Dating of the Ramayahn period!

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

Jai Shri Ram,

Shri Bhattacharjya is interested more in one up-manship than sifting grain from

the chaff!

1. If the Valmiki Ramayana, Balakanda 18/15-16, itself says, " saarpe jatav tu

saumitree kuleere abyudite ravav " how can anybody interpret it that Bharata and

Shatrugana were born the next day after Shri Ram when their sun was in Karkata

whereas the sun of Shri Ram was in Mesha? Thus Mr. Bhattacharjya himself is

displaying publicly his own ignorance!

2. The planetary data given in the Adyatma Ramayana and Valmiki Ramayana is the

same because both are interpolations, either by one and the same good for

nothing jyotishi or the Adyatma Ramayana interpolator has copied the jyotisha

interpolations of the VR. Such activities are very common with Jyotishis in

India---Narada Purana has interpolations of Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha shlokas,

which in themselves are interpolations of a much later date in the Surya

Sidhanta itself! Vishnudharmotara-Purana talks of a Paitamaha Sidhanta that has

actually been purloined from Brahma Sphuta Sidhanta of Brahma-gupta and so on.

3. If unequal division of nakshatras was followed in India in the past, that

means the system of muhurta, predictions and also festivals being followed these

days by these very " Vedic astrologers " , including Shri Bhattacharjya, on the

basis of equal nakshatra division is wrong! So all the jyotisha shastras,

inlcudng Brihat jatakam and Brihat (Varahi) Samhita etc., being followed at

present also are wrong! No wonder, " Vedic jyotishis " like Shri Bhattacharjya

are making correct predictions from those very works from incorrect division of

nakshatras! That vindicates my stand that " Vedic jyotishis " can make correct

predictions only from incorrect data!

4. Since Shri Bhattacharjya is a Paroskhya-darshi, he alone can see through his

" paroskhya knowledge " that by eleven thousand years of Ramarajya the good for

nothing interpolator jyotihsi had meant that a so called " divya varsha " of Shri

Rama had been taken as 30.5 years of mankind! But then Shri Bhattacharjya must

explain as to how could Shri Rama's fourteen years of exile mean only fourteen

years or his marriage at the age of about seventeen mean only seventeen years!

Why are they not divya-varshas?

5. Shri Bhattacharjya says that Dr. Vartak has calculated the date of Shri Ram

as December 4, 7323 on the basis of planetary position of the VR and AR

correctly. That means that Dr. Vartak and Shri Bhattacharjya presume Mesha,

Vrisha etc. Rashis and Mangal, Shani etc. planets were being calculated in India

more than 9000 years back! India, however, does not have any records talking of

Mesha etc. Rashis vis-à-vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets before the Surya Sidhanta

of Maya the mlechha---a work of about early centuries of Common Era!

6. Mesha etc. Rashis vis-a-vis Mangal, Shani etc. planets were not known

anywhere in the world till about five to six thousand years back, earliest! But

Dr. Vartak and Shri Bhattacharjya discovered them even much earlier---9000 years

back and that also in the VR! Thus Shri Bhattacharjya is again using his

" parkoshya knowledge " of having " seen " Mesha etc. Rashis and Mangal, Shani etc.

planets before anybody else! He is actually making a fool of a common man! Or is

it himself?

7. As per Dr. Vartak's " most accurate calculations " the Mahabharata war started

on October 16, 5561 BCE. If Dr. Vartak is a scholar of that high caliber and a

mathematical wizard according to Shri Bhattacharjya, why does he not agree with

Dr. Vartak on the Mbh date? Why does Shri Bhattacharjya insist that the

Mahabharata war took place only after July 19, 3228 BCE, since " Vedic

astrologers " like Dr. B. V. Raman have erected " correct birth chart " (sic!) of

Bhagwan Krishna for that date in his Notable Holroscopes. Heads I win and tails

you lose!

8. Shri Bhattacharya says that the Manu has advised kings to consult jyotishis!

He is again taking the general public for a ride, since he has as yet to quote

the exact references.

9. There are hundreds of thousands of jyotishis in India, but Shri Bhattacharjya

is the only one who is being prompted to counter the shastriac as well as

astronomical facts!!!

Need I say anything more?

Jai Shri Ram

A K Kaul

 

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

On Sat, 9/19/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: [VRI] Re: Dating of Ramayana Period!

vedic_research_institute

Saturday, September 19, 2009, 5:21 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear friends,

 

 

Namaste,

 

1)

Shri Kaul did not understand how Bharata could be born on the same day as Lord

Rama and how Lakshmana and Shatrughna could be born on the next day as he did

not know that the Sanskrit verse in the Bala Kanda clearly gave the Lagnas and

not the Rashis. Let him first admit that he did not know that. With such kind of

knowledge he is criticising the astrological data given in the Balakanda. Shri

Kaul should first gracefully admit that he has been misleading the members

through  his wrong interpretation of the verses and let him not try to cover up

his ignorance by writing a long mail.

 

2)

The data given in the Balakanda  could be right as that data on the birth of

Lord Rama, given in that, matches with the data given in the Adhyatma Ramayana

in the  Brahmanda purana. It appears that Shri Kaul is not aware of that. 

 

3)

Shri Kaul is not aware that at one time in the past the Abhijit nakshatra was

considered in ecliptic and the Mahabharata says that the Brahma rashi had

Abhijit and Shravana nakshatra in that. It is obvious that Makar rashi is the

erstwhile Brahma rashi but Shri Kaul had not read the Mahabharata otherwise he

would have understood this. Had he understood that he would also understood that

the spread of the nakshatras were not considered to be the same as what it is

considered to be today and that equal division of the ecliptic into 108

nashatra-padas was not practised in the days of Ramayana. My regret is that

without recognising all these factors he is condemning the data of Ramayana. Let

Shri Kaul first understand the data given in the Ramayana and then only wear the

cap of the critic.

 

 

 

4)

He ridiculed the figure of 11,000 years of reign by Lord Rama. Many scholars

are of the opinion that Lord Rama had been projected as God in Balakanda and

Uttara kanda and this shows that these two kandas might not have been composed

by Valmiki, who treats Lord Rama as a human being in the five middle kandas.

This can be seen by anybody who reads Balakanda and tha Uttara kanda. It

appears that Shri Kaul had not read the original Valmiki Ramayana and that was

the reason why he ridiculed the figure of 11,000 years of reign given in the

Balakanda of the Ramayana. I explained how the Divya varsha could have been

misinterpreted and 30.5 years of reign could have been converted some scholars

by following the Siddhantic rule of one year of god is equal to 360 human years.

We know from the Vayu purana that Divya varsha is Solar year.

 

5)

Shri Kaul is in no mood to appreciate that Dr. Vartak had first considered the

precessional data to zero in on the date of Lord Rama. He knows only to

criticise the scholars without any basis.

 

6)

Shri Kaul says

 

 

" Maharshi Valmiki who is said to be contemporaneous of dasaratha, Shri rama

could have been informed about the time and may be insptite of ommon sense vedic

lore and dharmashastras etc. being negative on that point, he would haveerected

birth charts ofShri rama and his siblings. "

 

 

Nothing can be further from truth. The premier dharmashastra Manu Smriti clearly

advises the Kings to consult astrologers.

 

 

7)

He is mentioning about Varahamihira, whom he more often than not calls the

greatest charlatan and says that Varahamihira copied from the work of

Yavanacharya and also considers the Yavanacharya to be a Greek scholar. He says

so as he has not read the Raja Tarangini by the great past historian Kalhana of

Kashmir. Kalhana talks about the Yona Brahmins and obviously the Yavanacharya

was a Yona brahmin.  It could be true that some Yonas went out of India

eventually became Greeks but it is not necessary that Yavanacharya was a Greek.

More so as no Greek astrological literature corresponding to the work of

Yavanacharya had been found in the Greek language. That the Yavanacharya could

have been a  Yona brahmin (of Kashmir?) is alluded to in a verse by

Varahamihira, when he means that when even a Yona with knowledge of astrology

is respected then what to speak of a Brahmin (Yona).

 

8)

In my opinion Dr. Vartak's finding of the date of birth of Lord Rama as 7323

BCE is the best astronomical work to date and the historian in me finds this

acceptable as from the yuga calculations alone it falls within the Treta yuga

period from circa 9102 BCE to circa  6700 BCE. Dr. Vartak's date fits in the

Treta yuga and also agrees with the precessional data. I agree with Dr. Narahari

Achar's date of Lord Buddha's Nirvana in 1807 BCE as that agrees with my

research findings using historical records like the " Dotted Recrord " . Dr.

Vartak also mentions a Buddhist document according to which Lord Rama

entered Sri Lanka some 5481 years before the Nirvana of Lord Buddha.  and this

means that actual birth year of Lord Rama could be 7319 BCE.  

 

9)

Shri Kaul continues his false statements thinking that Bhattacharjya will get

tired and give up sooner or later and then he (Shri kaul) can continue his

anti-shastraic tirades. I may be getting tired of countering his false

statements and may give up soon but will the other Hindu scholars allow all

these false statements of Shri Kaul to continue? Whatever course the Hindu

intellectuals may choose it is upto them. But from my side  I would earnestly

request Shri Kaul not to denigrate the Ramayana and Hindu Dharmashastras through

his false statements due to his ignorance, if not wilful act.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

--- On Sat, 9/19/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:

jyotirved <jyotirved

[VRI] Re: Dating of Ramayana Period!

vedic_research_institute

Saturday, September 19, 2009, 6:38 AM