[VRI] Fwd: [Ind. & West. Astrology] Fw: Dating of Ramayana Period

November 6, 2009

vedic_research_institute , " Krishen "

<jyotirved wrote:

Dear friends,

Jai Shri Ram!

<It seems Mr. Krishen did not read my earlier mail explaining the

ramifications of projecting Lord Rama as God in the Balakanda, either by

Valmiki himself or.subsequently by another sage.>

My simple question was---and still is----that if Bhagwan Ram was

destined to rule for eleven thousand years as per 97th mantra of the

very first sarga of Balakanda and if He did rule for eleven thousand

years as per shlokas 12 to 14 of almost the last sarga i.e. 104 of

Uttarakanda i.e. the last Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana itself, how

could Bhagwan Ram have incarnated on December 4, 7323 BCE, as per Dr.

Vartak, with whom Shri Bhattacharjya also agrees.

Shri Bhattacharjya must certainly ponder on the " ramifications " of his

self-contradictory statements, since it means that we are still living

in Rama Rajya and Kali yuga is still away by millions of years according

to Messrs Vartak and Bhattacharjya!

Jai Shri Ram!

A K Kaul

vedic_research_institute , Sunil Bhattacharjya

sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote:

>

> Dear friends,

>

> It seems Mr. Krishen did not read my earlier mail explaining the

ramifications of projecting Lord Rama as God in the Balakanda, either by

Valmiki himself or.subsequently by another sage.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Krishen jyotirved@ wrote:

>

> Krishen jyotirved@

> [VRI] Fwd: [ind. & West. Astrology]

Fw: Re: Dating of Ramayana Period

> vedic_research_institute

> Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:46 PM

>

Â

>

, " Krishen " jyotirved@ ..> wrote:

>

> Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

>

> Jai Shri Ram!

>

> < Did I say anywhere that the contents of the Balakanda are not

>

> authentic? Did I say they are wrong?>

>

> I agree with you that the contents of Balakanda and even Uttarakanda

of

>

> the Valmiki Ramayana are not wrong.

>

> And that is exactly why I say that Bhagwan Ram could not have

Incarnated

>

> as late as 7000 BCE!

>

> In the very first Canto of Balakanda, the 97th mantra reads:

>

> dasha varsha sahasrani dasha varsha shatani chai

>

> ramo rajyam upasitva brahmlokam prayasyati

>

> Which, as per the Gita Press translation, means " Having served His

>

> kingdom for eleven thousand years, Sri Rama will ascend to

Brahmaloka " .

>

> Then in the end, the same thing has been confirmed in the same Valmiki

>

> Ramayana, Uttarakanda, where Canto 104, 12th to 14th shlokas say:

>

> dasha varsha sahasrani dasha varsha shatani cha

>

> kritva vasasya niyamam svayameva atmana pura

>

> sa tvam manomayah putrah poornayur manushyeshu iha

>

> kalo naravarashrestha sameepam upavartitum

>

> yadi bhooyo maharaja praja ichhasyupasitum

>

> vasa va veera bhadram te evamaaha pitamahah

>

> Meaning, " You have made a promis Yourself that You would stay ( in the

>

> human form) for eleven thousand years (on the earth), ...and that

period

>

> is almost over. Brahmaji has said that if You want to extend your

>

> kingship further (BEYOND MORE THAN ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS) You are

>

> welcome to do so " .

>

> Now if the very first Canto of the very first Kanda of the Valmiki

>

> Ramayana says that Bhagwan Ram was destined to rule for eleven

thousand

>

> years and if the last Kanda --- almost the last Sarga---of the same

>

> Valmiki Ramayana confirms that Bhagwan Ram ruled/stayed for elevent

>

> thosuand years, it means that He had incarnated much ealier than 7000

>

> BCE.

>

> Or is it that Dr. Vartak and Pushkar Bhatnagar and you, besdies some

>

> other jyotihsi, mean to say that we are still living in Rama Rajya?

>

> <Secondly why are you lying by saying that I am more comfortable with

>

> the janma kundali of Lord Ram in Adhyaqtma Ramayana. >

>

> There is a lot of confusion about the planetary postions of Bhagwan

Ram

>

> and His three brothers as per various posts. Kindly therefore, tell

the

>

> forum members in a nutshell, quoting the shlokas in original from the

>

> Valmiki Ramayana or any other work that you deem fit, as to what it is

>

> supposed to be that planetary position according to you and why.

>

> Jai Shri Ram

>

> A K Kaul

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

>

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Shri Kaulji,

>

> >

>

> > You said

>

> >

>

> > Fine, but Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya says that the janma-kundali of

>

> Bhagwan Ram also was not given by Valmiki himself, since, according to

>

> him, both the Balakanda and the Uttarakanda in the VR are a much later

>

> addition by somebody else! He is more comfortabole with the

>

> janma-kundali of Bhgwan Ram in the Adyatma Ramayana, which is supposed

>

> to have been given by Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa.

>

> >

>

> > Did I say anywhere that the contents of the Balakanda are not

>

> authentic? Did I say they are wrong? I said that Lord Rama has been

>

> presented in the Balakanda as God and don't you think that is correct.

>

> Anybody with common sense will wonder why is it that in the Balakanda

>

> and Uttara kanda Lord Rama had been shown as God and in the

>

> > middle five kandas He has been shown as man,Ã‚ after reading

the

>

> whole of the Ramayana. I wonder why you did not notice that or did you

>

> not read the entire Ramayana?. Any intelligent person will notice that

>

> and Sunil Bhattacharya is not required to tell that. Do you understand

>

> that Shri Kaul?Ã‚ It could even be that the sage Valmiki wrote

the

>

> middle five kandas first and then he thought it fit to add the

Balakanda

>

> and the Uttarakanda later and there he presented him as God as he

>

> realised what a divine person Lord Rama was. Treating Lord Rama as God

>

> the Divya-varsha has been interpreted in the Siddhantic way by

>

> multiplying it by 360. The year was not taken as the Solar year as it

>

> should have been. I explained that in earlier mails. I am sure except

>

> you every intelligent person could understand that whoever read my

>

> mail.I hope it will be understood by you now once for all and for Lord

>

> Rama's sake you will not repeat your false statement as is your habit.

>

> >

>

> > Secondly why are you lying by saying that I am more comfortable with

>

> the janma kundali of Lord Ram in Adhyaqtma Ramayana. Where did I say

>

> that?Ã‚ My stand has always been that Adhyatma Ramayana, which

>

> presents Lors Rama as God corroborates what is said in the Valmiki

>

> Ramayana, more so in the Balakanda, where also Lord Rama is presented

as

>

> God.

>

> >

>

> > Since the mail is addressed to Goyalji

>

> > he will reply to you.

>

> > Ã‚

>

> >

>

> > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

>

> >

>

> > S.K.Bhattacjharjya

>

> >

>

> > --- On Sun, 10/18/09, Krishen jyotirved@ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Krishen jyotirved@

>

> > Fwd: [ind. & West. Astrology]

>

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw: Re: Dating of Ramayana Period

>

> >

>

> > Sunday, October 18, 2009, 6:21 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Ã‚

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com,

>

> AKKaul@@

>

> >

>

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Shri Gopal Krishna Geolji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Gopal Krishna ki jai!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > < 1.Valmiki Ramayan Does not say Rama was born in Madhu Masa.>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Fine, but Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya says that the janma-kundali of

>

> >

>

> > Bhagwan Ram also was not given by Valmiki himself, since, according

to

>

> >

>

> > him, both the Balakanda and the Uttarakanda in the VR are a much

later

>

> >

>

> > addition by somebody else! He is more comfortabole with the

>

> >

>

> > janma-kundali of Bhgwan Ram in the Adyatma Ramayana, which is

supposed

>

> >

>

> > to have been given by Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa. And the Adyatma

>

> >

>

> > Ramayana 1/3/14 has said categorically that Bhagwan Ram was born in

>

> >

>

> > Madhu-masa!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In any case, even if we forget Madhumasa for the moment, VR 1/13/1

>

> says,

>

> >

>

> > " The vernal season (i.e. Vasanta Ritu) having appeared again and the

>

> >

>

> > powerful monarch Dasharatha called on Vasishtha with a view to

>

> >

>

> > commencing the horse sacrifice for the sake of a progeny " . Then in

>

> >

>

> > 1/14/1 the same VR says, " The aforementioned horse having returned

on

>

> >

>

> > the completion of a twelve-month after its release, the horse

>

> sacrifice

>

> >

>

> > commenced on the northern bank of the Sarayu " Thus the " yajnya " was

>

> >

>

> > completed in Vasanta Ritu itelf! In 1/18/8, the same VR has said,

" In

>

> >

>

> > the meantime six seasons (each consisting of two months) rolled away

>

> >

>

> > after the scrifice was over, then on the ninth lunar day of Chaitra,

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > twelfth month after the conclusion of the sacrifice, when the

asterism

>

> >

>

> > Punarvasu (presided over by Aditi) was in the ascendant... .Shri Ram

>

> was

>

> >

>

> > born " .

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > It thus leaves no doubut in anybody's mind that Bhagwan Ram had

>

> >

>

> > incarnated in the first month of Vasanta Ritu, that was known as

>

> Chaitra

>

> >

>

> > as per the VR and Madhu as per the Adyatma Ramayana and Goswami

>

> Tulsidas

>

> >

>

> > and the Vedanga Jyotisha and the Puranas etc.!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The Vedanga Jyotisha, Rik-Jyotisha fifth and Yajur-jyotisha sixth

>

> >

>

> > mantra---say that when the Sun and the Moon come together in

>

> Danishtha,

>

> >

>

> > it is the month of Magha as well as Tapah.... If Magha = Tapah,

>

> >

>

> > Phalguna is equal to Tapasya and Chaitra is equal to Madhu in that

>

> >

>

> > order! So Bhagwan Ram was born in Madhu-cum-Chaitra, which is a so

>

> >

>

> > called sayana phenomenon!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > It also appears you have not gone through BVB6.doc at all, though it

>

> has

>

> >

>

> > been posted several times in several forums, the latest one being a

>

> few

>

> >

>

> > days back under " no subject " heading! Kindly do peruse it and you

will

>

> >

>

> > see that the Puranas also talk of Madhava = Vaishakha = sun in Mesha

>

> >

>

> > which means Madhu is equal to Chaitra = sun in Mina! I have already

>

> >

>

> > quoted Vedic mantras as saying " madhuschai madhavashchai vasantikav

>

> >

>

> > ritoo " i.e. Madhu and Madhava are the months of Vasanta Ritu!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > If you take Lahiri Ephemeris (the bible of nirayanawalas! ) you will

>

> see

>

> >

>

> > that also talking of Madhu and Vedic Chaitra in the same breath!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Thus whicdhever way you look at it, the sun could neither be in so

>

> >

>

> > called Sayana Mesha nor in so called nirayana (or even Sayana) Mina

at

>

> >

>

> > the time of birth of Bhagwan Ram, since that is an asronomically

>

> >

>

> > impossible combination!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Gopal Krishna Ki Jai!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > A K Kaul

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com,

>

> GKGoel@@

>

> >

>

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Kaul Sahib apki jai.

>

> >

>

> > > 1.Valmiki Ramayan Does not say Rama was born in

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu Masa.

>

> >

>

> > > 2.Rama was born in the month of Chaitra . This is

>

> >

>

> > > Lunar month linked with star chitra.

>

> >

>

> > > 3.Kindly refer Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8 =

>

> >

>

> > > 'Chaitra full moon is the mouth of the Sambatsar'

>

> >

>

> > > 4.Whole India is following SIDREAL SAMVATSAR

>

> >

>

> > > for last 4000 years continuously . On this basis.

>

> >

>

> > > we now have vikram samvatsar of 2066.

>

> >

>

> > > 5.Six ritu only means -' after one solar year'.

>

> >

>

> > > 6.Ramayana does not say it was Sukla paksha,

>

> >

>

> > > it is only inference.

>

> >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > G.K.GOEL

>

> >

>

> > > Ph: 09350311433

>

> >

>

> > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR

>

> >

>

> > > NEW DELHI-110 076

>

> >

>

> > > INDIA

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> > > jyotirved jyotirved@

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Cc: hinducalendar;

>

> >

>

> > indian_astrology_ group_daily_ digest@grou ps.com; subash

razdan

>

> >

>

> > subashrazdan@ ; indiaarchaeology;

>

> >

>

> > Vedic AstrologyForum

>

> >

>

> > > Thu, 15 October, 2009 9:32:58 PM

>

> >

>

> > > [ind. & West. Astrology] [ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw:

>

> Re:

>

> >

>

> > Dating of Ramayana Period

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri

>

> >

>

> > > Gopal Krishna Goel-ji,

>

> >

>

> > > Gopal

>

> >

>

> > > Krishna ki jai!

>

> >

>

> > > In your

>

> >

>

> > > original post of Oct 8 you have said:

>

> >

>

> > > " 1.

>

> >

>

> > > There may be some reasons to believe, but sloka does not say that

>

> Rama

>

> >

>

> > > was born in dark or bright half of the lunar month.

>

> >

>

> > > 2. If it is assumed that SIDREAL lunar month of chaitra was

referred

>

> >

>

> > in

>

> >

>

> > > the text. In that case Sun can be either in Pisces or

>

> >

>

> > > Aries " .Ã¢â‚¬ï¿½

>

> >

>

> > > Since you

>

> >

>

> > > are a scholar of the Valmiki Ramayana, Ramacharitamanasa and

Adyatma

>

> >

>

> > Ramayana,

>

> >

>

> > > you must appreciate that there are a few astronomical

>

> impossibilities

>

> >

>

> > in this

>

> >

>

> > > statement:

>

> >

>

> > > 1. The

>

> >

>

> > > Valmiki Ramayana 1/18/8 has said

>

> >

>

> > > tato yajnye

>

> >

>

> > > sampate tu ritoonam shat samatyayuh tatashchai dwadashe maase

>

> chaitre

>

> >

>

> > navamike

>

> >

>

> > > tithav

>

> >

>

> > > The Gita

>

> >

>

> > > Press translation says, Ã¢â‚¬Å " In the meantime six seasons

(each

>

> >

>

> > consisting of

>

> >

>

> > > two months) 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 sacrifice, .... "

>

> >

>

> > > Since twelve

>

> >

>

> > > months had elapsed after the sacrifice was over, which was in

>

> Vasanta

>

> >

>

> > Ritiu, it

>

> >

>

> > > was therefore the first month of Vasanta Ritu, which is known as

>

> Madhu

>

> >

>

> > as per

>

> >

>

> > > the Vedas and the Vedanga Jyotisha etc., when Bhagwan Ram

>

> incarnated.

>

> >

>

> > It

>

> >

>

> > > is the same month that is also known as Chaitra in the VJ. Though

in

>

> >

>

> > the VR no

>

> >

>

> > > mention has been made of " Madhu " but only Chaitra, however, the

>

> >

>

> > > Adyatma Ramayana, 1/3/14 has said categorically:

>

> >

>

> > > 2. Madhumase

>

> >

>

> > > site pakshye navamyam karkate shubhe Punarvasu rikshya sahite

>

> >

>

> > uchhasthe graha

>

> >

>

> > > panchake

>

> >

>

> > > Which means,

>

> >

>

> > > Ã¢â‚¬Å " In the month of Madhu, in shukla pakshya, navmi tithi,

>

> karkata

>

> >

>

> > (lagna),

>

> >

>

> > > Punarvasu nakshatra and five planets either exalted or in their

own

>

> >

>

> > > rashisÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½.

>

> >

>

> > > Similarly,

>

> >

>

> > > Goswami Tulsidas is very sure when he says

>

> >

>

> > > 3. Navmi

>

> >

>

> > > tithi madhumasa puneeta sukal pachha abhijta haripreeta

>

> >

>

> > > i.e.

>

> >

>

> > > Ã¢â‚¬Å " It was the holy Madhumasa, navmi tithi, shkula pakshya

and

>

> >

>

> > abhijit, which

>

> >

>

> > > is dear to GodÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½.

>

> >

>

> > > It is thus

>

> >

>

> > > clear that it was the first month of Vasanta Ritu, the month of

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu-cum-Chaitra definitely. It was also a Shukla paksha navmi.

>

> >

>

> > > 4. The

>

> >

>

> > > Yajurveda says, Ã¢â‚¬Å " madhuschai madhavaschai vasantikav

>

> >

>

> > ritooÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½ i.e.

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu and Madhava are the months of Vasanta Ritu.

>

> >

>

> > > Now if it

>

> >

>

> > > was Madhumasa, and if, against all the prevailing logic and

reasons,

>

> >

>

> > we presume

>

> >

>

> > > that Mesha etc. rashis did exist in India in about 7300 BCE, then

>

> >

>

> > Madhumasa and

>

> >

>

> > > Sun in Mina---and not in Mesha----can exist simultaneously only if

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > sun is

>

> >

>

> > > in the so called sayana Mina Rashi!

>

> >

>

> > > 5. If you

>

> >

>

> > > presume that it is a so called nirayana rashi, which

Ã¢â‚¬Å " Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > astrologersÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½ call euphemistically sidereal rashis, then

we

>

> have

>

> >

>

> > to take

>

> >

>

> > > into account the Ayanamsha which is without any rhyme or reason

>

> linked

>

> >

>

> > to

>

> >

>

> > > precession by these very Ã¢â‚¬Å " Vedic

astrologersÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½.

>

> >

>

> > > Ã¢â‚¬Å " almightyÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½ Lahiri Ayanamsha as on December

4, 7323

>

> BCE,

>

> >

>

> > the date of

>

> >

>

> > > birth of Bhagwan Ram as per Dr. Vartak, was, plus

>

> 103Ã‚Â°-41Ã¢â‚¬â„¢.

>

> >

>

> > It means the

>

> >

>

> > > Ã¢â‚¬Å " almightyÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½ Lahiri sun would have to be

somewhere in

>

> >

>

> > Karkata, even

>

> >

>

> > > if we presume that it was Madhumasa on December 4, 7323 BCE, which

>

> it

>

> >

>

> > was not

>

> >

>

> > > actually, as we shall see shortly!

>

> >

>

> > > Thus linking

>

> >

>

> > > of Madhumasa-cum- Chaitra to a so called nirayana Mina or Mesha

>

> rashi

>

> >

>

> > as back as

>

> >

>

> > > 7323 BCE is in itself a self-defeating premise even if we ignore

>

> other

>

> >

>

> > anachronisms

>

> >

>

> > > like Punarvasu nakshatra cum shukla paksha navmi of Madhumasa,

with

>

> >

>

> > the moon in

>

> >

>

> > > Karkata and the sun in Mina/Mesha etc.!

>

> >

>

> > > You have

>

> >

>

> > > also said, Ã¢â‚¬Å " DR. Vartak is a well known authority and

this

>

> mail

>

> >

>

> > is not

>

> >

>

> > > question his findingsÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½.

>

> >

>

> > > 6. We must

>

> >

>

> > > come out of the habit of taking Ã¢â‚¬Å " findingsÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½

of

>

> >

>

> > Ã¢â‚¬Å " authoritiesÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½

>

> >

>

> > > at their face value and not questioning their veracity! It is our

>

> >

>

> > blind faith

>

> >

>

> > > in Maya the mlechhaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s dictum that the Surya Sidhanta

was a

>

> >

>

> > Ã¢â‚¬Å " revelationÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½

>

> >

>

> > > by Surya Bhagwan that has landed the entire Hindu community in

such

>

> a

>

> >

>

> > mess that

>

> >

>

> > > we are celebrating all our festivals on wrong days!

>

> >

>

> > > If Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > Vartak had even an elementary knowledge of astronomy, he should

have

>

> >

>

> > known that

>

> >

>

> > > if it was Madhu-cum-Chaitra masa, it could never have been so

called

>

> >

>

> > sayana sun

>

> >

>

> > > in Mesha but only in Mina. As he also believes in so called

sidereal

>

> >

>

> > rashis,

>

> >

>

> > > he should have known that a nirayana mina rashi in

Madhu-cum-Chaitra

>

> >

>

> > would take

>

> >

>

> > > place only if it was away by about 180 degrees from Sayana Mina

>

> Surya

>

> >

>

> > i.e. about

>

> >

>

> > > 72 multiplied by 180 = 12960 years before 285 AD, when the so

called

>

> >

>

> > nirayana Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > > zodiac and the so called sayana zodiacs are supposed to have

>

> >

>

> > coincided! Thus Ã¢â‚¬Å " Vartak

>

> >

>

> > > RamÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½ should have incarnated in about 13000 BCE (and not

in

>

> 7323

>

> >

>

> > BCE) if

>

> >

>

> > > his sun was in Lahiri Mina, since it was only then that it could

>

> have

>

> >

>

> > coincided

>

> >

>

> > > with Madhu-cum-Chaitra!

>

> >

>

> > > I may also mention

>

> >

>

> > > here that the actual longitudes of the sun, Moon and Rahu etc. on

>

> >

>

> > December 4,

>

> >

>

> > > 7323 BCE were:

>

> >

>

> > > Sayana sun was

>

> >

>

> > > actually about 18 degrees in Tula (about 2 degrees in Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > Kumbha)----as

>

> >

>

> > > against the Valmiki/AR sun either in Mina or Mesha according to

you

>

> >

>

> > and other

>

> >

>

> > > jyotishis!

>

> >

>

> > > Sayana Moon was

>

> >

>

> > > actually about zero degrees in Makar (about 13 degrees in Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > Mesha)---as

>

> >

>

> > > against Karkata Rashi as per the VR/AR etc.

>

> >

>

> > > Sayana Mean

>

> >

>

> > > Rahu about two degrees in Mithuna (about 15 degrees in Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > Kanya)---as

>

> >

>

> > > against Mina Rashi of jyotishis!

>

> >

>

> > > It was

>

> >

>

> > > Shukla Paksha Shashthi (and not navmi) besides Sayana Uttarashada

>

> and

>

> >

>

> > Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > > Magha nakshatra on December 4, 7323 BCE, without any corrections

for

>

> >

>

> > Delta

>

> >

>

> > > Time. Even if we presume that the difference in Delta Time was

about

>

> >

>

> > seven

>

> >

>

> > > days in 7000 BCE, things are not going to be much different!

>

> >

>

> > > It was

>

> >

>

> > > neither the month of Madhu-cum-Chaitra nor Vasanta Ritu!

>

> >

>

> > > Thus

>

> >

>

> > > everything on December 4, 7323 BCE was contrary to what is

supposed

>

> to

>

> >

>

> > have

>

> >

>

> > > been given in the VR/AR and what Dr. Vartak claims to have

>

> deciphered

>

> >

>

> > on that

>

> >

>

> > > date!

>

> >

>

> > > All the

>

> >

>

> > > above details can be checked from Vishnu.exe program that anybody

>

> can

>

> >

>

> > download

>

> >

>

> > > for free from hinducalendar forum and calculate vara (weekday),

>

> tithi,

>

> >

>

> > > nakshatra, yoga, karna and the longitudes of the sun, moon and

mean

>

> >

>

> > Rahu (both

>

> >

>

> > > sayana and Lahiri) from 10000 BCE to 12030 AD in a jiffy!

>

> >

>

> > > I,

>

> >

>

> > > therefore, think that we should close this Rama-janma-kundali

>

> prakran,

>

> >

>

> > since

>

> >

>

> > > there should not be any doubt in anybodyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s mind now

that the

>

> >

>

> > month of

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu-cum-Chaitra cannot go with the sun in Mina Rashi, unless it

is

>

> a

>

> >

>

> > so

>

> >

>

> > > called sayana Mina Rashi, and Ã¢â‚¬Å " Vedic

jyotishisÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½ are

>

> not

>

> >

>

> > going to

>

> >

>

> > > accept it at any cost. We must also bear in mind that there were

no

>

> >

>

> > Mesha etc.

>

> >

>

> > > rashis anywhere in the world in about 3000 BCE at the earliest, so

>

> to

>

> >

>

> > presume

>

> >

>

> > > that someone could have calculated Bhagwan RamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s birth

chart

>

> in

>

> >

>

> > 7323 BCE

>

> >

>

> > > is extremely farfetched, to say the least! It actually presents a

>

> very

>

> >

>

> > poor

>

> >

>

> > > picture of the entire Hindu community, as to how gullible we can

be.

>

> >

>

> > > THE JYOTISHA

>

> >

>

> > > JARGON ABOUT THE PLANETARY POSITION IN THE VALMIKI AND ADYATMA

>

> >

>

> > RAMAYANA IS THUS

>

> >

>

> > > AN INTERPLATION AND NOTHING BUT AN INTERPOLATION BY SOME GOOD FOR

>

> >

>

> > NOTHING

>

> >

>

> > > JYOTISHI.

>

> >

>

> > > Gopal Krishna

>

> >

>

> > > ki jai.

>

> >

>

> > > A K Kaul

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ,

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

>

> >

>

> > > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Goelji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Kindly have a look at the following analysis.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr. Vartak manually calculated the approximate year of Lord

Rama's

>

> >

>

> > birth

>

> >

>

> > > from precessional data. He has given all these details in his book

>

> on

>

> >

>

> > the date

>

> >

>

> > > of Ramayana. One must give credit to him for that. For those

>

> >

>

> > interested in

>

> >

>

> > > Ancient Indian History this alone is sufficient as this date is

>

> >

>

> > corroborated by

>

> >

>

> > > the Surya-vamsha lineage given in the Puranas.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr. Vartak also mentioned about a Buddhist text which gives the

>

> >

>

> > time-gap

>

> >

>

> > > between the year of Lord Rama's going to Sri Lanka and the

>

> Parinirvana

>

> >

>

> > of

>

> >

>

> > > Lord Buddha. Dr. Vartak could not relate that date as he was not

>

> aware

>

> >

>

> > > that Lord Buddha passed away in 1807 BCE. At that time of writing

>

> his

>

> >

>

> > > book he was aware of the Max Mullerian date in the 5th century BCE

>

> >

>

> > only.

>

> >

>

> > > The year 1807 BCE as the date of parinirvana of Lord Buddha was

>

> worked

>

> >

>

> > > out by Late Kota Venkatachalam from the Puranic data and the work

of

>

> >

>

> > > Prof. Narahari Achar using Astrological data and my own work from

>

> >

>

> > study of the

>

> >

>

> > > Dotted Record confirm the date of Kota Venkatachalam. Now it is

seen

>

> >

>

> > that the

>

> >

>

> > > precessional data and the information from the Buudhist text

quoted

>

> by

>

> >

>

> > Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > Vartak tallies.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Now coming to the exact day from the astrlogical data I agree

that

>

> >

>

> > it is a

>

> >

>

> > > contentious issue but by applying our mind we can sort out the

issue

>

> >

>

> > from the

>

> >

>

> > > following analysis :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > > Lord Rama was born at noon. So the Sun was in the tenth house or

>

> >

>

> > > near the tenth house. If his ascendent is Cancer then the Sun has

to

>

> >

>

> > be either

>

> >

>

> > > in the Arties or closest to the Aries.

>

> >

>

> > > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > > Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text from Purana, says that the

Sun

>

> >

>

> > was

>

> >

>

> > > reaching Aries. It could mean that the Sun was closest to Aries.

>

> >

>

> > > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > Now if the Sun is closest to aries and the Moon is in Cancer

then

>

> it

>

> >

>

> > means

>

> >

>

> > > that Lord Rama was born in a Shuklapaksha Navam and not

>

> Krishnapaksha

>

> >

>

> > Navami.

>

> >

>

> > > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > > The Sun actually appears to be around 27 degree in Pisces. This

>

> >

>

> > > surprisingly means that Budha (Mercury) is in the nakshatra

Revati,

>

> >

>

> > which it

>

> >

>

> > > rules. Astrologically speaking had the Sun been at the Aries (ie.

in

>

> >

>

> > Lord

>

> >

>

> > > Rama's tenth sign) Kaikeyi would not have succeeded in taking away

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > kingship

>

> >

>

> > > from Lord Rama. It is another matter that he was born to take away

>

> >

>

> > Ravana from

>

> >

>

> > > the earth.

>

> >

>

> > > > 7)

>

> >

>

> > > > Five planets were in sva and / or uccha. The Moon and Jupiter in

>

> >

>

> > cancer

>

> >

>

> > > means the Moon was in Sva-hiouse and Juoiter in the house of

>

> >

>

> > exaltation. It is

>

> >

>

> > > quite possible that the Mars, Venus and Saturn could have been in

>

> sva-

>

> >

>

> > houes /

>

> >

>

> > > exalted. Now the Saturn's position can be found out if one knows

the

>

> >

>

> > > approximate date as in the geo-centric model it takes the longest

>

> time

>

> >

>

> > among

>

> >

>

> > > the Grahas to move round the earth. From the precessional data Dr.

>

> >

>

> > vartak found

>

> >

>

> > > out the approximate year of Lord Rama's birth and that fixes the

>

> >

>

> > position of

>

> >

>

> > > saturn in Libra. So some unceratinty remains regarding the fast

>

> moving

>

> >

>

> > planets

>

> >

>

> > > Mars and Venus.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr. Vartak did all calculations manually and gives full deatils

of

>

> >

>

> > those

>

> >

>

> > > in his book. His is an open book and he found the year of Lord

>

> Rama's

>

> >

>

> > birth

>

> >

>

> > > closest to the date he arrived from the precessional data. But he

>

> too

>

> >

>

> > goofed up

>

> >

>

> > > regarding the position of the Sun. He took the Sun at Aries. The

>

> >

>

> > Buddist text

>

> >

>

> > > he quotes helps us find the date as 7329 BCE whereas Dr. Vartak

>

> >

>

> > arrived at the

>

> >

>

> > > date of 7323 BCE.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This does not matter, as for the purpose of fixing the day for

>

> >

>

> > festivals

>

> >

>

> > > we have all the required data and the historian also cannot

complain

>

> >

>

> > as they

>

> >

>

> > > get a figure, which fits in with all the puranic data The Puranic

>

> yuga

>

> >

>

> > > calculation also tallies with this date in the Treta yuga. To my

>

> mind

>

> >

>

> > Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > Vartak's date of Lord Rama is the best astronomical date found so

>

> far.

>

> >

>

> > > The date of Bharata and of Lakhna and Shatrughna is very clear.

>

> Bharat

>

> >

>

> > was born

>

> >

>

> > > in the Pushya makshatra and Mina Lagna, ie. late in the night

>

> >

>

> > following Lord

>

> >

>

> > > Rama's birth. It is interesting to see that he got the kingship as

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > Sun was

>

> >

>

> > > in his Lagna. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born in the Ashlesh

>

> >

>

> > nakshatra

>

> >

>

> > > (ie. the Moon was in the Ashlesha Nakshatra) and at Sunrise (and

>

> that

>

> >

>

> > > means in in Cancer Lagna). This is for astrological discussions

only

>

> >

>

> > > and the historians will not be interested in these finer details.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Finally I would ike to submit that though I love astrology and

>

> >

>

> > picking up

>

> >

>

> > > the pebbles on the sea shore I look at the chrological matters

more

>

> >

>

> > through the

>

> >

>

> > > historical ( that includes puranic records too) and astronomical

>

> data

>

> >

>

> > than

>

> >

>

> > > through astrology alone.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Thu, 10/8/09, gopal krishna goel g.k.goel@

>

> >

>

> > > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > gopal krishna goel g.k.goel@

>

> >

>

> > > > RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw: Re: Dating of

>

> Ramayana

>

> >

>

> > Period

>

> >

>

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, @

>

> >

>

> > . com, vedic astrology, vedic_research_

>

> >

>

> > institute, indiaarchaeology

>

> >

>

> > > > Thursday, October 8, 2009, 5:45 AM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear BHATTACHARJYA JI,

>

> >

>

> > > > DR. Vartak is a well known authority and this mail is not

>

> >

>

> > > > question his findings. In any case this is an unending debate

>

> >

>

> > > > which never dies.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have some observations:

>

> >

>

> > > > Slola 1-18-8and 9 may mean as under:

>

> >

>

> > > > After completion of yajna and lapse of 6 seasons,Rama was born

>

> >

>

> > > > in 12th month of Chaitra , on ninth tithi(NAVAMIKE) ,

>

> >

>

> > > > in Punarvasu Nakshatra, five planets were in their own and

exalted

>

> >

>

> > signs

>

> >

>

> > > > (SAVOCHCHASANSTHESH U)-THIS MAY MEAN THAT FIVE PLANETS WERE IN

>

> THEIR

>

> >

>

> > > > OWN EXALTED SIGNS OR THESE PLANETS WERE IN THEIR OWN AND/OR

>

> EXALTED

>

> >

>

> > SIGNS-

>

> >

>

> > > > cancer LAGNA WITH JUPITER AND Moon (VAKPATAVIDUNA SAH)

>

> >

>

> > > > THE following OBSERVATION can be made:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. There may be some reasons to believe , but sloka does not say

>

> >

>

> > > that Rama was born

>

> >

>

> > > > in dark or bright half of the lunar month.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. If it is assumed that SIDREAL lunar month of chaitra was

>

> refered

>

> >

>

> > > in the text.

>

> >

>

> > > > In that case Sun can be either inPisces or

>

> >

>

> > > Aries.

>

> >

>

> > > > 3. What was the method of counting of tithis in those

>

> days?Probably

>

> >

>

> > > mathematical tithi

>

> >

>

> > > > were not in use in those days.Even , diva and ratri karna.

>

> >

>

> > > > 4. What type of calander was in use in those days.Panch yugi

>

> >

>

> > calender was

>

> >

>

> > > in common use

>

> >

>

> > > > having 62 months of 30 solar days each.

>

> >

>

> > > > 5 If it is assumed that Five planets were in their exalted signs

>

> >

>

> > > then Sun ,Jupiter,

>

> >

>

> > > > Saturn, Mars and Venus were in exaltation signs.But if sloka

>

> >

>

> > > means that five planets were in

>

> >

>

> > > > own (sva) and Uchcha signs , Then their is no requirememt that

Sun

>

> >

>

> > > should also be in Aries,

>

> >

>

> > > > In that case Moon , Jupiter,Saturn, Mars and Venus will meet the

>

> >

>

> > > requirement of

>

> >

>

> > > > of sloka regarding five planets.

>

> >

>

> > > > 6. In any case if Sun is in Aries , it is dificult to explain

that

>

> >

>

> > > moon was in last pada of

>

> >

>

> > > > Punarvasu nakshatra in cancer.

>

> >

>

> > > > As regard following sloka:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > puShye jaataH tu bharato mIna lagne prasanna dhIH |

>

> >

>

> > > > saarpe jaatau tu saumitrI kuLIre abhyudite ravau || 1-18-15

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > " The meaning are clear - After Sun rise (abhyudite ravau),

Bharat

>

> >

>

> > was

>

> >

>

> > > born in

>

> >

>

> > > > pisces Lagna and Pusya Nakchatra.And two sons of Sumitra were

born

>

> >

>

> > > > in aslesha nakshatra and cancer sign. "

>

> >

>

> > > > It may be mentioned that 'Vakpati means Jupiter as well as Pusya

>

> >

>

> > > Nakshatra.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This mail is just to seek clarifications on the points which are

>

> not

>

> >

>

> > clear

>

> >

>

> > > to me thus far.

>

> >

>

> > > > It would be intresting to know the parametres which Dr. Vartak

fed

>

> >

>

> > in the

>

> >

>

> > > computer to arrive a particular date. At least that date can be

>

> relied

>

> >

>

> > upon

>

> >

>

> > > upto the extent and on the basis of these parameteres.

>

> >

>

> > > > Best regards,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > G. K. Goel

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Connect more, do more and share more with India Mail. Learn

>

> >

>

> > more. http://in.overview. mail.. com/

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

November 7, 2009

Dear friends,

So Mr. Krishen admits that he has not understood the ramifications. I hope he

will understand it after pondering over the same for more time. Let him not be

impatient.

Secondly he is lying when he says that I agreed to the date December 3, 7323 BCE

as Lord Rama's birth. I said that Dr. Vartak gave a ballpark figure around 7323

BCE from the precessional data and aÂ historian wouldÂ be satisfied withÂ

that. One may question the exact date given by Dr. Vartak but should not

question the ballpark figure given from the precessional data. Mr. Krishen is

talking about millions of years. Has he gone out of mind?

Let Mr. Krishen spell out what according to him is the date of Lord Rama even if

it is a ballpark figure. If he has no idea what could be Lord Rama's date then

let keep his mouth shut.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 11/6/09, Krishen <jyotirved wrote:

Krishen <jyotirved

[VRI] Fwd: [ind. & West. Astrology] Fw: Re:

Dating of Ramayana Period

vedic_research_institute

Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:20 AM

Â

Dear friends,

Jai Shri Ram!

<It seems Mr. Krishen did not read my earlier mail explaining the

ramifications of projecting Lord Rama as God in the Balakanda, either by

Valmiki himself or.subsequently by another sage.>

My simple question was---and still is----that if Bhagwan Ram was

destined to rule for eleven thousand years as per 97th mantra of the

very first sarga of Balakanda and if He did rule for eleven thousand

years as per shlokas 12 to 14 of almost the last sarga i.e. 104 of

Uttarakanda i.e. the last Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana itself, how

could Bhagwan Ram have incarnated on December 4, 7323 BCE, as per Dr.

Vartak, with whom Shri Bhattacharjya also agrees.

Shri Bhattacharjya must certainly ponder on the " ramifications " of his

self-contradictory statements, since it means that we are still living

in Rama Rajya and Kali yuga is still away by millions of years according

to Messrs Vartak and Bhattacharjya!

Jai Shri Ram!

A K Kaul

vedic_research_ institute, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear friends,

>

> It seems Mr. Krishen did not read my earlier mail explaining the

ramifications of projecting Lord Rama as God in the Balakanda, either by

Valmiki himself or.subsequently by another sage.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Wed, 11/4/09, Krishen jyotirved@.. . wrote:

>

> Krishen jyotirved@.. .

> [VRI] Fwd: [ind. & West. Astrology]

[ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw: Re: Dating of Ramayana Period

> vedic_research_ institute

> Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 11:46 PM

>

> Ã‚

>

> , " Krishen " jyotirved@ ..> wrote:

>

> Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

>

> Jai Shri Ram!

>

> < Did I say anywhere that the contents of the Balakanda are not

>

> authentic? Did I say they are wrong?>

>

> I agree with you that the contents of Balakanda and even Uttarakanda

of

>

> the Valmiki Ramayana are not wrong.

>

> And that is exactly why I say that Bhagwan Ram could not have

Incarnated

>

> as late as 7000 BCE!

>

> In the very first Canto of Balakanda, the 97th mantra reads:

>

> dasha varsha sahasrani dasha varsha shatani chai

>

> ramo rajyam upasitva brahmlokam prayasyati

>

> Which, as per the Gita Press translation, means " Having served His

>

> kingdom for eleven thousand years, Sri Rama will ascend to

Brahmaloka " .

>

> Then in the end, the same thing has been confirmed in the same Valmiki

>

> Ramayana, Uttarakanda, where Canto 104, 12th to 14th shlokas say:

>

> dasha varsha sahasrani dasha varsha shatani cha

>

> kritva vasasya niyamam svayameva atmana pura

>

> sa tvam manomayah putrah poornayur manushyeshu iha

>

> kalo naravarashrestha sameepam upavartitum

>

> yadi bhooyo maharaja praja ichhasyupasitum

>

> vasa va veera bhadram te evamaaha pitamahah

>

> Meaning, " You have made a promis Yourself that You would stay ( in the

>

> human form) for eleven thousand years (on the earth), ...and that

period

>

> is almost over. Brahmaji has said that if You want to extend your

>

> kingship further (BEYOND MORE THAN ELEVEN THOUSAND YEARS) You are

>

> welcome to do so " .

>

> Now if the very first Canto of the very first Kanda of the Valmiki

>

> Ramayana says that Bhagwan Ram was destined to rule for eleven

thousand

>

> years and if the last Kanda --- almost the last Sarga---of the same

>

> Valmiki Ramayana confirms that Bhagwan Ram ruled/stayed for elevent

>

> thosuand years, it means that He had incarnated much ealier than 7000

>

> BCE.

>

> Or is it that Dr. Vartak and Pushkar Bhatnagar and you, besdies some

>

> other jyotihsi, mean to say that we are still living in Rama Rajya?

>

> <Secondly why are you lying by saying that I am more comfortable with

>

> the janma kundali of Lord Ram in Adhyaqtma Ramayana. >

>

> There is a lot of confusion about the planetary postions of Bhagwan

Ram

>

> and His three brothers as per various posts. Kindly therefore, tell

the

>

> forum members in a nutshell, quoting the shlokas in original from the

>

> Valmiki Ramayana or any other work that you deem fit, as to what it is

>

> supposed to be that planetary position according to you and why.

>

> Jai Shri Ram

>

> A K Kaul

>

> , Sunil Bhattacharjya

>

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Shri Kaulji,

>

> >

>

> > You said

>

> >

>

> > Fine, but Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya says that the janma-kundali of

>

> Bhagwan Ram also was not given by Valmiki himself, since, according to

>

> him, both the Balakanda and the Uttarakanda in the VR are a much later

>

> addition by somebody else! He is more comfortabole with the

>

> janma-kundali of Bhgwan Ram in the Adyatma Ramayana, which is supposed

>

> to have been given by Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa.

>

> >

>

> > Did I say anywhere that the contents of the Balakanda are not

>

> authentic? Did I say they are wrong? I said that Lord Rama has been

>

> presented in the Balakanda as God and don't you think that is correct.

>

> Anybody with common sense will wonder why is it that in the Balakanda

>

> and Uttara kanda Lord Rama had been shown as God and in the

>

> > middle five kandas He has been shown as man,Ãƒâ€š after reading

the

>

> whole of the Ramayana. I wonder why you did not notice that or did you

>

> not read the entire Ramayana?. Any intelligent person will notice that

>

> and Sunil Bhattacharya is not required to tell that. Do you understand

>

> that Shri Kaul?Ãƒâ€š It could even be that the sage Valmiki wrote

the

>

> middle five kandas first and then he thought it fit to add the

Balakanda

>

> and the Uttarakanda later and there he presented him as God as he

>

> realised what a divine person Lord Rama was. Treating Lord Rama as God

>

> the Divya-varsha has been interpreted in the Siddhantic way by

>

> multiplying it by 360. The year was not taken as the Solar year as it

>

> should have been. I explained that in earlier mails. I am sure except

>

> you every intelligent person could understand that whoever read my

>

> mail.I hope it will be understood by you now once for all and for Lord

>

> Rama's sake you will not repeat your false statement as is your habit.

>

> >

>

> > Secondly why are you lying by saying that I am more comfortable with

>

> the janma kundali of Lord Ram in Adhyaqtma Ramayana. Where did I say

>

> that?Ãƒâ€š My stand has always been that Adhyatma Ramayana, which

>

> presents Lors Rama as God corroborates what is said in the Valmiki

>

> Ramayana, more so in the Balakanda, where also Lord Rama is presented

as

>

> God.

>

> >

>

> > Since the mail is addressed to Goyalji

>

> > he will reply to you.

>

> > Ãƒâ€š

>

> >

>

> > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

>

> >

>

> > S.K.Bhattacjharjya

>

> >

>

> > --- On Sun, 10/18/09, Krishen jyotirved@ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Krishen jyotirved@

>

> > Fwd: [ind. & West. Astrology]

>

> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw: Re: Dating of Ramayana Period

>

> >

>

> > Sunday, October 18, 2009, 6:21 AM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Ãƒâ€š

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com,

>

> AKKaul@@

>

> >

>

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Shri Gopal Krishna Geolji,

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Gopal Krishna ki jai!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > < 1.Valmiki Ramayan Does not say Rama was born in Madhu Masa.>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Fine, but Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya says that the janma-kundali of

>

> >

>

> > Bhagwan Ram also was not given by Valmiki himself, since, according

to

>

> >

>

> > him, both the Balakanda and the Uttarakanda in the VR are a much

later

>

> >

>

> > addition by somebody else! He is more comfortabole with the

>

> >

>

> > janma-kundali of Bhgwan Ram in the Adyatma Ramayana, which is

supposed

>

> >

>

> > to have been given by Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa. And the Adyatma

>

> >

>

> > Ramayana 1/3/14 has said categorically that Bhagwan Ram was born in

>

> >

>

> > Madhu-masa!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In any case, even if we forget Madhumasa for the moment, VR 1/13/1

>

> says,

>

> >

>

> > " The vernal season (i.e. Vasanta Ritu) having appeared again and the

>

> >

>

> > powerful monarch Dasharatha called on Vasishtha with a view to

>

> >

>

> > commencing the horse sacrifice for the sake of a progeny " . Then in

>

> >

>

> > 1/14/1 the same VR says, " The aforementioned horse having returned

on

>

> >

>

> > the completion of a twelve-month after its release, the horse

>

> sacrifice

>

> >

>

> > commenced on the northern bank of the Sarayu " Thus the " yajnya " was

>

> >

>

> > completed in Vasanta Ritu itelf! In 1/18/8, the same VR has said,

" In

>

> >

>

> > the meantime six seasons (each consisting of two months) rolled away

>

> >

>

> > after the scrifice was over, then on the ninth lunar day of Chaitra,

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > twelfth month after the conclusion of the sacrifice, when the

asterism

>

> >

>

> > Punarvasu (presided over by Aditi) was in the ascendant... .Shri Ram

>

> was

>

> >

>

> > born " .

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > It thus leaves no doubut in anybody's mind that Bhagwan Ram had

>

> >

>

> > incarnated in the first month of Vasanta Ritu, that was known as

>

> Chaitra

>

> >

>

> > as per the VR and Madhu as per the Adyatma Ramayana and Goswami

>

> Tulsidas

>

> >

>

> > and the Vedanga Jyotisha and the Puranas etc.!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > The Vedanga Jyotisha, Rik-Jyotisha fifth and Yajur-jyotisha sixth

>

> >

>

> > mantra---say that when the Sun and the Moon come together in

>

> Danishtha,

>

> >

>

> > it is the month of Magha as well as Tapah.... If Magha = Tapah,

>

> >

>

> > Phalguna is equal to Tapasya and Chaitra is equal to Madhu in that

>

> >

>

> > order! So Bhagwan Ram was born in Madhu-cum-Chaitra, which is a so

>

> >

>

> > called sayana phenomenon!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > It also appears you have not gone through BVB6.doc at all, though it

>

> has

>

> >

>

> > been posted several times in several forums, the latest one being a

>

> few

>

> >

>

> > days back under " no subject " heading! Kindly do peruse it and you

will

>

> >

>

> > see that the Puranas also talk of Madhava = Vaishakha = sun in Mesha

>

> >

>

> > which means Madhu is equal to Chaitra = sun in Mina! I have already

>

> >

>

> > quoted Vedic mantras as saying " madhuschai madhavashchai vasantikav

>

> >

>

> > ritoo " i.e. Madhu and Madhava are the months of Vasanta Ritu!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > If you take Lahiri Ephemeris (the bible of nirayanawalas! ) you will

>

> see

>

> >

>

> > that also talking of Madhu and Vedic Chaitra in the same breath!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Thus whicdhever way you look at it, the sun could neither be in so

>

> >

>

> > called Sayana Mesha nor in so called nirayana (or even Sayana) Mina

at

>

> >

>

> > the time of birth of Bhagwan Ram, since that is an asronomically

>

> >

>

> > impossible combination!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Gopal Krishna Ki Jai!

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > A K Kaul

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com,

>

> GKGoel@@

>

> >

>

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Kaul Sahib apki jai.

>

> >

>

> > > 1.Valmiki Ramayan Does not say Rama was born in

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu Masa.

>

> >

>

> > > 2.Rama was born in the month of Chaitra . This is

>

> >

>

> > > Lunar month linked with star chitra.

>

> >

>

> > > 3.Kindly refer Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8 =

>

> >

>

> > > 'Chaitra full moon is the mouth of the Sambatsar'

>

> >

>

> > > 4.Whole India is following SIDREAL SAMVATSAR

>

> >

>

> > > for last 4000 years continuously . On this basis.

>

> >

>

> > > we now have vikram samvatsar of 2066.

>

> >

>

> > > 5.Six ritu only means -' after one solar year'.

>

> >

>

> > > 6.Ramayana does not say it was Sukla paksha,

>

> >

>

> > > it is only inference.

>

> >

>

> > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > G.K.GOEL

>

> >

>

> > > Ph: 09350311433

>

> >

>

> > > Add: L-409, SARITA VIHAR

>

> >

>

> > > NEW DELHI-110 076

>

> >

>

> > > INDIA

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ____________ _________ _________ __

>

> >

>

> > > jyotirved jyotirved@

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Cc: hinducalendar;

>

> >

>

> > indian_astrology_ group_daily_ digest@grou ps.com; subash

razdan

>

> >

>

> > subashrazdan@ ; indiaarchaeology;

>

> >

>

> > Vedic AstrologyForum

>

> >

>

> > > Thu, 15 October, 2009 9:32:58 PM

>

> >

>

> > > [ind. & West. Astrology] [ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw:

>

> Re:

>

> >

>

> > Dating of Ramayana Period

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri

>

> >

>

> > > Gopal Krishna Goel-ji,

>

> >

>

> > > Gopal

>

> >

>

> > > Krishna ki jai!

>

> >

>

> > > In your

>

> >

>

> > > original post of Oct 8 you have said:

>

> >

>

> > > " 1.

>

> >

>

> > > There may be some reasons to believe, but sloka does not say that

>

> Rama

>

> >

>

> > > was born in dark or bright half of the lunar month.

>

> >

>

> > > 2. If it is assumed that SIDREAL lunar month of chaitra was

referred

>

> >

>

> > in

>

> >

>

> > > the text. In that case Sun can be either in Pisces or

>

> >

>

> > > Aries " .ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½

>

> >

>

> > > Since you

>

> >

>

> > > are a scholar of the Valmiki Ramayana, Ramacharitamanasa and

Adyatma

>

> >

>

> > Ramayana,

>

> >

>

> > > you must appreciate that there are a few astronomical

>

> impossibilities

>

> >

>

> > in this

>

> >

>

> > > statement:

>

> >

>

> > > 1. The

>

> >

>

> > > Valmiki Ramayana 1/18/8 has said

>

> >

>

> > > tato yajnye

>

> >

>

> > > sampate tu ritoonam shat samatyayuh tatashchai dwadashe maase

>

> chaitre

>

> >

>

> > navamike

>

> >

>

> > > tithav

>

> >

>

> > > The Gita

>

> >

>

> > > Press translation says, ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " In the meantime six seasons

(each

>

> >

>

> > consisting of

>

> >

>

> > > two months) 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 sacrifice, .... "

>

> >

>

> > > Since twelve

>

> >

>

> > > months had elapsed after the sacrifice was over, which was in

>

> Vasanta

>

> >

>

> > Ritiu, it

>

> >

>

> > > was therefore the first month of Vasanta Ritu, which is known as

>

> Madhu

>

> >

>

> > as per

>

> >

>

> > > the Vedas and the Vedanga Jyotisha etc., when Bhagwan Ram

>

> incarnated.

>

> >

>

> > It

>

> >

>

> > > is the same month that is also known as Chaitra in the VJ. Though

in

>

> >

>

> > the VR no

>

> >

>

> > > mention has been made of " Madhu " but only Chaitra, however, the

>

> >

>

> > > Adyatma Ramayana, 1/3/14 has said categorically:

>

> >

>

> > > 2. Madhumase

>

> >

>

> > > site pakshye navamyam karkate shubhe Punarvasu rikshya sahite

>

> >

>

> > uchhasthe graha

>

> >

>

> > > panchake

>

> >

>

> > > Which means,

>

> >

>

> > > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " In the month of Madhu, in shukla pakshya, navmi tithi,

>

> karkata

>

> >

>

> > (lagna),

>

> >

>

> > > Punarvasu nakshatra and five planets either exalted or in their

own

>

> >

>

> > > rashisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½.

>

> >

>

> > > Similarly,

>

> >

>

> > > Goswami Tulsidas is very sure when he says

>

> >

>

> > > 3. Navmi

>

> >

>

> > > tithi madhumasa puneeta sukal pachha abhijta haripreeta

>

> >

>

> > > i.e.

>

> >

>

> > > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " It was the holy Madhumasa, navmi tithi, shkula pakshya

and

>

> >

>

> > abhijit, which

>

> >

>

> > > is dear to GodÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½.

>

> >

>

> > > It is thus

>

> >

>

> > > clear that it was the first month of Vasanta Ritu, the month of

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu-cum-Chaitra definitely. It was also a Shukla paksha navmi.

>

> >

>

> > > 4. The

>

> >

>

> > > Yajurveda says, ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " madhuschai madhavaschai vasantikav

>

> >

>

> > ritooÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½ i.e.

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu and Madhava are the months of Vasanta Ritu.

>

> >

>

> > > Now if it

>

> >

>

> > > was Madhumasa, and if, against all the prevailing logic and

reasons,

>

> >

>

> > we presume

>

> >

>

> > > that Mesha etc. rashis did exist in India in about 7300 BCE, then

>

> >

>

> > Madhumasa and

>

> >

>

> > > Sun in Mina---and not in Mesha----can exist simultaneously only if

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > sun is

>

> >

>

> > > in the so called sayana Mina Rashi!

>

> >

>

> > > 5. If you

>

> >

>

> > > presume that it is a so called nirayana rashi, which

ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > astrologersÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½ call euphemistically sidereal rashis, then

we

>

> have

>

> >

>

> > to take

>

> >

>

> > > into account the Ayanamsha which is without any rhyme or reason

>

> linked

>

> >

>

> > to

>

> >

>

> > > precession by these very ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " Vedic

astrologersÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½.

>

> >

>

> > > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " almightyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½ Lahiri Ayanamsha as on December

4, 7323

>

> BCE,

>

> >

>

> > the date of

>

> >

>

> > > birth of Bhagwan Ram as per Dr. Vartak, was, plus

>

> 103Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â°-41ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢.

>

> >

>

> > It means the

>

> >

>

> > > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " almightyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½ Lahiri sun would have to be

somewhere in

>

> >

>

> > Karkata, even

>

> >

>

> > > if we presume that it was Madhumasa on December 4, 7323 BCE, which

>

> it

>

> >

>

> > was not

>

> >

>

> > > actually, as we shall see shortly!

>

> >

>

> > > Thus linking

>

> >

>

> > > of Madhumasa-cum- Chaitra to a so called nirayana Mina or Mesha

>

> rashi

>

> >

>

> > as back as

>

> >

>

> > > 7323 BCE is in itself a self-defeating premise even if we ignore

>

> other

>

> >

>

> > anachronisms

>

> >

>

> > > like Punarvasu nakshatra cum shukla paksha navmi of Madhumasa,

with

>

> >

>

> > the moon in

>

> >

>

> > > Karkata and the sun in Mina/Mesha etc.!

>

> >

>

> > > You have

>

> >

>

> > > also said, ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " DR. Vartak is a well known authority and

this

>

> mail

>

> >

>

> > is not

>

> >

>

> > > question his findingsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½.

>

> >

>

> > > 6. We must

>

> >

>

> > > come out of the habit of taking ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " findingsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½

of

>

> >

>

> > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " authoritiesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½

>

> >

>

> > > at their face value and not questioning their veracity! It is our

>

> >

>

> > blind faith

>

> >

>

> > > in Maya the mlechhaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s dictum that the Surya Sidhanta

was a

>

> >

>

> > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " revelationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½

>

> >

>

> > > by Surya Bhagwan that has landed the entire Hindu community in

such

>

> a

>

> >

>

> > mess that

>

> >

>

> > > we are celebrating all our festivals on wrong days!

>

> >

>

> > > If Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > Vartak had even an elementary knowledge of astronomy, he should

have

>

> >

>

> > known that

>

> >

>

> > > if it was Madhu-cum-Chaitra masa, it could never have been so

called

>

> >

>

> > sayana sun

>

> >

>

> > > in Mesha but only in Mina. As he also believes in so called

sidereal

>

> >

>

> > rashis,

>

> >

>

> > > he should have known that a nirayana mina rashi in

Madhu-cum-Chaitra

>

> >

>

> > would take

>

> >

>

> > > place only if it was away by about 180 degrees from Sayana Mina

>

> Surya

>

> >

>

> > i.e. about

>

> >

>

> > > 72 multiplied by 180 = 12960 years before 285 AD, when the so

called

>

> >

>

> > nirayana Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > > zodiac and the so called sayana zodiacs are supposed to have

>

> >

>

> > coincided! Thus ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " Vartak

>

> >

>

> > > RamÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½ should have incarnated in about 13000 BCE (and not

in

>

> 7323

>

> >

>

> > BCE) if

>

> >

>

> > > his sun was in Lahiri Mina, since it was only then that it could

>

> have

>

> >

>

> > coincided

>

> >

>

> > > with Madhu-cum-Chaitra!

>

> >

>

> > > I may also mention

>

> >

>

> > > here that the actual longitudes of the sun, Moon and Rahu etc. on

>

> >

>

> > December 4,

>

> >

>

> > > 7323 BCE were:

>

> >

>

> > > Sayana sun was

>

> >

>

> > > actually about 18 degrees in Tula (about 2 degrees in Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > Kumbha)----as

>

> >

>

> > > against the Valmiki/AR sun either in Mina or Mesha according to

you

>

> >

>

> > and other

>

> >

>

> > > jyotishis!

>

> >

>

> > > Sayana Moon was

>

> >

>

> > > actually about zero degrees in Makar (about 13 degrees in Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > Mesha)---as

>

> >

>

> > > against Karkata Rashi as per the VR/AR etc.

>

> >

>

> > > Sayana Mean

>

> >

>

> > > Rahu about two degrees in Mithuna (about 15 degrees in Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > Kanya)---as

>

> >

>

> > > against Mina Rashi of jyotishis!

>

> >

>

> > > It was

>

> >

>

> > > Shukla Paksha Shashthi (and not navmi) besides Sayana Uttarashada

>

> and

>

> >

>

> > Lahiri

>

> >

>

> > > Magha nakshatra on December 4, 7323 BCE, without any corrections

for

>

> >

>

> > Delta

>

> >

>

> > > Time. Even if we presume that the difference in Delta Time was

about

>

> >

>

> > seven

>

> >

>

> > > days in 7000 BCE, things are not going to be much different!

>

> >

>

> > > It was

>

> >

>

> > > neither the month of Madhu-cum-Chaitra nor Vasanta Ritu!

>

> >

>

> > > Thus

>

> >

>

> > > everything on December 4, 7323 BCE was contrary to what is

supposed

>

> to

>

> >

>

> > have

>

> >

>

> > > been given in the VR/AR and what Dr. Vartak claims to have

>

> deciphered

>

> >

>

> > on that

>

> >

>

> > > date!

>

> >

>

> > > All the

>

> >

>

> > > above details can be checked from Vishnu.exe program that anybody

>

> can

>

> >

>

> > download

>

> >

>

> > > for free from hinducalendar forum and calculate vara (weekday),

>

> tithi,

>

> >

>

> > > nakshatra, yoga, karna and the longitudes of the sun, moon and

mean

>

> >

>

> > Rahu (both

>

> >

>

> > > sayana and Lahiri) from 10000 BCE to 12030 AD in a jiffy!

>

> >

>

> > > I,

>

> >

>

> > > therefore, think that we should close this Rama-janma-kundali

>

> prakran,

>

> >

>

> > since

>

> >

>

> > > there should not be any doubt in anybodyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s mind now

that the

>

> >

>

> > month of

>

> >

>

> > > Madhu-cum-Chaitra cannot go with the sun in Mina Rashi, unless it

is

>

> a

>

> >

>

> > so

>

> >

>

> > > called sayana Mina Rashi, and ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã… " Vedic

jyotishisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¯Â¿Â½ are

>

> not

>

> >

>

> > going to

>

> >

>

> > > accept it at any cost. We must also bear in mind that there were

no

>

> >

>

> > Mesha etc.

>

> >

>

> > > rashis anywhere in the world in about 3000 BCE at the earliest, so

>

> to

>

> >

>

> > presume

>

> >

>

> > > that someone could have calculated Bhagwan RamÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s birth

chart

>

> in

>

> >

>

> > 7323 BCE

>

> >

>

> > > is extremely farfetched, to say the least! It actually presents a

>

> very

>

> >

>

> > poor

>

> >

>

> > > picture of the entire Hindu community, as to how gullible we can

be.

>

> >

>

> > > THE JYOTISHA

>

> >

>

> > > JARGON ABOUT THE PLANETARY POSITION IN THE VALMIKI AND ADYATMA

>

> >

>

> > RAMAYANA IS THUS

>

> >

>

> > > AN INTERPLATION AND NOTHING BUT AN INTERPOLATION BY SOME GOOD FOR

>

> >

>

> > NOTHING

>

> >

>

> > > JYOTISHI.

>

> >

>

> > > Gopal Krishna

>

> >

>

> > > ki jai.

>

> >

>

> > > A K Kaul

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > ,

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

>

> >

>

> > > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Goelji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Kindly have a look at the following analysis.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr. Vartak manually calculated the approximate year of Lord

Rama's

>

> >

>

> > birth

>

> >

>

> > > from precessional data. He has given all these details in his book

>

> on

>

> >

>

> > the date

>

> >

>

> > > of Ramayana. One must give credit to him for that. For those

>

> >

>

> > interested in

>

> >

>

> > > Ancient Indian History this alone is sufficient as this date is

>

> >

>

> > corroborated by

>

> >

>

> > > the Surya-vamsha lineage given in the Puranas.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr. Vartak also mentioned about a Buddhist text which gives the

>

> >

>

> > time-gap

>

> >

>

> > > between the year of Lord Rama's going to Sri Lanka and the

>

> Parinirvana

>

> >

>

> > of

>

> >

>

> > > Lord Buddha. Dr. Vartak could not relate that date as he was not

>

> aware

>

> >

>

> > > that Lord Buddha passed away in 1807 BCE. At that time of writing

>

> his

>

> >

>

> > > book he was aware of the Max Mullerian date in the 5th century BCE

>

> >

>

> > only.

>

> >

>

> > > The year 1807 BCE as the date of parinirvana of Lord Buddha was

>

> worked

>

> >

>

> > > out by Late Kota Venkatachalam from the Puranic data and the work

of

>

> >

>

> > > Prof. Narahari Achar using Astrological data and my own work from

>

> >

>

> > study of the

>

> >

>

> > > Dotted Record confirm the date of Kota Venkatachalam. Now it is

seen

>

> >

>

> > that the

>

> >

>

> > > precessional data and the information from the Buudhist text

quoted

>

> by

>

> >

>

> > Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > Vartak tallies.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Now coming to the exact day from the astrlogical data I agree

that

>

> >

>

> > it is a

>

> >

>

> > > contentious issue but by applying our mind we can sort out the

issue

>

> >

>

> > from the

>

> >

>

> > > following analysis :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > > Lord Rama was born at noon. So the Sun was in the tenth house or

>

> >

>

> > > near the tenth house. If his ascendent is Cancer then the Sun has

to

>

> >

>

> > be either

>

> >

>

> > > in the Arties or closest to the Aries.

>

> >

>

> > > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > > Adhyatma Ramayana, a later day text from Purana, says that the

Sun

>

> >

>

> > was

>

> >

>

> > > reaching Aries. It could mean that the Sun was closest to Aries.

>

> >

>

> > > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > Now if the Sun is closest to aries and the Moon is in Cancer

then

>

> it

>

> >

>

> > means

>

> >

>

> > > that Lord Rama was born in a Shuklapaksha Navam and not

>

> Krishnapaksha

>

> >

>

> > Navami.

>

> >

>

> > > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > > The Sun actually appears to be around 27 degree in Pisces. This

>

> >

>

> > > surprisingly means that Budha (Mercury) is in the nakshatra

Revati,

>

> >

>

> > which it

>

> >

>

> > > rules. Astrologically speaking had the Sun been at the Aries (ie.

in

>

> >

>

> > Lord

>

> >

>

> > > Rama's tenth sign) Kaikeyi would not have succeeded in taking away

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > kingship

>

> >

>

> > > from Lord Rama. It is another matter that he was born to take away

>

> >

>

> > Ravana from

>

> >

>

> > > the earth.

>

> >

>

> > > > 7)

>

> >

>

> > > > Five planets were in sva and / or uccha. The Moon and Jupiter in

>

> >

>

> > cancer

>

> >

>

> > > means the Moon was in Sva-hiouse and Juoiter in the house of

>

> >

>

> > exaltation. It is

>

> >

>

> > > quite possible that the Mars, Venus and Saturn could have been in

>

> sva-

>

> >

>

> > houes /

>

> >

>

> > > exalted. Now the Saturn's position can be found out if one knows

the

>

> >

>

> > > approximate date as in the geo-centric model it takes the longest

>

> time

>

> >

>

> > among

>

> >

>

> > > the Grahas to move round the earth. From the precessional data Dr.

>

> >

>

> > vartak found

>

> >

>

> > > out the approximate year of Lord Rama's birth and that fixes the

>

> >

>

> > position of

>

> >

>

> > > saturn in Libra. So some unceratinty remains regarding the fast

>

> moving

>

> >

>

> > planets

>

> >

>

> > > Mars and Venus.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr. Vartak did all calculations manually and gives full deatils

of

>

> >

>

> > those

>

> >

>

> > > in his book. His is an open book and he found the year of Lord

>

> Rama's

>

> >

>

> > birth

>

> >

>

> > > closest to the date he arrived from the precessional data. But he

>

> too

>

> >

>

> > goofed up

>

> >

>

> > > regarding the position of the Sun. He took the Sun at Aries. The

>

> >

>

> > Buddist text

>

> >

>

> > > he quotes helps us find the date as 7329 BCE whereas Dr. Vartak

>

> >

>

> > arrived at the

>

> >

>

> > > date of 7323 BCE.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This does not matter, as for the purpose of fixing the day for

>

> >

>

> > festivals

>

> >

>

> > > we have all the required data and the historian also cannot

complain

>

> >

>

> > as they

>

> >

>

> > > get a figure, which fits in with all the puranic data The Puranic

>

> yuga

>

> >

>

> > > calculation also tallies with this date in the Treta yuga. To my

>

> mind

>

> >

>

> > Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > Vartak's date of Lord Rama is the best astronomical date found so

>

> far.

>

> >

>

> > > The date of Bharata and of Lakhna and Shatrughna is very clear.

>

> Bharat

>

> >

>

> > was born

>

> >

>

> > > in the Pushya makshatra and Mina Lagna, ie. late in the night

>

> >

>

> > following Lord

>

> >

>

> > > Rama's birth. It is interesting to see that he got the kingship as

>

> the

>

> >

>

> > Sun was

>

> >

>

> > > in his Lagna. Lakshmana and Shatrughna were born in the Ashlesh

>

> >

>

> > nakshatra

>

> >

>

> > > (ie. the Moon was in the Ashlesha Nakshatra) and at Sunrise (and

>

> that

>

> >

>

> > > means in in Cancer Lagna). This is for astrological discussions

only

>

> >

>

> > > and the historians will not be interested in these finer details.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Finally I would ike to submit that though I love astrology and

>

> >

>

> > picking up

>

> >

>

> > > the pebbles on the sea shore I look at the chrological matters

more

>

> >

>

> > through the

>

> >

>

> > > historical ( that includes puranic records too) and astronomical

>

> data

>

> >

>

> > than

>

> >

>

> > > through astrology alone.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Thu, 10/8/09, gopal krishna goel g.k.goel@

>

> >

>

> > > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > gopal krishna goel g.k.goel@

>

> >

>

> > > > RE: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Fw: Re: Dating of

>

> Ramayana

>

> >

>

> > Period

>

> >

>

> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, @

>

> >

>

> > . com, vedic astrology, vedic_research_

>

> >

>

> > institute, indiaarchaeology

>

> >

>

> > > > Thursday, October 8, 2009, 5:45 AM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear BHATTACHARJYA JI,

>

> >

>

> > > > DR. Vartak is a well known authority and this mail is not

>

> >

>

> > > > question his findings. In any case this is an unending debate

>

> >

>

> > > > which never dies.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have some observations:

>

> >

>

> > > > Slola 1-18-8and 9 may mean as under:

>

> >

>

> > > > After completion of yajna and lapse of 6 seasons,Rama was born

>

> >

>

> > > > in 12th month of Chaitra , on ninth tithi(NAVAMIKE) ,

>

> >

>

> > > > in Punarvasu Nakshatra, five planets were in their own and

exalted

>

> >

>

> > signs

>

> >

>

> > > > (SAVOCHCHASANSTHESH U)-THIS MAY MEAN THAT FIVE PLANETS WERE IN

>

> THEIR

>

> >

>

> > > > OWN EXALTED SIGNS OR THESE PLANETS WERE IN THEIR OWN AND/OR

>

> EXALTED

>

> >

>

> > SIGNS-

>

> >

>

> > > > cancer LAGNA WITH JUPITER AND Moon (VAKPATAVIDUNA SAH)

>

> >

>

> > > > THE following OBSERVATION can be made:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. There may be some reasons to believe , but sloka does not say

>

> >

>

> > > that Rama was born

>

> >

>

> > > > in dark or bright half of the lunar month.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. If it is assumed that SIDREAL lunar month of chaitra was

>

> refered

>

> >

>

> > > in the text.

>

> >

>

> > > > In that case Sun can be either inPisces or

>

> >

>

> > > Aries.

>

> >

>

> > > > 3. What was the method of counting of tithis in those

>

> days?Probably

>

> >

>

> > > mathematical tithi

>

> >

>

> > > > were not in use in those days.Even , diva and ratri karna.

>

> >

>

> > > > 4. What type of calander was in use in those days.Panch yugi

>

> >

>

> > calender was

>

> >

>

> > > in common use

>

> >

>

> > > > having 62 months of 30 solar days each.

>

> >

>

> > > > 5 If it is assumed that Five planets were in their exalted signs

>

> >

>

> > > then Sun ,Jupiter,

>

> >

>

> > > > Saturn, Mars and Venus were in exaltation signs.But if sloka

>

> >

>

> > > means that five planets were in

>

> >

>

> > > > own (sva) and Uchcha signs , Then their is no requirememt that

Sun

>

> >

>

> > > should also be in Aries,

>

> >

>

> > > > In that case Moon , Jupiter,Saturn, Mars and Venus will meet the

>

> >

>

> > > requirement of

>

> >

>

> > > > of sloka regarding five planets.

>

> >

>

> > > > 6. In any case if Sun is in Aries , it is dificult to explain

that

>

> >

>

> > > moon was in last pada of

>

> >

>

> > > > Punarvasu nakshatra in cancer.

>

> >

>

> > > > As regard following sloka:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > puShye jaataH tu bharato mIna lagne prasanna dhIH |

>

> >

>

> > > > saarpe jaatau tu saumitrI kuLIre abhyudite ravau || 1-18-15

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > " The meaning are clear - After Sun rise (abhyudite ravau),

Bharat

>

> >

>

> > was

>

> >

>

> > > born in

>

> >

>

> > > > pisces Lagna and Pusya Nakchatra.And two sons of Sumitra were

born

>

> >

>

> > > > in aslesha nakshatra and cancer sign. "

>

> >

>

> > > > It may be mentioned that 'Vakpati means Jupiter as well as Pusya

>

> >

>

> > > Nakshatra.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This mail is just to seek clarifications on the points which are

>

> not

>

> >

>

> > clear

>

> >

>

> > > to me thus far.

>

> >

>

> > > > It would be intresting to know the parametres which Dr. Vartak

fed

>

> >

>

> > in the

>

> >

>

> > > computer to arrive a particular date. At least that date can be

>

> relied

>

> >

>

> > upon

>

> >

>

> > > upto the extent and on the basis of these parameteres.

>

> >

>

> > > > Best regards,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > G. K. Goel

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Connect more, do more and share more with India Mail. Learn

>

> >

>

> > more. http://in.overview. mail.. com/

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

Sign In

[VRI] Fwd: [Ind. & West. Astrology] Fw: Dating of Ramayana Period

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads