I have lost all hopes that you will ever listen to either fact or > > reason. You have to distort ancient texts according to your imaginary > > conceptions. But why you charged me wrongly of inventing a concept of > > 4320000 years for a mahayuga, when it is clearly said in all relevant > > ancient texts ? If you have to disown and refute these ancient texts, > > no one can prevent you, but do it honestly, instead of taking recourse > > to deceitful tactics. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ========= = ==== > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology > > Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:50:07 PM > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Vinayji, > > > > 1) > > Yes, the concept of 4320,000 years for the Mahayuga is wrong as Lord Rama was born only about 9300 years ago in the Treta yuga. > > 2) > > When you criticise Burgess's translation as inaccurate then is it not shameful to quote from the same translation of Bur5gess. Instead of gracefully accepting your lapse you are telling me that I am poking fun at you. Did you expect me to praise you for your double standard? > > 3) > > You need not give me any unsolicited details as to where to get which book when you yourself said that you are removing your book from your website so that I should not be able to see that. Should I send you back your email to refresh your memory? Another example of your double-standard. Is that the nobility of a Brahmachari? > > 4) > > Prafulla may be right but he has to give me the reference where it is said that the span of the Kaliyuga has been selectively extended, as claimed by him. > > 5) > > The verse in the Mahabharata says about Daiva Varsha, and that is the same as the polar year where the daylight is there for six months long and the night is also six months long. Daiva here means the year of the Devas. In Mahabharata the span is given in terns of Solar years. > > 6) > > What the verses say is that as revealed by Brahma he is going to tell about the span of the. yugas. (We all know that Brahma'sday is one Kalpa and that is equal to 1000 Mahayugas and His night is also of the same length and these are not included in those few verses.) > > > > Please read my mail carefully and reply to the point if you want to and not play some diversionary tactics. > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Sunday, May 10, 2009, 11:52 PM > > > > To All, esp. Sunil Ji and Prafull ji, > > > > Sunil Ji is trying hard to prove that the Vedic-Puranic- Siddhaantic yuga > > > > concept of 4320,000 years is a misinterpretation or deliberate lie of > > > > Vinay Jha. He wrongly says that divya year was equal to normal solar > > > > year. When I sent him citations from Suryasiddhanta, he poked fun at me > > > > for quoting the English translation of Burgess. Then, I sent his website > > > > addresses for procuring Bengali and names of publishers of Sanskrit > > > > versions, after which he ignored the evidence of Suryasiddhanta and > > > > diverted the topic to Mahabharata. Mr Prafulla Mendki has joined him, by > > > > quoting verses of MBh out of context. > > > > Prafulla Ji quoted rightly, the Gita Press version of MBh contains same > > > > verses with exactly same verse number and chapter number as Prafull Ji > > > > cited (MBh 2.188.22-28, Markandeya Samasyaparva) . This chapter > > > > 188 does not make it clear whether divya year is meant or normal year. > > > > But as I earlier sent the reference to Sunil Ji which he ignored, > > > > exactly same verse (2.188.22) occurs in MBh again in > > > > Moksha-dharma- parva 5.231.20 without a single word differing. But > > > > verses 2.188.23-25 have been summarized succinctly in 5.231.21, without > > > > any difference in meaning. But these verses should be read in proper > > > > context of preceding verses : verses 5.231.17-19 make it clear that the > > > > year is divya, equal to 360 normal years. This does not > > > > allow me to attach file in the files sections, hence I am sending the > > > > scanned copy of this page of Gita Press edition which is in Hindi to > > > > personal email ID of Sunil Ji. If he ignores this proof as he has done > > > > so far, I will upload this scanned page to some website and request > > > > members to see how Sunil Ji is playing with facts and calling me names > > > > for stating the truth. > > > > Please also see the only online version of complete MBh at > > > > http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ , esp its 5.231 > > > > chapter at > > > > http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ mahabharata_ 12b058.php > > > > whose relevant portions are as : > > > > <<<<< " Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. > > > > Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the > > > > tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty > > > > Muhurtas make up one day and night. Thirty days and nights are called a > > > > month, and twelve months are called a year. Persons conversant with > > > > mathematical science say that a year is made up of two ayanas (dependent > > > > on sun's motion), viz., the northern and the southern. The sun makes the > > > > day and the night for the world of man. The night is for the sleep of > > > > all living creatures, and the day is for the doing of action. A month of > > > > human beings is equal to a day and night of the Pitris. That division > > > > (as regards the Pitris) consists in this: the lighted fortnight (of men) > > > > is their day which is for the doing of acts; and the dark fortnight is > > > > their night for sleep. A year (of human beings) is equal to a day and > > > > night of the gods. The division (as regards the gods) consists in this: > > > > the half year for which the sun travels from the vernal to the autumnal > > > > equinox is the day of the deities, and the half year for which the sun > > > > travels from the latter to the former is their night. Computing by the > > > > days and nights of human beings about which I have told thee, I shall > > > > speak of the day and night of Brahman and his years also. I shall, in > > > > their order, tell thee the number of years, that are (thus) for > > > > different purposes computed differently in respect of the Krita, the > > > > Treta, the Dwapara, and the Kali yugas. Four thousand years (of the > > > > deities) is the duration of the first or Krita age. The morning of that > > > > epoch consists of four hundred years and its evening is of four hundred > > > > years. (The total duration, therefore, of the Krita yuga is four > > > > thousand and eight hundred years of the deities). As regards the other > > > > yugas, the duration of each gradually decreases by a quarter in respect > > > > of both the substantive period with the conjoining portion and the > > > > conjoining portion itself. (Thus the duration of the Treta is three > > > > thousand years and its morning extends for three hundred years and its > > > > evening for three hundred). The duration of the Dwapara also is two > > > > thousand years, and its morning extends for two hundred years and its > > > > evening also for two hundred. The duration of the Kali yuga is one > > > > thousand years, and its morning extends for one hundred years, and its > > > > evening for one hundred. " >>>>> > > > > I had sent this reference to Sunil Ji, which he ignored. Sunil ji will > > > > get the scanned copy of Gita Press version within a few minutes through > > > > email. But I know he will ignore the evidence of MBh as he did of > > > > Suryasiddhanta, and will try to find some other text where no > > > > differentiation is made between divya and human years due to brevity, > > > > and use such " proofs " for advancing his wrong theory of 12000 human > > > > years for a Mahayuga. > > > > -Vinay Jha > > > > ============ ====== ==== > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > You made the statement: > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Quote > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > > > > > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Unquote > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Do I have to ask you for the Mahabharata reference for this > > > > statementà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ or have I to accept your word for it? I think it would > > > > have been betterà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ if you would have substantiated that statement. > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Suni K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > The answer toyour quetion is: > > > > > Ifà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ Kaliyug was not extended ,then it would have ended in 1902BC > > > > and there would have been only eight Avatars. > > > > > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > > > > > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > > > > > We can not change whatever happened in history because it is past. > > > > > But we can redefine Yug system in future again if all agree. > > > > > Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/5/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > > > > > > Cc: " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ..., > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > Thursday, 7 May, 2009, 4:32 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > So you mean to say that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE (3102-1200 > > > > = 1902) and the ninth Avatara of Lord Buddhaà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ has occurred inà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > the Satya yuga. So in the last Mahayuga there were only eight > > > > Avataras.à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:40 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > Chatvari ahu: sahastrani varshanam tat ktrutam yugamà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ | > > > > > tasya tavat shati sanshya sandyansha: cha tathavidha:à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ || > > > > 2.188.22|| > > > > > trini varshasahastrani tretayugam iha uchyate| > > > > > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandyansha: cha tat: param|| 2.188.23|| > > > > > tatha varshasahastre dve dwaparam parimanat: | > > > > > tasya api dwi shati sandhya sandhyansha: cha tathavidha :|| 2.188.24|| > > > > > sahatrasm ekam varshanam tat: kaliyugam smrutam| > > > > > tasya varshshatam sandhi: sandhyansha: cha tat: param|| > > > > > sandhi sandhyanshyo: tulayam pramanam updharaya|| 2.188.25|| > > > > > prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Cc: , > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > > Tuesday, 5 May, 2009, 11:15 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > I am referring to the textavailable from the " Sacred texts " site. Why > > > > don't you give the five verses that you are referring to? > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > I am refering to Gitapress Khanda 2(Vanparva and Viratparva) in which > > > > > Markandeya Samasyaparva is present.188. 22 is on page 1482.Are you > > > > refering to Gitapress or some other Edition? > > > > > Prafulla > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 30/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Thursday, 30 April, 2009, 7:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > Mahabharata Book - 2 is Sabha-Parva and that does not have the > > > > Markandeya-Samasya Parva. Only the Book - 3 is Vana-Parva or > > > > Aranya-Parva and that has the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. In the > > > > Markandeya-Samasya Parva there is no verse like you have quoted. > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > S.K.Bhattacharjyaà ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > > > I am refering to MBH2( not 3) 188.22 to 188.26( Gitapress) pages 1482 > > > > & 1483 > > > > > Chatvaryahu: sahastrani varshanam tat krutam yugam > > > > > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandhyansha: à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ ch tathavidha: .... > > > > > Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 29/4/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > " prafulla Vaman Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > > > Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 5:05 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > The verse (MBH 3.188.22) is as follows: > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±Ã\ ¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà ¸±â‚¬\ à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°\ à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " Ã\ ¸°' > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸šà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚†" `à ¸±\ â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸žà ¸±â‚Â\ ¬Ã ¸°à ¸•à ¸°`à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•â€ " à ¸±â‚¬à \ ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à Â\ ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸\ °à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½ > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸ƒà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿\ ½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°'à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚••à \ ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±ââ€\ šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸\ °à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸‚ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Šà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸žà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•�\ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸ï¿\ ½Ã ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸° " > > > > > à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¹‚ " à ¸Œ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Œà ¸±Ã\ ¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸šà ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•� > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•�\ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ïÂ\ ¿Â½Ã ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿½à ¸\ ±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸…à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•�à Â\ ¸Â±Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã ¸°à ¸ " à ¸° " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢â€¢à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸ " \ à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°â€ " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±\ â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•� > > > > à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸�à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚â€¢à ¸ï\ ¿½Ã ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚ " ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¹‚•â\ € " à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸Ÿà \ ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à ¸°à ¸˜à ¸±â‚¬à ¸°à ¸•à ¸°ï¿½à ¸±â\ ‚¬à ¸°à ¸ " à 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.