Fw: [HinduCalendar] Fwd: Secrets of the Earth

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 25/5/09, Prashant Pandey <praspandey wrote:

Prashant Pandey <praspandey

[HinduCalendar] Fwd: Re: Secrets of the Earth

HinduCalendar

Monday, 25 May, 2009, 10:56 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent mail!!!

 

I salute your wisdom.

Apart of being very wise, person should have courage to propagate the things.

In our modern culture, VEDAS and PURANS have become extinct and ppl also fight

and abuse if somebody tells TRUTH and also threat him, like we see in case of Mr

A K Kaul and his divine forum which is like HINDU-VEDAS.

Anyway we have to only spread our VEDAS and PURNAS and it is our whole-sole aim.

 

Sometimes i feel why i am not like you are,, so knowledgeable and so calm with

having mighty courage.

 

Jai Hindu Jai Hindu- VEDA

JAI HIND

 

Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " jyotirved "

<jyotirved@> wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Francesco Brigenti,

>

> Namaskar!

>

> Many thanks for yr enquiries #5001 of May 10, 09 regarding my ascribing

> certain dates to the Vedas and the VJ etc.

>

>

>

> Let me start from ?upside down?.

>

>

> 1 < 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata>

>

> a). Mbh is a voluminous work of about one hundred thousand verses. It has

> followed the Vedanga Jyotisha system of five year yuga, determining the

> nomenclature of months and tithis/nakshatras etc. The VJ is a work of an

> era of at least fourteenth century BCE. As such, the Mbh, to start with, is

> most probably a work of the VJ era.

>

> b) Since Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis are conspicuous by their absence from the

> Mbh, it is certainly a work of an era of prior to about 400 BCE, when rashi

> based Grecho-Chaldean astrology had not gained foothold in India.

>

> c) There is no mention of any weekdays in the Mbh. That also confirms the

> date as prior to 4th century BCE.

>

> d) All the planets right from Budha to Shani being mentioned vis-à­¶is

> various nakshatras, is certainly a ?side effect? of works like

> Atharva-Veda- Parishsita etc. which is a work of about sixth century BCE.

>

> All these factors prove that the MBh is a work of a ?steady development? of

> 14th century BCE to 4th century BCE.

>

>

>

> 2 <1400 BCE: [...] Vedanga Jyotisha>

>

>

>

> a) The VJ has said in the fifth mantra, ?When the sun and the moon

> while moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha, Alpha Delphini), then

> the yuga, the Magha and Tapas months, the light half of the month and the

> winter solstice, all commence together?.

>

> b) The VJ has followed a pattern of 27 equal nakshatra divisions,

> starting from Krittika. Presuming that Alpha Delphini is supposed to be in

> the middle of Dhanishshta nakshtra division, it had an almost exact

> longitude of about 270 degrees as per FK5 catalogue on January 1, 1400 BCE.

> The winter solstice was thus in exact conjunction with Alpha Delphini

> (Dhanishtha) star then. Hence it can safely be deduced that the VJ is a

> work of at least fourteenth century BCE, if not earlier.

>

>

>

> 3. <3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita>

>

> < 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita>

> <3000 BCE: [...] Shatapatha Brahmana>

>

>

>

> a) Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/1-4 says, ?One should get

> consecrated in Krittikas?Krittikas alone consist of many stars. Other

> asterisms consist of only one or two or three or four stars but Krittikas

> have many. These are the only stars which do not deviate from the east

> whereas all the other nakshatras do deviate from the East but not

> Krittikas??

>

> b) This is what S B Dikshit has said on page 128 of

> History of Indian Astronomy, ?The statement ?kritikas never deviate from the

> east, implies that these stars always rise in the east, that is they are

> situated on the equator or their declination is zero. At present they do

> not appear to rise exactly in the east but at a point north of east; this

> happens because of precessional motion of equinoxes. Assuming 50? as annual

> motion, the time when the junction star of the krittika had zero

> declination, comes to be 3068 years before Shaka and even 150 years earlier

> before i.e. the approximate time of commencement of Kali era. If 48? be

> adopted as the precessional annual motion?.

>

> c) Dikshit is quite correct even through his rough

> estimates since as per FK5 catalogue, the declination of Alcyone, the

> Junction Star of Krittika was about 24 arc minutes south as on January 1,

> 3000 BCE!

>

>

>

> d) We have to bear in mind that as per these Mantras of

> the Shatapatha Brahmana, Krittika nakshatra had maximum number of stars.

> That means that nakshatra divisions in the Vedic time were of unequal

> dimensions unlike that of the Vedanga Jyotisha! And it also means that

> apart from Alcyone, there were several other prominent stars in that

> division.

>

>

>

> e) Krittikas are a part of the Constellation (and not

> astrological sign!) Taurus. They are a part of Pleiades, and there is every

> possibility that quite a few other prominent stars, about which we have no

> information, are a part of Krittikas, as per the Vedas. That means that one

> or the other star of Kritikas had a zero degree declination for quite

> sometime, much before and even after 3000 BCE.

>

>

>

> f) We can, therefore, safely conclude that Madhyanhdina

> Shukla Yajurveda, of which Shatapatha Brahmana is a part, is a work of about

> 3000 BCE and maybe even earlier.

>

>

>

> g) Taittiriya Samhita and Vajasneya Samhita are more or

> less contemporaneous of Shukla Yajurveda! Thus they also are of about 3000

> BCE, if not earlier.

>

> 3. <4000 BCE: [...] Rigveda>

>

> a) As is common knowledge by now, Rigveda is a much

> earlier work than all the other Vedas!

>

> b) There is no doubt, thus, that the Rigveda is of at

> least 4000 BCE, if not earlier!

>

> Q.E.D. (or is it QEF?)

>

> With regards,

>

> A K Kaul

>

>

> PS

>

> 1. All the remaining claptrap of your post is ?immaterial,

> inconsequential and irrelevant?. with due apologies to good old Perry Mason!

>

> 2. Declinations/ longitudes of Stars can be checked by anybody from

> 10000 BCE to 12030 AD after downloading ?Vasistha? program from

> HinduCalendar forum, for free and without any obligation!

>

> AKK

>

>

>

Abhinavagupta, Francesco Brighenti wrote:

>

> [A preliminary question to Sunthar: Since this thread deals with calendars,

> how

> is that the message of Avtar's I am replying to shows the date " Fri Mar 27,

> 2009 " , at least on my browser? :^)]

>

> Dear Avtar,

>

> You write:

>

> > 4000 BCE: [...] Rigveda

> >

> > 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita

> >

> > 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita

> >

> > 3000 BCE: [...] Shatapatha Brahmana

> >

> > 1400 BCE: [...] Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata

>

> May I ask you, if you haven't already done it before on this List, to

> clarify to

> all of us how you calculated the above dates for the Rigveda, the Taittiriya

> Samhita, the Vajasaneya Samhita, the Vedanga Jyothisha, and the Mahabharata?

>

> I think you realize you are here violating an elementary principle

> regulating

> scholarly debates. According to this principle, any proponent of a theory

> that

> objectively represents a slap to the face of the specialists in the field

> that

> theory applies to (in your case, a theory that back-dates the beginning of

> the

> Vedic age to 2,500 years before the date favoured, as we all know, by most

> of

> Vedic specialits) must produce some conspicuous evidence supporting his/her

> claims, and must at the same time show he/she is familiar with the mass of

> evidence supporting the consensually held mainstream theory he/she wishes to

> update (or even demolish).

>

> I can't recall you ever did such a thing, at least not on this List.

>

> The irony, as far as I am concerned, is that I have been following your

> posting

> activity on this and other Lists, and I find your arguments against the

> Vedic

> origins of the Rashi-based calendar convincing. Why do you need to back-date

> the

> Rigveda to 4000 BCE to defend your arguments? Would they lose their force if

> you

> accepted the mainstream dating of the Rigveda to ca. 1500 BCE? (I don't

> think

> they would lose their force in that event, yet I leave to you the decision

> as to

> whether to explain to me the reasons why you need to adopt this

> Hindutva-style

> chronology to support your arguments).

>

> Thanks and best regards,

> Francesco Brighenti

>

>

>

>

> [Response to Avtar Krishen Kaul's post (09 May 2009) at

>

> http://groups. / group/Abhinavagu pta/message/ 4997 ]

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Own a website.Get an unlimited package.Pay next to nothing.*Go to

http://in.business./