Fwd: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

[Guest guest]

Mr Prashant Pandey (alias anup knanna & c) ,

 

You are wrongly claiming : " i have already provided VERSE from scriture in

replied mail to JHA " . Various nakshatras contain varying numver of stars, which

is due to non-uniform distribution of stars. It does not prove nakshatras were

unequal. You do not know what a " proof " means.

 

 

-VJ

===================== ======

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:03:30 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

 

WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

 

He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have already provided VERSE from

scriture in replied mail to JHA

 

I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH AUTHORITY OF HINDU

DHARMA

 

WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS ITSELF

 

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

 

You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the Sidereal system. Vamana

purana clearly gave the Nakshatras within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis

mentioned in the Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical system

the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul also says that in Tropical

calendar forget about the Nakshatras.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

 

Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

 

Thank you DARLING.

 

Story begins from here.

 

< I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? >

 

Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but all

are TROPICAL ONE.

 

After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with our

seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....)

which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans Rashis are

tropical not sidereal.

 

So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond VEDAS

and PURANS.

 

I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

 

Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish and

still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no bone

of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are mentioned in

VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that those were of

unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about it).

 

Thank you very much.

 

< There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

 

If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

 

Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying.

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> ?

> Have you noticed the following line.

> ?

> Quote

> ?

> .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from

Indian system.

>

> Unquote

> ?

> What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> ?

> Best wishes,

> ?

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> ?

> ?

> ?

>

> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

>

>

Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> RishiRahul

>

> vedic astrology

> rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Brother,

>

> I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

>

> Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have to

gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very

little to gain from anyone.

>

> Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

>

> This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

>

> I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> RishiRahuk

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

>

> So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great

and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this

field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

what is of others.

>

> Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in

the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME

IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE

WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME

ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

>

> WE ARE GREAT !

>

> Thank you very much

>

> --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

>

> Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> I wonder!!

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

>

> Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

>

> Sincerely

>

> k. k. mehrotra

>

> WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> > ?

>

> > 1)

>

> > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

>

> > ?

>

> > 2)

>

> > You also said as follows "

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> > ?

>

> > 3)

>

> > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

>

> > ?

>

> > 4)

>

> > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

>

> > ?

>

> > 5)

>

> > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

>

> > ?

>

> > 6)

>

> > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> > ?

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > WAVES-Vedic

>

> > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

>

> > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

>

> > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give

me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find

it on INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> > With regaqrds,

>

> > Yours sincerely,

>

> > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that

you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Quote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Unquote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> > >

>

> > > ?

>

> > > ?Sincerely,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> > > ?

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

>

> > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

>

> > >

>

> > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

>

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> > >

>

> > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful

or rational.

>

> > >

>

> > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion.

If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

>

> > >

>

> > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> > >

>

> > > Once again, thank you.

>

> > >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> > > Respected members,

>

> > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

>

> > > Best wishes

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> > > Here are my observations:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > SB said:

>

> > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > 1)

>

> > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> > > /

>

> > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> > > leads to rains!

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

>

> > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

>

> > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> > >

>

> > > *SB further said:

>

> > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> > > *

>

> > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

>

> > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> > > sAyaNa

>

> > > describes as

>

> > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

>

> > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

>

> > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

>

> > >

>

> > > SB further said;

>

> > >

>

> > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

>

> > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

>

> > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> > >

>

> > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

>

> > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

>

> > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

>

> > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> > >

>

> > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

>

> > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> > > the verses.

>

> > >

>

> > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> > > explanation of the rest?

>

> > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

>

> > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

>

> > >

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

>

> > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

>

> > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

>

> > > *

>

> > > SB frurther said:

>

> > >

>

> > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> > >

>

> > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

>

> > >

>

> > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

>

> > >

>

> > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> > > [

>

> > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

>

> > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

>

> > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

>

> > > /

>

> > >

>

> > > --

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > With Best Regards,

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mr Prashant Pandey (alias Anup Khanna) started abusing SKB by saying " Thank you

DARLING. " , although SKB is exactly 40 years elder to him.

 

-VJ

 

======================= ==

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:04:32 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

You can only give abuses as you have no knowledge of facts and that is why you

dont post mails of answers on groups

 

And those answers i forwarded

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 11:41 AM

 

Only an idiot will say that the rashis connected with the nakshatras are

Tropical.

 

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

 

Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

 

Thank you DARLING.

 

Story begins from here.

 

< I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? >

 

Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but all

are TROPICAL ONE.

 

After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with our

seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....)

which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans Rashis are

tropical not sidereal.

 

So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond VEDAS

and PURANS.

 

I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

 

Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish and

still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no bone

of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are mentioned in

VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that those were of

unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about it).

 

Thank you very much.

 

< There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

 

If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

 

Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying.

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> ?

> Have you noticed the following line.

> ?

> Quote

> ?

> .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from

Indian system.

>

> Unquote

> ?

> What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> ?

> Best wishes,

> ?

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> ?

> ?

> ?

>

> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

>

>

Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> RishiRahul

>

> vedic astrology

> rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Brother,

>

> I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

>

> Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have to

gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very

little to gain from anyone.

>

> Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

>

> This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

>

> I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> RishiRahuk

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

>

> So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great

and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this

field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

what is of others.

>

> Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in

the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME

IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE

WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME

ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

>

> WE ARE GREAT !

>

> Thank you very much

>

> --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

>

> Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> I wonder!!

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

>

> Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

>

> Sincerely

>

> k. k. mehrotra

>

> WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> > ?

>

> > 1)

>

> > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

>

> > ?

>

> > 2)

>

> > You also said as follows "

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> > ?

>

> > 3)

>

> > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

>

> > ?

>

> > 4)

>

> > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

>

> > ?

>

> > 5)

>

> > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

>

> > ?

>

> > 6)

>

> > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> > ?

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > WAVES-Vedic

>

> > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

>

> > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

>

> > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give

me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find

it on INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> > With regaqrds,

>

> > Yours sincerely,

>

> > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that

you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Quote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Unquote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> > >

>

> > > ?

>

> > > ?Sincerely,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> > > ?

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

>

> > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

>

> > >

>

> > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

>

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> > >

>

> > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful

or rational.

>

> > >

>

> > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion.

If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

>

> > >

>

> > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> > >

>

> > > Once again, thank you.

>

> > >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> > > Respected members,

>

> > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

>

> > > Best wishes

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> > > Here are my observations:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > SB said:

>

> > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > 1)

>

> > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> > > /

>

> > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> > > leads to rains!

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

>

> > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

>

> > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> > >

>

> > > *SB further said:

>

> > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> > > *

>

> > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

>

> > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> > > sAyaNa

>

> > > describes as

>

> > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

>

> > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

>

> > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

>

> > >

>

> > > SB further said;

>

> > >

>

> > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

>

> > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

>

> > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> > >

>

> > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

>

> > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

>

> > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

>

> > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> > >

>

> > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

>

> > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> > > the verses.

>

> > >

>

> > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> > > explanation of the rest?

>

> > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

>

> > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

>

> > >

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

>

> > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

>

> > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

>

> > > *

>

> > > SB frurther said:

>

> > >

>

> > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> > >

>

> > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

>

> > >

>

> > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

>

> > >

>

> > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> > > [

>

> > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

>

> > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

>

> > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

>

> > > /

>

> > >

>

> > > --

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > With Best Regards,

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mr Prashant Pandey !

 

You had yourself told me over telephone that Bingo Bingo and many other IDs are

your fake IDs. Now, why are you feigning to play a false drama ?

 

-VJ

================== ===

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:19:33 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

DEAR MODERATOR Sirs, BAN BINGO.BINGO78. ..HE IS TRYING TO FINISH THE DISCUSSION

 

NO ABUSING PLEASE FROM ANYSIDE TO SB

 

DEAR SHRI SBji PLEASE STAY HERE FOR SOME MORE TIME

 

Thanks

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Bingo Bingo <bingo.bingo78@ .in> wrote:

 

Bingo Bingo <bingo.bingo78@ .in>

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:25 PM

 

yes all hindus are idiots and VEDAS and PURANS are idiotic scriptures.. ..I will

also provide many many VERSES from many many PURANs.....

 

Should i.....

 

Now ppl are seeing who is idiot....

 

ha ha ha ha ha....

 

Let me finish my work then i will give you answers of all abuses...dont go

away....

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 11:41 AM

 

Only an idiot will say that the rashis connected with the nakshatras are

Tropical.

 

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

 

Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

 

Thank you DARLING.

 

Story begins from here.

 

< I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? >

 

Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but all

are TROPICAL ONE.

 

After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with our

seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....)

which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans Rashis are

tropical not sidereal.

 

So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond VEDAS

and PURANS.

 

I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

 

Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish and

still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no bone

of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are mentioned in

VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that those were of

unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about it).

 

Thank you very much.

 

< There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

 

If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

 

Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying..

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> ?

> Have you noticed the following line.

> ?

> Quote

> ?

> .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from

Indian system.

>

> Unquote

> ?

> What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> ?

> Best wishes,

> ?

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> ?

> ?

> ?

>

> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

>

>

Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> RishiRahul

>

> vedic astrology

> rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Brother,

>

> I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

>

> Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have to

gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very

little to gain from anyone.

>

> Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

>

> This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

>

> I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> RishiRahuk

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

>

> So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great

and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this

field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

what is of others.

>

> Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in

the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME

IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE

WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME

ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

>

> WE ARE GREAT !

>

> Thank you very much

>

> --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

>

> Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> I wonder!!

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

>

> Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

>

> Sincerely

>

> k. k. mehrotra

>

> WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> > ?

>

> > 1)

>

> > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

>

> > ?

>

> > 2)

>

> > You also said as follows "

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> > ?

>

> > 3)

>

> > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

>

> > ?

>

> > 4)

>

> > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

>

> > ?

>

> > 5)

>

> > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

>

> > ?

>

> > 6)

>

> > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> > ?

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > WAVES-Vedic

>

> > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

>

> > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

>

> > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give

me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find

it on INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> > With regaqrds,

>

> > Yours sincerely,

>

> > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that

you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Quote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Unquote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily. .

>

> > >

>

> > > ?

>

> > > ?Sincerely,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> > > ?

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

>

> > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

>

> > >

>

> > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

>

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> > >

>

> > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful

or rational.

>

> > >

>

> > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion.

If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

>

> > >

>

> > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> > >

>

> > > Once again, thank you.

>

> > >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> > > Respected members,

>

> > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

>

> > > Best wishes

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> > > Here are my observations:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > SB said:

>

> > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > 1)

>

> > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> > > /

>

> > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> > > leads to rains!

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

>

> > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

>

> > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> > >

>

> > > *SB further said:

>

> > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)../

>

> > > *

>

> > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

>

> > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> > > sAyaNa

>

> > > describes as

>

> > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

>

> > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

>

> > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

>

> > >

>

> > > SB further said;

>

> > >

>

> > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

>

> > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

>

> > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> > >

>

> > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

>

> > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

>

> > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

>

> > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> > >

>

> > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

>

> > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> > > the verses.

>

> > >

>

> > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> > > explanation of the rest?

>

> > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

>

> > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

>

> > >

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

>

> > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

>

> > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

>

> > > *

>

> > > SB frurther said:

>

> > >

>

> > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> > >

>

> > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

>

> > >

>

> > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

>

> > >

>

> > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> > > [

>

> > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

>

> > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

>

> > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

>

> > > /

>

> > >

>

> > > --

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > With Best Regards,

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sunil Da,

 

You have got hold of this fanatic at a fine point : " So you confirm that you

believe that the Tropical Rashis have Nakshatra. "

 

-Vinay Jha

 

======================== ====

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:04:25 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

So you confirm that you believe that the Tropical Rashis have Nakshatra. Don't

divert the issue. You do not even know the definition of Sidereal and Tropical

Zodiac.

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:34 AM

 

You can only give abuses as you have no knowledge of facts and that is why you

dont post mails of answers on groups

 

And those answers i forwarded

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 11:41 AM

 

Only an idiot will say that the rashis connected with the nakshatras are

Tropical.

 

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

 

Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

 

Thank you DARLING.

 

Story begins from here.

 

< I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? >

 

Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but all

are TROPICAL ONE.

 

After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with our

seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....)

which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans Rashis are

tropical not sidereal.

 

So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond VEDAS

and PURANS.

 

I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

 

Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish and

still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no bone

of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are mentioned in

VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that those were of

unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about it).

 

Thank you very much.

 

< There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

 

If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

 

Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying.

 

vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> ?

> Have you noticed the following line.

> ?

> Quote

> ?

> .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from

Indian system.

>

> Unquote

> ?

> What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> ?

> Best wishes,

> ?

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> ?

> ?

> ?

>

> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

>

>

Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> RishiRahul

>

> vedic astrology

> rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Brother,

>

> I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

>

> Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have to

gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very

little to gain from anyone.

>

> Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

>

> This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

>

> I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> RishiRahuk

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

>

> So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great

and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this

field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

what is of others.

>

> Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in

the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME

IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE

WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME

ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

>

> WE ARE GREAT !

>

> Thank you very much

>

> --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

>

> Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> I wonder!!

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

>

> Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

>

> Sincerely

>

> k. k. mehrotra

>

> WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> > ?

>

> > 1)

>

> > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

>

> > ?

>

> > 2)

>

> > You also said as follows "

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> > ?

>

> > 3)

>

> > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

>

> > ?

>

> > 4)

>

> > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

>

> > ?

>

> > 5)

>

> > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

>

> > ?

>

> > 6)

>

> > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> > ?

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > WAVES-Vedic

>

> > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

>

> > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

>

> > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give

me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find

it on INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> > With regaqrds,

>

> > Yours sincerely,

>

> > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that

you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Quote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Unquote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> > >

>

> > > ?

>

> > > ?Sincerely,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> > > ?

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

>

> > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

>

> > >

>

> > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

>

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> > >

>

> > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful

or rational.

>

> > >

>

> > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion.

If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

>

> > >

>

> > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> > >

>

> > > Once again, thank you.

>

> > >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> > > Respected members,

>

> > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

>

> > > Best wishes

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> > > Here are my observations:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > SB said:

>

> > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > 1)

>

> > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> > > /

>

> > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> > > leads to rains!

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

>

> > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

>

> > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> > >

>

> > > *SB further said:

>

> > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> > > *

>

> > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

>

> > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> > > sAyaNa

>

> > > describes as

>

> > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

>

> > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

>

> > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

>

> > >

>

> > > SB further said;

>

> > >

>

> > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

>

> > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

>

> > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> > >

>

> > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

>

> > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

>

> > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

>

> > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> > >

>

> > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

>

> > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> > > the verses.

>

> > >

>

> > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> > > explanation of the rest?

>

> > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

>

> > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

>

> > >

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

>

> > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

>

> > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

>

> > > *

>

> > > SB frurther said:

>

> > >

>

> > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> > >

>

> > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

>

> > >

>

> > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

>

> > >

>

> > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> > > [

>

> > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

>

> > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

>

> > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

>

> > > /

>

> > >

>

> > > --

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > With Best Regards,

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views. I have

cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

There are countless stories of Suryadeva giving darshana after Tapasyaa.

Astrological Grahas cannot be seen without Tapasyaa.

 

Mr Prashant Pandy should accept/refute the case studies at following site :

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Annual+Rains , instead of wasting time over

futile arguments.

 

-VJ

 

==================== ===

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

 

< The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

 

Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

 

NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

 

Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

 

How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

 

Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we know

now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according to

VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

 

Verse in support of it is as below:-

 

YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

 

Thanks

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> knows that.

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> >

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology@

> . com

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

>

>

>

> I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

>

>

>

> WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

>

>

>

> He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

>

>

>

> I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

>

>

>

> WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> ITSELF

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> @>

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

>

>

>

> You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> Nakshatras.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

>

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> and more on this topic.

>

>

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

>

>

> Story begins from here.

>

>

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> the Vamana purana.? >

>

>

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

>

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

>

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> support of it.

>

>

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> about it).

>

>

>

> Thank you very much.

>

>

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> the Greeks. >

>

>

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> write i am dying.

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil

> Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

>

> > ?

>

> > Have you noticed the following line.

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> Jyotisha from the Greeks.

>

> > ?

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

>

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Brother,

>

> >

>

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> anguish!!!

>

> >

>

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> >

>

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> >

>

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> gain from anyone.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> like many do.

>

> >

>

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> >

>

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

>

> >

>

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahuk

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> >

>

> > You have talked about one word called as

> 'ARUDHA'.

>

> >

>

> > So i will say only something that in the name of

> Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> what is of others.

>

> >

>

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> >

>

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> UNPARALLELED.

>

> >

>

> > WE ARE GREAT !

>

> >

>

> > Thank you very much

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> >

>

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> >

>

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> >

>

> > I wonder!!

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> >

>

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> >

>

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

>

> >

>

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> discuss things with you.

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely

>

> >

>

> > k. k. mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> scholar "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> opinion on that.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > You also said as follows "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > " However, they always seem to me always

> converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> forums "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> scholarship?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> >

>

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> the Vedic words and verses.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> >

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> exception for such " hidden " meanings!

>

> >

>

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> is it some other zodiac?

>

> >

>

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> >

>

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> >

>

> > > With regaqrds,

>

> >

>

> > > Yours sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> views sooner or later.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> be judgemental like that.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> Purana .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He just wants only to extract information

> and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> >

>

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> <sohum@>

>

> >

>

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> >

>

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> >

>

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> happens only with WAVES!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> >

>

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> >

>

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> >

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> likely to produce anything useful or rational.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> interested.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Once again, thank you.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > Respected members,

>

> >

>

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> >

>

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> >

>

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> match-making!

>

> >

>

> > > > Best wishes

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> >

>

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> >

>

> > > > Here are my observations:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> >

>

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> >

>

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> >

>

> > > > leads to rains!

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> whole verse please!!

>

> >

>

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> request to get a parokSha

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > *SB further said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> the word kanyA exists as an

>

> >

>

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> >

>

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> >

>

> > > > sAyaNa

>

> >

>

> > > > describes as

>

> >

>

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> >

>

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> of the whole verse which

>

> >

>

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> appearing somewhere, then I

>

> >

>

> > > > can find many more references in

> Rigveda(:-))

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB further said;

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> where Agastya and

>

> >

>

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> ???????? ????? |

>

> >

>

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> but we know that Agastya was

>

> >

>

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> and not from a pot. So we

>

> >

>

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> Rashi. Here one has to

>

> >

>

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> >

>

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> >

>

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> knows

>

> >

>

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> >

>

> > > > the verses.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of the rest?

>

> >

>

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> equal amount of semen in

>

> >

>

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> Vasishtha.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> whole mantra please? Without

>

> >

>

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> Rashi as an assertion of

>

> >

>

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> vartak?)

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > SB frurther said:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> >

>

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> rasayaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> parigrihaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > [

>

> >

>

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> >

>

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> the Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> I cannot locate this verse

>

> >

>

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> in mine already. I also gave

>

> >

>

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> reciprocate. */

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > With Best Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> >

>

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> >

>

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> website. Enter http://cricket.

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

<<< he Nakshatra-divisions s in the Zodiac for the astrological purpose are

equal and A.K.Kaul knows that.>>>

 

OK.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

 

< The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

 

Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

 

NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

 

Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

 

How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

 

Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we know

now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according to

VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

 

Verse in support of it is as below:-

 

YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

 

Thanks

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> knows that.

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> >

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology@

> . com

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

>

>

>

> I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

>

>

>

> WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

>

>

>

> He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

>

>

>

> I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

>

>

>

> WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> ITSELF

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> @>

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

>

>

>

> You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> Nakshatras.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

>

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> and more on this topic.

>

>

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

>

>

> Story begins from here.

>

>

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> the Vamana purana.? >

>

>

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

>

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

>

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> support of it.

>

>

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> about it).

>

>

>

> Thank you very much.

>

>

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> the Greeks. >

>

>

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> write i am dying.

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil

> Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

>

> > ?

>

> > Have you noticed the following line.

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> Jyotisha from the Greeks.

>

> > ?

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

>

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Brother,

>

> >

>

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> anguish!!!

>

> >

>

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> >

>

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> >

>

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> gain from anyone.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> like many do.

>

> >

>

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> >

>

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

>

> >

>

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahuk

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> >

>

> > You have talked about one word called as

> 'ARUDHA'.

>

> >

>

> > So i will say only something that in the name of

> Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> what is of others.

>

> >

>

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> >

>

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> UNPARALLELED.

>

> >

>

> > WE ARE GREAT !

>

> >

>

> > Thank you very much

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> >

>

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> >

>

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> >

>

> > I wonder!!

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> >

>

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> >

>

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

>

> >

>

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> discuss things with you.

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely

>

> >

>

> > k. k. mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> scholar "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> opinion on that.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > You also said as follows "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > " However, they always seem to me always

> converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> forums "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> scholarship?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> >

>

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> the Vedic words and verses.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> >

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> exception for such " hidden " meanings!

>

> >

>

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> is it some other zodiac?

>

> >

>

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> >

>

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> >

>

> > > With regaqrds,

>

> >

>

> > > Yours sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> views sooner or later.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> be judgemental like that.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> Purana .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He just wants only to extract information

> and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> >

>

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> <sohum@>

>

> >

>

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> >

>

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> >

>

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> happens only with WAVES!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> >

>

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> >

>

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> >

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> likely to produce anything useful or rational.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> interested.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Once again, thank you.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > Respected members,

>

> >

>

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> >

>

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> >

>

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> match-making!

>

> >

>

> > > > Best wishes

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> >

>

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> >

>

> > > > Here are my observations:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> >

>

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> >

>

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> >

>

> > > > leads to rains!

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> whole verse please!!

>

> >

>

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> request to get a parokSha

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > *SB further said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> the word kanyA exists as an

>

> >

>

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> >

>

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> >

>

> > > > sAyaNa

>

> >

>

> > > > describes as

>

> >

>

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> >

>

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> of the whole verse which

>

> >

>

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> appearing somewhere, then I

>

> >

>

> > > > can find many more references in

> Rigveda(:-))

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB further said;

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> where Agastya and

>

> >

>

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> ???????? ????? |

>

> >

>

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> but we know that Agastya was

>

> >

>

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> and not from a pot. So we

>

> >

>

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> Rashi. Here one has to

>

> >

>

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> >

>

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> >

>

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> knows

>

> >

>

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> >

>

> > > > the verses.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of the rest?

>

> >

>

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> equal amount of semen in

>

> >

>

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> Vasishtha.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> whole mantra please? Without

>

> >

>

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> Rashi as an assertion of

>

> >

>

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> vartak?)

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > SB frurther said:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> >

>

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> rasayaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> parigrihaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > [

>

> >

>

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> >

>

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> the Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> I cannot locate this verse

>

> >

>

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> in mine already. I also gave

>

> >

>

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> reciprocate. */

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > With Best Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> >

>

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> >

>

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> website. Enter http://cricket.

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

<<< Nakshatra-divisions s in the Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal

and A.K.Kaul knows that.>>>

 

OK

 

-VJ

 

==================== =

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

 

< The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

 

Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

 

NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

 

Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

 

How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

 

Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we know

now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according to

VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

 

Verse in support of it is as below:-

 

YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

 

Thanks

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> knows that.

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> >

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology@

> . com

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

>

>

>

> I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

>

>

>

> WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

>

>

>

> He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

>

>

>

> I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

>

>

>

> WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> ITSELF

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> @>

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

>

>

>

> You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> Nakshatras.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

>

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> and more on this topic.

>

>

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

>

>

> Story begins from here.

>

>

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> the Vamana purana.? >

>

>

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

>

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

>

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> support of it.

>

>

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> about it).

>

>

>

> Thank you very much.

>

>

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> the Greeks. >

>

>

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> write i am dying.

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil

> Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

>

> > ?

>

> > Have you noticed the following line.

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> Jyotisha from the Greeks.

>

> > ?

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

>

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Brother,

>

> >

>

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> anguish!!!

>

> >

>

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> >

>

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> >

>

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> gain from anyone.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> like many do.

>

> >

>

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> >

>

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

>

> >

>

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahuk

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> >

>

> > You have talked about one word called as

> 'ARUDHA'.

>

> >

>

> > So i will say only something that in the name of

> Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> what is of others.

>

> >

>

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> >

>

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> UNPARALLELED.

>

> >

>

> > WE ARE GREAT !

>

> >

>

> > Thank you very much

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> >

>

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> >

>

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> >

>

> > I wonder!!

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> >

>

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> >

>

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

>

> >

>

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> discuss things with you.

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely

>

> >

>

> > k. k. mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> scholar "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> opinion on that.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > You also said as follows "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > " However, they always seem to me always

> converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> forums "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> scholarship?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> >

>

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> the Vedic words and verses.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> >

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> exception for such " hidden " meanings!

>

> >

>

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> is it some other zodiac?

>

> >

>

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> >

>

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> >

>

> > > With regaqrds,

>

> >

>

> > > Yours sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> views sooner or later.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> be judgemental like that.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> Purana .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He just wants only to extract information

> and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> >

>

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> <sohum@>

>

> >

>

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> >

>

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> >

>

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> happens only with WAVES!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> >

>

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> >

>

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> >

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> likely to produce anything useful or rational.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> interested.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Once again, thank you.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > Respected members,

>

> >

>

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> >

>

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> >

>

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> match-making!

>

> >

>

> > > > Best wishes

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> >

>

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> >

>

> > > > Here are my observations:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> >

>

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> >

>

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> >

>

> > > > leads to rains!

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> whole verse please!!

>

> >

>

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> request to get a parokSha

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > *SB further said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> the word kanyA exists as an

>

> >

>

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> >

>

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> >

>

> > > > sAyaNa

>

> >

>

> > > > describes as

>

> >

>

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> >

>

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> of the whole verse which

>

> >

>

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> appearing somewhere, then I

>

> >

>

> > > > can find many more references in

> Rigveda(:-))

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB further said;

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> where Agastya and

>

> >

>

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> ???????? ????? |

>

> >

>

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> but we know that Agastya was

>

> >

>

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> and not from a pot. So we

>

> >

>

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> Rashi. Here one has to

>

> >

>

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> >

>

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> >

>

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> knows

>

> >

>

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> >

>

> > > > the verses.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of the rest?

>

> >

>

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> equal amount of semen in

>

> >

>

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> Vasishtha.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> whole mantra please? Without

>

> >

>

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> Rashi as an assertion of

>

> >

>

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> vartak?)

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > SB frurther said:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> >

>

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> rasayaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> parigrihaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > [

>

> >

>

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> >

>

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> the Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> I cannot locate this verse

>

> >

>

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> in mine already. I also gave

>

> >

>

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> reciprocate. */

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > With Best Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> >

>

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> >

>

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> website. Enter http://cricket.

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

I had said to this biased person that all nakshatras contain varying number of

stars, but their occupy equal degrees in space, except for Abhijit (and its

adjacent neighbours) which has some restricted usages.

 

-vj

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:17:44 AM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

Both Jha and I know that the Nakshatras are not equispaced in the ecliptic and

that, at the same time, the ecliptic is divided equally among the 27 Nakshatras.

Nakshatra divisions of the ecliptic (used only for the astrological purpose) are

equal. You previous mail shows that you only had confusion. Don't try to show

your cunningness. Understand?

 

You are the person who does not know what is the difference between the Tropical

and Sidereal Zodiac and you also don't know that the Nakshatra divisions are

equal. I have no interst. Stop your fooloish mails.

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 9:23 AM

 

< The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

 

Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

 

NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

 

Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

 

How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

 

Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we know

now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according to

VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

 

Verse in support of it is as below:-

 

YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

 

Thanks

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> knows that.

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> >

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology@

> . com

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

>

>

>

> I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

>

>

>

> WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

>

>

>

> He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

>

>

>

> I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

>

>

>

> WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> ITSELF

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> @>

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

>

>

>

> You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> Nakshatras.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

>

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> and more on this topic.

>

>

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

>

>

> Story begins from here.

>

>

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> the Vamana purana.? >

>

>

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

>

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

>

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> support of it.

>

>

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> about it).

>

>

>

> Thank you very much.

>

>

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> the Greeks. >

>

>

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> write i am dying.

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil

> Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

>

> > ?

>

> > Have you noticed the following line.

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> Jyotisha from the Greeks.

>

> > ?

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

>

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Brother,

>

> >

>

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> anguish!!!

>

> >

>

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> >

>

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> >

>

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> gain from anyone.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> like many do.

>

> >

>

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> >

>

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

>

> >

>

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahuk

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> >

>

> > You have talked about one word called as

> 'ARUDHA'.

>

> >

>

> > So i will say only something that in the name of

> Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> what is of others.

>

> >

>

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> >

>

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> UNPARALLELED.

>

> >

>

> > WE ARE GREAT !

>

> >

>

> > Thank you very much

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> >

>

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> >

>

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> >

>

> > I wonder!!

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> >

>

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> >

>

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

>

> >

>

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> discuss things with you.

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely

>

> >

>

> > k. k. mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> scholar "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> opinion on that.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > You also said as follows "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > " However, they always seem to me always

> converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> forums "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> scholarship?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> >

>

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> the Vedic words and verses.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> >

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> exception for such " hidden " meanings!

>

> >

>

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> is it some other zodiac?

>

> >

>

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> >

>

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> >

>

> > > With regaqrds,

>

> >

>

> > > Yours sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> views sooner or later.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> be judgemental like that.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> Purana .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He just wants only to extract information

> and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> >

>

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> <sohum@>

>

> >

>

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> >

>

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> >

>

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> happens only with WAVES!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> >

>

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> >

>

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> >

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> likely to produce anything useful or rational.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> interested.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Once again, thank you.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > Respected members,

>

> >

>

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> >

>

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> >

>

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> match-making!

>

> >

>

> > > > Best wishes

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> >

>

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> >

>

> > > > Here are my observations:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> >

>

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> >

>

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> >

>

> > > > leads to rains!

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> whole verse please!!

>

> >

>

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> request to get a parokSha

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > *SB further said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> the word kanyA exists as an

>

> >

>

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> >

>

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> >

>

> > > > sAyaNa

>

> >

>

> > > > describes as

>

> >

>

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> >

>

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> of the whole verse which

>

> >

>

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> appearing somewhere, then I

>

> >

>

> > > > can find many more references in

> Rigveda(:-))

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB further said;

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> where Agastya and

>

> >

>

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> ???????? ????? |

>

> >

>

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> but we know that Agastya was

>

> >

>

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> and not from a pot. So we

>

> >

>

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> Rashi. Here one has to

>

> >

>

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> >

>

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> >

>

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> knows

>

> >

>

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> >

>

> > > > the verses.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of the rest?

>

> >

>

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> equal amount of semen in

>

> >

>

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> Vasishtha.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> whole mantra please? Without

>

> >

>

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> Rashi as an assertion of

>

> >

>

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> vartak?)

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > SB frurther said:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> >

>

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> rasayaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> parigrihaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > [

>

> >

>

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> >

>

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> the Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> I cannot locate this verse

>

> >

>

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> in mine already. I also gave

>

> >

>

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> reciprocate. */

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > With Best Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> >

>

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> >

>

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> website. Enter http://cricket.

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay,

 

You are right.

 

Best wishes,

 

-SKB

 

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009, 3:57 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<< Nakshatra-divisions s in the Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal

and A.K.Kaul knows that.>>>

 

OK

 

-VJ

 

============ ======== =

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

vedic astrology

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

< The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

 

Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

 

NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

 

Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

 

How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

 

Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we know

now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according to

VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

 

Verse in support of it is as below:-

 

YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

 

Thanks

 

--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

 

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> knows that.

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> >

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology@

> . com

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

>

>

>

> I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

>

>

>

> WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

>

>

>

> He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

>

>

>

> I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

>

>

>

> WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> ITSELF

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

>

>

>

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> @>

>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

>

>

>

> You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> Nakshatras.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > wrote:

>

>

>

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

>

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> and more on this topic.

>

>

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

>

>

> Story begins from here.

>

>

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> the Vamana purana.? >

>

>

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

>

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

>

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> support of it.

>

>

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> about it).

>

>

>

> Thank you very much.

>

>

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> the Greeks. >

>

>

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

>

>

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> write i am dying.

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil

> Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

>

> > ?

>

> > Have you noticed the following line.

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> Jyotisha from the Greeks.

>

> > ?

>

> > Best wishes,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahul

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

>

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Brother,

>

> >

>

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> anguish!!!

>

> >

>

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> >

>

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> >

>

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> gain from anyone.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> like many do.

>

> >

>

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> >

>

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

>

> >

>

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> >

>

> > RishiRahuk

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> >

>

> > You have talked about one word called as

> 'ARUDHA'.

>

> >

>

> > So i will say only something that in the name of

> Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> >

>

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> what is of others.

>

> >

>

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> >

>

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> >

>

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> UNPARALLELED.

>

> >

>

> > WE ARE GREAT !

>

> >

>

> > Thank you very much

>

> >

>

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> >

>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > " vedic astrology "

> <vedic astrology>

>

> >

>

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> >

>

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> >

>

> > I wonder!!

>

> >

>

> > vedic astrology

>

> >

>

> > khannaanup32@

>

> >

>

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> >

>

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> >

>

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

>

> >

>

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> discuss things with you.

>

> >

>

> > Sincerely

>

> >

>

> > k. k. mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> scholar "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> opinion on that.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 2)

>

> >

>

> > > You also said as follows "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > " However, they always seem to me always

> converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> forums "

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 3)

>

> >

>

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> scholarship?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 4)

>

> >

>

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> >

>

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> the Vedic words and verses.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 5)

>

> >

>

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > 6)

>

> >

>

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > ?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > wrote:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> >

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic

>

> >

>

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> >

>

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> exception for such " hidden " meanings!

>

> >

>

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> is it some other zodiac?

>

> >

>

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> >

>

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> >

>

> > > With regaqrds,

>

> >

>

> > > Yours sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> views sooner or later.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> be judgemental like that.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Quote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Unquote

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> Purana .

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > He just wants only to extract information

> and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?Sincerely,

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> >

>

> > > > ?

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> >

>

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> <sohum@>

>

> >

>

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> >

>

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> >

>

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> happens only with WAVES!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> >

>

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> >

>

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> >

>

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> >

>

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> >

>

> >

>

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> >

>

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> us to accept two axioms:

>

> >

>

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

>

> >

>

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> as the true truth!

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> likely to produce anything useful or rational.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> interested.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Once again, thank you.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > > Respected members,

>

> >

>

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> >

>

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> >

>

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> match-making!

>

> >

>

> > > > Best wishes

>

> >

>

> > > > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> >

>

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> >

>

> > > > Here are my observations:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > 1)

>

> >

>

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> >

>

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> >

>

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> >

>

> > > > leads to rains!

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> whole verse please!!

>

> >

>

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> request to get a parokSha

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > *SB further said:

>

> >

>

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> the word kanyA exists as an

>

> >

>

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> >

>

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> >

>

> > > > sAyaNa

>

> >

>

> > > > describes as

>

> >

>

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> >

>

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> of the whole verse which

>

> >

>

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> >

>

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> appearing somewhere, then I

>

> >

>

> > > > can find many more references in

> Rigveda(:-))

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > SB further said;

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> where Agastya and

>

> >

>

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> ???????? ????? |

>

> >

>

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> but we know that Agastya was

>

> >

>

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> and not from a pot. So we

>

> >

>

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> Rashi. Here one has to

>

> >

>

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> >

>

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> >

>

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> knows

>

> >

>

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> >

>

> > > > the verses.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> >

>

> > > > explanation of the rest?

>

> >

>

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> equal amount of semen in

>

> >

>

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> Vasishtha.

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> whole mantra please? Without

>

> >

>

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> Rashi as an assertion of

>

> >

>

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> vartak?)

>

> >

>

> > > > *

>

> >

>

> > > > SB frurther said:

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> >

>

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> rasayaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> parigrihaH

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> >

>

> > > > [

>

> >

>

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> >

>

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> >

>

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> the Veda

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> I cannot locate this verse

>

> >

>

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> in mine already. I also gave

>

> >

>

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> reciprocate. */

>

> >

>

> > > > /

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > --

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > > > With Best Regards,

>

> >

>

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> >

>

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> >

>

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> >

>

> > > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>

> >

>

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> website. Enter http://cricket.

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Chhandogya Upanishada is not " my " story. In it Narada Ji says he mastered

" Raashi Vidyaa " .

 

Similarly, verse-2 of Rgvedic Vedanga Jyotisha says " I will tell the

Kaala-jnaana of Mahatma Lagadha " . Hence, the author of Vedanga Jyotisha was

someone else and not Mahatma Lagadha, Mahatma Lagadha composed the original

Vedanga Jyotish in Shruti form which was later written down.

 

 

________________________________

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:11:54 PM

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

< False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa. Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says

that the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed

an orally transmitted text which was written down much later around 4-5th cen

BCE. >

 

You and your stories

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> <<< After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India >>>

>

> False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa. Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says

that the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed

an orally transmitted text which was written down much later around 4-5th cen

BCE.

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ ...>

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:02:12 PM

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

> Story begins from here.

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? >

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but

all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with

our seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc

etc....) which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans

Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond

VEDAS and PURANS.

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish

and still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no

bone of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are

mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that

those were of unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras

and i can also books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about

it).

>

> Thank you very much.

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying.

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> > ?

> > Have you noticed the following line.

> > ?

> > Quote

> > ?

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi

from Indian system.

> >

> > Unquote

> > ?

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> > ?

> > Best wishes,

> > ?

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > ?

> > ?

> > ?

> >

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> >

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> >

> > RishiRahul

> >

> > vedic astrology

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Dear Brother,

> >

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

> >

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> >

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> >

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have

to gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if

very little to gain from anyone.

> >

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

> >

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> >

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

> >

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

> >

> > RishiRahuk

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > khannaanup32@

> >

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> >

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> >

> > You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

> >

> > So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> >

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is

great and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in

this field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin

and what is of others.

> >

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is

in the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU

CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND

THE WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

> >

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE

NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

> >

> > WE ARE GREAT !

> >

> > Thank you very much

> >

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> >

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> >

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> >

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> >

> > I wonder!!

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > khannaanup32@

> >

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> >

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> >

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

> >

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > k. k. mehrotra

> >

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> > > You also said as follows "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha

being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other

forums "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 4)

> >

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

> >

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 5)

> >

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 6)

> >

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions

the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sincerely,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic

> >

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes

me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had

been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

> >

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

> >

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl.

give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not

find it on INSA site.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> >

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> >

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

> >

> > > With regaqrds,

> >

> > > Yours sincerely,

> >

> > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting

that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given

my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> >

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the

Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five.

minutes.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > ?Sincerely,

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> >

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

> >

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> >

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> >

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only

his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> >

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> >

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> >

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

> >

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> >

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> >

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything

useful or rational.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this

discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Once again, thank you.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> >

> > > > Respected members,

> >

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> >

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

> >

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly

be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

> >

> > > > Best wishes

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> >

> > > > Here are my observations:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > SB said:

> >

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > 1)

> >

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> >

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> >

> > > > /

> >

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> >

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> >

> > > > leads to rains!

> >

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

> >

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

> >

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > *SB further said:

> >

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> >

> > > > *

> >

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

> >

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> >

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> >

> > > > sAyaNa

> >

> > > > describes as

> >

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> >

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

> >

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> >

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

> >

> > > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > SB further said;

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

> >

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

> >

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

> >

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

> >

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

> >

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> >

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> >

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> >

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

> >

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> >

> > > > the verses.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

> >

> > > > explanation of the rest?

> >

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

> >

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

> >

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

> >

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

> >

> > > > *

> >

> > > > SB frurther said:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> >

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> >

> > > > [

> >

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> >

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> >

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

> >

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

> >

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

> >

> > > > /

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > With Best Regards,

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

> >

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> >

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > --- End forwarded message ---

> >

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets but

astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement.

 

-VJ

 

===================== ===

 

 

________________________________

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:20:51 PM

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

< Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views. I

have cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

>

 

Read again what i had written:-

 

it is as below:-

 

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we know

now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according to

VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

>

> Verse in support of it is as below:-

>

> YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

 

Go and read YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10,i can also provide other verses

in spoort of it....

 

I said God knows who have done the engineering with Dharma Shastra and see on

your own who are the culprits.... See and let all ppl see it...

 

Very interesting thing you have written in this mail ie.:-

 

<suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of Jyotisha are

incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to give Phala >

 

But you were saying and all knows about it ie you were saying in SS there is

talk of Mangal Bhagwan, Shani Bhagwan and those are not planets so that is the

rason SS doesnt give exact location of planets..and so everybody should test(or

TASTE like you make always OMLETE) the SS..but now see what you are talking just

now....

 

GAJAB KI MAHIMA HAI SAAB SS KI

 

You cant not throw dust in the eyes of public

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views. I

have cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

There are countless stories of Suryadeva giving darshana after Tapasyaa.

Astrological Grahas cannot be seen without Tapasyaa.

>

> Mr Prashant Pandy should accept/refute the case studies at following site :

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains , instead of wasting time

over futile arguments.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ======== ===

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...>

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

< The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

>

> Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

>

> NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

>

> Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

>

> How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

>

> Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we

know now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according

to VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

>

> Verse in support of it is as below:-

>

> YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> > inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> > adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> > Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> > knows that.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > >

> >

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > vedic astrology@

> > . com

> >

> > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

> >

> >

> >

> > WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

> >

> >

> >

> > He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> > already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

> >

> >

> >

> > I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> > AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

> >

> >

> >

> > WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> > ITSELF

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > @>

> >

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> > Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> > within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> > Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> > system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> > also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> > Nakshatras.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

> >

> > [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> > and more on this topic.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thank you DARLING.

> >

> >

> >

> > Story begins from here.

> >

> >

> >

> > < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> > the Vamana purana.? >

> >

> >

> >

> > Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> > many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

> >

> >

> >

> > After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> > started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> > months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> > clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> > Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

> >

> >

> >

> > So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> > are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

> >

> >

> >

> > I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> > support of it.

> >

> >

> >

> > Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> > and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> > single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> > contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> > are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> > have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> > support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> > books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> > about it).

> >

> >

> >

> > Thank you very much.

> >

> >

> >

> > < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> > be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> > the Greeks. >

> >

> >

> >

> > If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> > cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> > between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

> >

> >

> >

> > Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> > write i am dying.

> >

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology, Sunil

> > Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Have you noticed the following line.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> > to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> > I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> > Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> > pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> > Jyotisha from the Greeks.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Best wishes,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > " vedic astrology "

> > <vedic astrology>

> >

> > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> >

> > >

> >

> > > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RishiRahul

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vedic astrology

> >

> > > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> >

> > > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Brother,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> > anguish!!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> > astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> > not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> > believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> > India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> > is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> > gain from anyone.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> > predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> > rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> > like many do.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> > thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> > Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> > occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> > Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RishiRahuk

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vedic astrology

> >

> > >

> >

> > > khannaanup32@

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > You have talked about one word called as

> > 'ARUDHA'.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > So i will say only something that in the name of

> > Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> > totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> > astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> > it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> > very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> > what is of others.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> > great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> > free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> > is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> > SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> > PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> > IN THIS CENTURY.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> > BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> > UNPARALLELED.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WE ARE GREAT !

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Thank you very much

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > " vedic astrology "

> > <vedic astrology>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I wonder!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vedic astrology

> >

> > >

> >

> > > khannaanup32@

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> >

> > >

> >

> > > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> > including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> > forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> > discuss things with you.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sincerely

> >

> > >

> >

> > > k. k. mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> > scholar "

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> > go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> > vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> > scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> > great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> > rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> > about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> > not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> > opinion on that.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 2)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > You also said as follows "

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > " However, they always seem to me always

> > converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> > witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> > forums "

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> > Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> > far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> > some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> > made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 3)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> > yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> > scholarship?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 4)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> > chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> > that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> > meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> > Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> > Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> > Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> > forum. He may remove your doubts.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> > carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> > the Vedic words and verses.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 5)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> > are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> > what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 6)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> > and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> > earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> > Dr. Narahari Achar.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> > you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> > Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> > have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> > impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> > to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> > science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> > other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> > pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> > Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> > correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> > the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> > Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> > that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> > if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> > then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> > Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> > " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> > have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> > exception for such " hidden " meanings!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> > Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> > Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> > and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> > Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> > have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> > is it some other zodiac?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> > knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> > the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> > INSA site.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> > again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> > other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> > Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> > taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> > other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> > " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> > the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> > could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> > talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> > personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> > want to improve my own knowledge.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > With regaqrds,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Yours sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> > hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> > astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> > with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> > and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> > Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> > be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> > views sooner or later.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> > assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> > interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> > views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> > is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> > be judgemental like that.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > as the true truth!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> > Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> > simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> > (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> > dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> > or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> > obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> > the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> > the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> > one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> > this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> > does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> > verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> > the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> > Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> > access to it in?five. minutes.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> > he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> > Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> > verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> > Purana .

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > He just wants only to extract information

> > and criticize unnecessarily.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?Sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> > <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> > <sohum@>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> > my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> > I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> > default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> > happens only with WAVES!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> > insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> > the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> > appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> > one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> > have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> > am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> > interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> > Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> > <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> > Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > as the true truth!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> > likely to produce anything useful or rational.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> > waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> > to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> > their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> > interested.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> > did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> > always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> > his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Once again, thank you.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Respected members,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> > quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> > have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> > mail from Shri Sathaye.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> > interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> > and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> > match-making!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Best wishes

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> > K. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> > claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Here are my observations:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > SB said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> > (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> > adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> > creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > leads to rains!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> > whole verse please!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> > request to get a parokSha

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *SB further said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> > 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> > the word kanyA exists as an

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > sAyaNa

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > describes as

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> > of the whole verse which

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> > appearing somewhere, then I

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > can find many more references in

> > Rigveda(:-))

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > SB further said;

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> > where Agastya and

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> > ???????? ????? |

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> > ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> > but we know that Agastya was

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> > and not from a pot. So we

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> > Rashi. Here one has to

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> > Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> > Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> > knows

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > the verses.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> > is a Rashi, then what is the

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > explanation of the rest?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> > equal amount of semen in

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> > Vasishtha.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> > whole mantra please? Without

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> > Rashi as an assertion of

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> > vartak?)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > SB frurther said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> > Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> > rasayaH

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> > parigrihaH

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > [

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> > the Veda

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> > I cannot locate this verse

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> > in mine already. I also gave

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> > reciprocate. */

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > --

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > With Best Regards,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Avinash Sathaye

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- End forwarded message ---

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> > website. Enter http://cricket.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Read my previous mails in which I gave detailed references about Raashi in

ancient scriptures. I am not going to post same mails again and again, because

after a few days you will feign to forget them and ask for same verses again.

 

-VJ

 

 

________________________________

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:21:21 PM

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

< I had sent references of Raashi in Vedic texts, but followers of Mr AK Kaul

ignore proofs. >

 

Send again on this forum.

 

< All ancient sages like Narada and Vyasa used ONLY Suryasiddhantic mathematics

in Puranas and Mahabharata, and Suryasiddhanta continued to be esteemed as most

revered and " divine " text even in Kaliyuga >

 

Dont do false talks.

 

Show VERSES from MBH in which there is talk of any planet other then NKS leave

aside about the talk of Rashi and YOUR LOVING SURYASIDHANTA.

 

Talk with VERSES only.

 

< Narasa Ji's mastery over Jyotisha is proven by his Narada Purana, which gives

more detailed siddhantic (mathematical) and astrological (predictive)

descriptions than other Puranas, and is 100% based on Suryasiddhanta. >

 

Dont worry i am coming with VERSES from PURANS.

 

< Yet Mr AK Kaul & c are attacking sidereal astrology. >

 

When somebody talks of HINDU-HARMASHATRA then you are saying it is attack, why

not it would be attack as sidereal things are mentioned in VEDAS, VJ, even there

is no talk of Rashis.

 

If you have proof then come with verses.

 

even in PURANS there is talk of Tropical Rashi system, dont go away i am coming

with VERSES.

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> I had sent references of Raashi in Vedic texts, but followers of Mr AK Kaul

ignore proofs. For instance, Sage Narada says in Chhaandogya Upanishada that he

mastered Raashi Vidyaa alongwithwith other vidyaas. Chhaandogya Upanishada is

part of the Vedic literature, and is a part of Samveda's Talwakar Brahmana.

Narasa Ji's mastery over Jyotisha is proven by his Narada Purana, which gives

more detailed siddhantic (mathematical) and astrological (predictive)

descriptions than other Puranas, and is 100% based on Suryasiddhanta. This

reference of Chhaandogya Upanishada and Narada Purana proves Suryasiddhanta to

be perfectly in line with Vedic tradition. All ancient sages like Narada and

Vyasa used ONLY Suryasiddhantic mathematics in Puranas and Mahabharata, and

Suryasiddhanta continued to be esteemed as most revered and " divine " text even

in Kaliyuga (cf. Panchsiddhantika of Varaha Mihira). Yet Mr AK Kaul & c are

attacking sidereal astrology.

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:54:31 AM

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Rishi Rahulji,

>

> Have you noticed the following line.

>

> Quote

>

> ..I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi from

Indian system.

>

> Unquote

>

> What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana. There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

>

> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

>

> Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

>

> There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

>

> RishiRahul

>

> vedic astrology

> rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Brother,

>

> I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

>

> Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

>

> Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

>

> Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have to

gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very

little to gain from anyone.

>

> Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

>

> This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

>

> By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

>

> I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

>

> RishiRahuk

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

>

> You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

>

> So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

>

> Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is great

and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in this

field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

what is of others.

>

> Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is in

the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

>

> THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME

IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE

WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

>

> SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME

ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

>

> WE ARE GREAT !

>

> Thank you very much

>

> --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

>

> RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

>

> Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

>

> Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

>

> I wonder!!

>

> vedic astrology

>

> khannaanup32@

>

> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

>

> [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> I have seen this mail on some other forums.

>

> Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

>

> Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

>

> Sincerely

>

> k. k. mehrotra

>

> WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

>

> > ?

>

> > 1)

>

> > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

>

> > ?

>

> > 2)

>

> > You also said as follows "

>

> > ?

>

> > Quote

>

> > ?

>

> > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other forums "

>

> > ?

>

> > Unquote

>

> > ?

>

> > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

>

> > ?

>

> > 3)

>

> > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

>

> > ?

>

> > 4)

>

> > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

>

> > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

>

> > ?

>

> > 5)

>

> > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

>

> > ?

>

> > 6)

>

> > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions the

Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

>

> > ?

>

> > Sincerely,

>

> > ?

>

> > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

>

> > ?

>

> > ?

>

> >

>

> > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > WAVES-Vedic

>

> > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

>

> > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

>

> >

>

> > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

>

> >

>

> > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes me

feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had been

tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

>

> >

>

> > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

>

> > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

>

> > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl. give

me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not find

it on INSA site.

>

> >

>

> > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

>

> > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

>

> > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

>

> > With regaqrds,

>

> > Yours sincerely,

>

> > K K Mehrotra

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Mehrotraji,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting that

you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Quote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Unquote

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the Vedanga

Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga Jyotisha "

is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five. minutes.

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

>

> > > ?

>

> > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

>

> > >

>

> > > ?

>

> > > ?Sincerely,

>

> > > ?

>

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

>

> > > ?

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

>

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

> > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

>

> > > Cc: waves-vedic

>

> > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Sathayeji,

>

> > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

>

> > >

>

> > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only his

interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

>

> > >

>

> > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

>

> > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

>

> > > K. K. Mehrotra

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

>

> > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

>

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

>

> > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Dear Malhotraji,

>

> > >

>

> > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

>

> > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

>

> > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

>

> > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

>

> > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything useful

or rational.

>

> > >

>

> > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this discussion.

If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

>

> > >

>

> > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

>

> > >

>

> > > Once again, thank you.

>

> > >

>

> > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

>

> > > Respected members,

>

> > > I am a new comer to this forum.

>

> > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

>

> > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly be

presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

>

> > > Best wishes

>

> > > K K Mehrotra

>

> > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

>

> > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

>

> > > Here are my observations:

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > SB said:

>

> > > /A) Rashi in Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > 1)

>

> > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

>

> > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

>

> > > /

>

> > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

>

> > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

>

> > > leads to rains!

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

>

> > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

>

> > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

>

> > >

>

> > > *SB further said:

>

> > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

>

> > > *

>

> > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

>

> > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

>

> > > Where does one get the Rashi?

>

> > > sAyaNa

>

> > > describes as

>

> > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

>

> > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

>

> > > justifies the alternate meaning.

>

> > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

>

> > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

>

> > >

>

> > > SB further said;

>

> > >

>

> > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

>

> > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

>

> > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

>

> > >

>

> > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

>

> > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

>

> > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

>

> > > interpret the metaphors properly.

>

> > >

>

> > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

>

> > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

>

> > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

>

> > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

>

> > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

>

> > > the verses.

>

> > >

>

> > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

>

> > > explanation of the rest?

>

> > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

>

> > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

>

> > >

>

> > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

>

> > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

>

> > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

>

> > > *

>

> > > SB frurther said:

>

> > >

>

> > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> > >

>

> > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

>

> > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

>

> > >

>

> > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

>

> > >

>

> > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

>

> > >

>

> > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

>

> > > [

>

> > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

>

> > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

>

> > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

>

> > >

>

> > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

>

> > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

>

> > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

>

> > > /

>

> > >

>

> > > --

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > With Best Regards,

>

> > > Avinash Sathaye

>

> > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

>

> > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mr Anup Khanna thinks he can mislead members by making false statements.

Chapter-1 of BPHS and Chapter-2 of Suryasiddhanta clearly say that astrological

planets are incarnations of God. Every Hindu knows that deities cannot be seen

without proper tapasyaa.Grahas of Jyotisha are not PHYSICAL planets. Why you

deliberately omit the word " physical " from my statement ? Deities are not

physical entities.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:28:12 PM

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

< Mangal Bhagwan, Shani Bhagwan >

 

one more thing there is no proof from VEDAS and VJ about planet bhagwan ie

Mangal planet Bhagwan, Shani Planet Bhagwan

 

if i am wrong then see what our DEAR Jha is talking, he is sayinng in BPHS and

SS there is talk of planet bhagwan....

 

but everbody knows that sometimes back he was talking that SS says those are not

planets so it doesnt give correct locations...

 

see the stories....

 

vedic astrology, " khannaanup32 " <khannaanup32@ ...>

wrote:

>

> < Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views. I

have cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

>

>

> Read again what i had written:-

>

> it is as below:-

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

> Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we

know now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according

to VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

> >

> > Verse in support of it is as below:-

> >

> > YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

>

> Go and read YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10,i can also provide other

verses in spoort of it....

>

> I said God knows who have done the engineering with Dharma Shastra and see on

your own who are the culprits.... See and let all ppl see it...

>

> Very interesting thing you have written in this mail ie.:-

>

> <suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of Jyotisha are

incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to give Phala >

>

> But you were saying and all knows about it ie you were saying in SS there is

talk of Mangal Bhagwan, Shani Bhagwan and those are not planets so that is the

rason SS doesnt give exact location of planets..and so everybody should test(or

TASTE like you make always OMLETE) the SS..but now see what you are talking just

now....

>

> GAJAB KI MAHIMA HAI SAAB SS KI

>

> You cant not throw dust in the eyes of public

>

>

> vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views. I

have cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

There are countless stories of Suryadeva giving darshana after Tapasyaa.

Astrological Grahas cannot be seen without Tapasyaa.

> >

> > Mr Prashant Pandy should accept/refute the case studies at following site :

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains , instead of wasting time

over futile arguments.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ======== ===

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

> > vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > < The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are

not the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

> >

> > Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

> >

> > NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

> >

> > Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will

not effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

> >

> > How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in

any Rashi, it will not matter.

> >

> > Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we

know now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according

to VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

> >

> > Verse in support of it is as below:-

> >

> > YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

> >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > vedic astrology

> > > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> > > inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> > > adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> > > Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> > > knows that.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > > >

> > >

> > > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > vedic astrology@

> > > . com

> > >

> > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> > > already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> > > AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> > > ITSELF

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > @>

> > >

> > > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> > > Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> > > within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> > > Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> > > system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> > > also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> > > Nakshatras.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

> > >

> > > [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> > > and more on this topic.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you DARLING.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Story begins from here.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> > > the Vamana purana.? >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> > > many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> > > started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> > > months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> > > clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> > > Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> > > are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> > > support of it.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> > > and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> > > single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> > > contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> > > are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> > > have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> > > support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> > > books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> > > about it).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you very much.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> > > be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> > > the Greeks. >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> > > cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> > > between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> > > write i am dying.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vedic astrology, Sunil

> > > Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Have you noticed the following line.

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> > > to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> > > I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> > > Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> > > pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> > > Jyotisha from the Greeks.

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > > ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > > " vedic astrology "

> > > <vedic astrology>

> > >

> > > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RishiRahul

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> > >

> > > > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Brother,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> > > anguish!!!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> > > astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> > > not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> > > believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> > > India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> > > is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> > > gain from anyone.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> > > predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> > > rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> > > like many do.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> > > thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> > > Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> > > occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> > > Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RishiRahuk

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > khannaanup32@

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You have talked about one word called as

> > > 'ARUDHA'.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > So i will say only something that in the name of

> > > Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> > > totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> > > astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> > > it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> > > very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> > > what is of others.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> > > great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> > > free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> > > is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> > > SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> > > PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> > > IN THIS CENTURY.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> > > BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> > > UNPARALLELED.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > WE ARE GREAT !

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Thank you very much

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > > hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > " vedic astrology "

> > > <vedic astrology>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I wonder!!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > khannaanup32@

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> > > including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> > > forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> > > discuss things with you.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > k. k. mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> > > scholar "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> > > go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> > > vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> > > scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> > > great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> > > rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> > > about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> > > not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> > > opinion on that.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 2)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You also said as follows "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > " However, they always seem to me always

> > > converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> > > witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> > > forums "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> > > Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> > > far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> > > some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> > > made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 3)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> > > yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> > > scholarship?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 4)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> > > chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> > > that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> > > meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> > > Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> > > Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> > > Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> > > forum. He may remove your doubts.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> > > carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> > > the Vedic words and verses.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 5)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> > > are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> > > what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 6)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> > > and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> > > earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> > > Dr. Narahari Achar.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > WAVES-Vedic

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> > > you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> > > Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> > > have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> > > impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> > > to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> > > science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> > > other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> > > pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> > > Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> > > correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> > > the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> > > Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> > > that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> > > if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> > > then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> > > Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> > > " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> > > have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> > > exception for such " hidden " meanings!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> > > Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> > > Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> > > and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> > > Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> > > have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> > > is it some other zodiac?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> > > knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> > > the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> > > INSA site.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> > > again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> > > other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> > > Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> > > taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> > > other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> > > " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> > > the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> > > could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> > > talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> > > personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> > > want to improve my own knowledge.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > With regaqrds,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Yours sincerely,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > K K Mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> > > hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> > > astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> > > with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> > > and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> > > Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> > > be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> > > views sooner or later.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> > > assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> > > interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> > > views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> > > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> > > is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> > > be judgemental like that.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > > us to accept two axioms:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > > as the true truth!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> > > Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> > > simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> > > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> > > (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> > > dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> > > or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> > > obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> > > the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> > > the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> > > one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> > > this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> > > does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> > > verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> > > the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> > > Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> > > access to it in?five. minutes.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> > > he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> > > Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> > > verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> > > Purana .

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > He just wants only to extract information

> > > and criticize unnecessarily.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?Sincerely,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> > > <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> > > <sohum@>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> > > my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> > > I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> > > default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> > > happens only with WAVES!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> > > insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> > > the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> > > appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> > > one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> > > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> > > have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> > > am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> > > interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> > > Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> > > <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> > > Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > > us to accept two axioms:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > > as the true truth!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> > > likely to produce anything useful or rational.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> > > waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> > > to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> > > their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> > > interested.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> > > did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> > > always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> > > his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Once again, thank you.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> > > quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> > > have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> > > mail from Shri Sathaye.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> > > interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> > > and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> > > match-making!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Best wishes

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > K K Mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> > > K. Bhattacharjya.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> > > claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Here are my observations:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > SB said:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> > > (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> > > adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> > > creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > leads to rains!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> > > whole verse please!!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> > > request to get a parokSha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *SB further said:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> > > 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> > > the word kanyA exists as an

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > sAyaNa

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > describes as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> > > of the whole verse which

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> > > appearing somewhere, then I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > can find many more references in

> > > Rigveda(:-))

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > SB further said;

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> > > where Agastya and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> > > ???????? ????? |

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> > > ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> > > but we know that Agastya was

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> > > and not from a pot. So we

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> > > Rashi. Here one has to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> > > Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> > > Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> > > knows

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> > > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > the verses.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> > > is a Rashi, then what is the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > explanation of the rest?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> > > equal amount of semen in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> > > Vasishtha.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> > > whole mantra please? Without

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> > > Rashi as an assertion of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> > > vartak?)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > SB frurther said:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> > > Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> > > rasayaH

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> > > parigrihaH

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > [

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> > > the Veda

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> > > I cannot locate this verse

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> > > in mine already. I also gave

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> > > reciprocate. */

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > --

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > With Best Regards,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Avinash Sathaye

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- End forwarded message ---

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> > > website. Enter http://cricket.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

<<< I HAVE GIVEN PROOF FROM VEDAS BUT JHAA IS MAKING MOCKERY OF VEDAS.IT IS VERY

SAID. >>>

 

Do not make false statements in my name. I never mocked Vedas in my life. You

are lying. you never gave any proof at all, only made some unsupported claims.

 

Not only Krittika, many other nakshatras contain more than one star. But the

numbers vary. Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/1-4 does not say nakshatras occupy

varying spaces. In space, some regions contain more stars than others. If some

nakshatra contains more stars, it does not prove that it contains more degrees

in space too.

 

Atharva Veda and Vedanga Jyotisha give complete list of nakshatras, without

mentiong the enequal division of zodiac. on what ground these fellows are

supposing unequal divisiomn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:10:03 AM

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

< I had said to this biased person that all nakshatras contain varying number of

stars, but their occupy equal degrees in space, except for Abhijit (and its

adjacent neighbours) which has some restricted usages. >

 

I am biased with VEDAS, PURANS, VJ only as i am HIndu.Dont abuse me because i am

TRUE HINDU and knows about our DHARMA-SHASTRA.

 

FIRST READ VEDAS OK

Read :- Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/1-4

 

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.

 

Now what i can say about your stand you are declining the facts.

 

OK do one thing show me any verse from VEDAS, VJ in which it is written that NKS

were of 13 degree 20 mins.

 

Do not worry i will come with quote of AL-BERUNI tomorrow who came to India in

11'th A.D. and said that Bhaskara(first) said that NKS are of unequal divisions.

 

I will also show you proof in which Lahiri himself said that NKS were of unequal

division.

 

I will also show you proof from 4 ppl's commentry on VJ in which they said that

NKS were of unequal division, all those proof would be from Indians.

 

Anyway it was talk about proofs from VEDAs we should also see the posn of those

Yogatara on astronomical perspective..

 

Only one interesting example i will show to whole Public around the world who is

watching the debate between Shri Khanna-ji and two others SB and VJ.

 

MUTUAL LOCATIONS of CHITRA AND SWATI IN DIFFERENT TIMES BY LAHIRI

 

In Time period :- 1-1400 BC

 

Greek name Star name Indian name Lon. (DMS) Lati. (DMS)

AI. Virginis Spica Chitra 180 1' 21'' (-) 1 51' 11''

Alpha Bootis Arctrus Swati 180 0' 51'' (+) 32 59' 39''

 

January 1, 3000 BC Tropical

 

Greek name Star name Indian name Lon. (DMS) Lati. (DMS)

AI. Virginis Spica Chitra 134 48' 32'' (-) 1 48' 30''

Alpha Bootis Arctrus Swati 134 36' 21'' (+) 33 56' 10''

 

MEAN PLACES OF STARS FOR 1-1400 BC Tropical

 

Greek name Star name Indian name Lon. (DMS) Lati. (DMS)

AI. Virginis Spica Chitra 156 45' 13'' (-) 1 51' 11''

Alpha Bootis Arctrus Swati 156 44' 43'' (+) 32 59'39''

 

NOW PLEASE SEE THE LONGITUDES OF CHHITRA AND SWATI THOSE HAVE NEVER BEEN MERELY

1 DEGRREES APART THEN HOW THOSE NKS COULD HAVE BEEN OF ANY SPACE.IF THOSE WOULD

HAVE TAKEN ANY SPACE LIKE 13 DEGREE 20 MIN THAN THOSE HAVE TAKEN ANY TARA(WE SAY

THOSE AS YOGA TARA) WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ATLEAST 13 DEGREES APART TO EACH OTHER

AND THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN MIDDLE OF THOSE NKS.

 

BUT HERE SEE THE STORY.

 

IT CONCLUDES LOGICALLY THAT THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY CLUSTER OF STARS AND SOME

COULD HAVE BEEN ONLY SINGLE STAR.AND IN Shatapatha Brahmana IT IS CLEARLY

MENTIONED THAT KRITIKAS HAD MANY STARS ONLY, WHAT IT SAYS.

 

I HAVE GIVEN PROOF FROM VEDAS BUT JHAA IS MAKING MOCKERY OF VEDAS..IT IS VERY

SAID.

 

NO WORRY I WILL ALSO SHOW THE STATEMENTS OF INDIANS REGARDING IT THAN I WILL

CLOSE THIS MAIL CHAIN.

 

THANKS FOR THE PUBLIC TO FOR READING MY STAND.

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> I had said to this biased person that all nakshatras contain varying number of

stars, but their occupy equal degrees in space, except for Abhijit (and its

adjacent neighbours) which has some restricted usages.

>

> -vj

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:17:44 AM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

>

>

> Both Jha and I know that the Nakshatras are not equispaced in the ecliptic

and that, at the same time, the ecliptic is divided equally among the 27

Nakshatras. Nakshatra divisions of the ecliptic (used only for the astrological

purpose) are equal. You previous mail shows that you only had confusion. Don't

try to show your cunningness. Understand?

>

> You are the person who does not know what is the difference between the

Tropical and Sidereal Zodiac and you also don't know that the Nakshatra

divisions are equal. I have no interst. Stop your fooloish mails.

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 9:23 AM

>

> < The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are not

the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

>

> Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

>

> NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

>

> Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will not

effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

>

> How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in any

Rashi, it will not matter.

>

> Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we

know now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according

to VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

>

> Verse in support of it is as below:-

>

> YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

>

> Thanks

>

> --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

>

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> > inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> > adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> > Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> > knows that.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > >

> >

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > vedic astrology@

> > . com

> >

> > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

> >

> >

> >

> > WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

> >

> >

> >

> > He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> > already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

> >

> >

> >

> > I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> > AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

> >

> >

> >

> > WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> > ITSELF

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > @>

> >

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

> >

> >

> >

> > You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> > Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> > within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> > Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> > system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> > also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> > Nakshatras.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

> >

> > [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

> >

> >

> >

> > Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> > and more on this topic.

> >

> >

> >

> > Thank you DARLING.

> >

> >

> >

> > Story begins from here.

> >

> >

> >

> > < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> > the Vamana purana.? >

> >

> >

> >

> > Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> > many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

> >

> >

> >

> > After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> > started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> > months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> > clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> > Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

> >

> >

> >

> > So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> > are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

> >

> >

> >

> > I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> > support of it.

> >

> >

> >

> > Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> > and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> > single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> > contention over there..Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> > are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> > have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> > support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> > books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> > about it).

> >

> >

> >

> > Thank you very much.

> >

> >

> >

> > < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> > be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> > the Greeks. >

> >

> >

> >

> > If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> > cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> > between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

> >

> >

> >

> > Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> > write i am dying.

> >

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology, Sunil

> > Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Have you noticed the following line.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> > to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> > I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> > Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> > pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> > Jyotisha from the Greeks.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Best wishes,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > " vedic astrology "

> > <vedic astrology>

> >

> > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> >

> > >

> >

> > > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RishiRahul

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vedic astrology

> >

> > > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> >

> > > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Brother,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> > anguish!!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> > astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> > not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> > believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> > India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> > is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> > gain from anyone.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> > predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> > rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> > like many do.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> > thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> > Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> > occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> > Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RishiRahuk

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vedic astrology

> >

> > >

> >

> > > khannaanup32@

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > You have talked about one word called as

> > 'ARUDHA'.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > So i will say only something that in the name of

> > Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> > totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> > astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> > it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> > very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> > what is of others.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> > great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> > free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> > is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> > SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> > PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> > IN THIS CENTURY.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> > BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> > UNPARALLELED.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WE ARE GREAT !

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Thank you very much

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > " vedic astrology "

> > <vedic astrology>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I wonder!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > vedic astrology

> >

> > >

> >

> > > khannaanup32@

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> >

> > >

> >

> > > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ....> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> > including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> > forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> > discuss things with you.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Sincerely

> >

> > >

> >

> > > k. k. mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> > scholar "

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> > go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> > vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> > scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> > great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> > rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> > about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> > not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> > opinion on that.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 2)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > You also said as follows "

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > " However, they always seem to me always

> > converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> > witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> > forums "

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> > Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> > far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> > some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> > made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 3)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> > yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> > scholarship?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 4)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> > chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> > that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> > meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> > Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> > Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> > Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> > forum. He may remove your doubts.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> > carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> > the Vedic words and verses.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 5)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> > are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> > what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > 6)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> > and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> > earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> > Dr. Narahari Achar.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> > you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> > Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> > have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> > impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> > to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> > science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> > other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> > pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> > Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> > correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> > the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> > Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> > that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> > if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> > then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> > Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> > " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> > have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> > exception for such " hidden " meanings!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> > Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> > Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> > and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> > Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> > have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> > is it some other zodiac?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> > knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> > the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> > INSA site.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> > again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> > other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> > Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> > taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> > other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> > " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> > the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> > could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> > talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> > personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> > want to improve my own knowledge.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > With regaqrds,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > Yours sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> > hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> > astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> > with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> > and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> > Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> > be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> > views sooner or later.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> > assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> > interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> > views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> > is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> > be judgemental like that.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Quote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > as the true truth!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Unquote

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> > Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> > simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> > (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> > dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> > or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> > obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> > the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> > the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> > one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> > this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> > does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> > verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> > the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> > Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> > access to it in?five. minutes.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> > he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> > Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> > verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> > Purana ..

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > He just wants only to extract information

> > and criticize unnecessarily.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?Sincerely,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> > <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> > <sohum@>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> > my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> > I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> > default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> > happens only with WAVES!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> > insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> > the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> > appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> > one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> > have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> > am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> > interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> > Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> > <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> > Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > as the true truth!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> > likely to produce anything useful or rational.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> > waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> > to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> > their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> > interested.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> > did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> > always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> > his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Once again, thank you.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Respected members,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> > quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> > have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> > mail from Shri Sathaye.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> > interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> > and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> > match-making!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Best wishes

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> > K. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> > claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Here are my observations:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > SB said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 1)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> > (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> > adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> > creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > leads to rains!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> > whole verse please!!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> > request to get a parokSha

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *SB further said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> > 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> > the word kanyA exists as an

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > sAyaNa

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > describes as

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> > of the whole verse which

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> > appearing somewhere, then I

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > can find many more references in

> > Rigveda(:-))

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > SB further said;

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> > where Agastya and

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> > ???????? ????? |

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> > ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> > but we know that Agastya was

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> > and not from a pot. So we

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> > Rashi. Here one has to

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> > Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> > Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> > knows

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > the verses.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> > is a Rashi, then what is the

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > explanation of the rest?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> > equal amount of semen in

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> > Vasishtha.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> > whole mantra please? Without

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> > Rashi as an assertion of

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> > vartak?)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > *

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > SB frurther said:

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> > Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> > rasayaH

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> > parigrihaH

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > [

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> > the Veda

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> > I cannot locate this verse

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> > in mine already. I also gave

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> > reciprocate. */

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > /

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > --

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > With Best Regards,

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Avinash Sathaye

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- End forwarded message ---

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> > website. Enter http://cricket.

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Read either my earlier posts or read Chhandogya Upanishada. It is freely

available on internet, why should I repeat the task of supplying verses ? The

main text is not voluminous. If you do not want to read Chhandogya Upanishada,

you can call me a liar, I do not need your certificate.

 

< Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says that

the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. >

 

Modern experts say that the language of Vedanga Jyotisha belongs to the period

3-5th century BCE, but the original materials are believed to belong to 1400 BCE

due to faulty computation OMITTING lunar montha at Dhanishthaa's beginning. If

your view is accepted ( " written in 1500 BC " ), then Mahatma Lagadha composed the

unwritten Shruti much earlier ! You have not read Vedanga Jyotisha , otherwise

you would not have refuted me. Vedanga Jyotisha says it was WRITTEN by a later

person on the basis of knowledge transmitted from Mahatma Lagadha. Mahatma

Lagadha did not WRITE it, he created it in ORAL form. There is no Greek

influence on Vedanga Jyotisha or on Suryadidhanta.

 

-VJ

 

===================== =

 

 

________________________________

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32

vedic astrology

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:31:09 AM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

< False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa.>

 

Give VERSE then i will answer you OK.

 

< Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says that

the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. >

 

I said it would have been written in 1500 BCE not 4'th BCE.

 

< Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed an orally transmitted text which was written

down much later around 4-5th cen BCE >

 

One update regarding my mistake instead of 4- BCE i was intended to write in

4-th cetury BCE(360 BC) but in hurry i forgot to write century word.All knows

when GREEKS attacked india so it is only update from myside.

 

--- On Thu, 25/6/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Thursday, 25 June, 2009, 2:41 PM

 

< False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa. Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says

that the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed

an orally transmitted text which was written down much later around 4-5th cen

BCE. >

 

You and your stories

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> <<< After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India >>>

>

> False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa. Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says

that the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed

an orally transmitted text which was written down much later around 4-5th cen

BCE.

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ ...>

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:02:12 PM

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

> Story begins from here.

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.? >

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but

all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with

our seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc

etc....) which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans

Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond

VEDAS and PURANS.

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish

and still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no

bone of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are

mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that

those were of unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras

and i can also books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about

it).

>

> Thank you very much.

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying.

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> > ?

> > Have you noticed the following line.

> > ?

> > Quote

> > ?

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi

from Indian system.

> >

> > Unquote

> > ?

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> > ?

> > Best wishes,

> > ?

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > ?

> > ?

> > ?

> >

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> >

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> >

> > RishiRahul

> >

> > vedic astrology

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Dear Brother,

> >

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

> >

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> >

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet...

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> >

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have

to gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if

very little to gain from anyone.

> >

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

> >

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> >

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

> >

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

> >

> > RishiRahuk

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > khannaanup32@

> >

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> >

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> >

> > You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

> >

> > So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> >

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is

great and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in

this field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin

and what is of others.

> >

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is

in the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU

CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND

THE WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

> >

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE

NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

> >

> > WE ARE GREAT !

> >

> > Thank you very much

> >

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> >

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> >

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> >

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> >

> > I wonder!!

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > khannaanup32@

> >

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> >

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> >

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

> >

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > k. k. mehrotra

> >

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> > > You also said as follows "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha

being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other

forums "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 4)

> >

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

> >

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 5)

> >

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 6)

> >

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions

the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sincerely,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic

> >

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes

me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had

been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

> >

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

> >

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl.

give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not

find it on INSA site.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> >

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> >

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

> >

> > > With regaqrds,

> >

> > > Yours sincerely,

> >

> > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting

that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given

my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> >

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the

Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five.

minutes.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > ?Sincerely,

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> >

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

> >

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> >

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> >

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only

his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> >

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> >

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> >

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

> >

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> >

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> >

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything

useful or rational.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this

discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Once again, thank you.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> >

> > > > Respected members,

> >

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> >

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

> >

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly

be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

> >

> > > > Best wishes

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> >

> > > > Here are my observations:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > SB said:

> >

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > 1)

> >

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> >

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> >

> > > > /

> >

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> >

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> >

> > > > leads to rains!

> >

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

> >

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

> >

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > *SB further said:

> >

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> >

> > > > *

> >

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

> >

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> >

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> >

> > > > sAyaNa

> >

> > > > describes as

> >

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> >

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

> >

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> >

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

> >

> > > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > SB further said;

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

> >

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

> >

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

> >

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

> >

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

> >

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> >

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> >

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> >

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

> >

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> >

> > > > the verses.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

> >

> > > > explanation of the rest?

> >

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

> >

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

> >

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

> >

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

> >

> > > > *

> >

> > > > SB frurther said:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> >

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> >

> > > > [

> >

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> >

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> >

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

> >

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

> >

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

> >

> > > > /

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > With Best Regards,

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

> >

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> >

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > --- End forwarded message ---

> >

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

<<<

Now taste this, real culture of Hindus, it was seasonal and in Purans,

Sidhantas(your loving SS also claims the same) and VEDAS all say that we were

seasonal....

Purans support seasonal Rashi zodiac not corruped Sideral Rashi Zodiac which was

posed by yavanas on Hindu Culture.

This is also answer to SB, i promised him to show verses from purans of tropical

zodiac.....

>>>

 

" i promised him to show verses from purans of tropical zodiac "

 

WHERE ARE THOSE VERSES ??

 

Ignoring proofs and harping on baseless ideas of AKK without forwarding a single

evidence is your style of " WINNING " a debate.

 

I am not winning or losing any debate with you. Shaashtraartha is held between

knowledgeable persons among the assembly of experts. Internet is not a fit place

for Shaashtraartha. If you want a Shaashtraartha, I invite you to a team of

experts who know the sunbect adequately, and participate is a Shaashtraarthawith

physical presence. You give some names of experts and I will gime names of some

heads of departments & c. They will decide who is a fool. OK ?

 

-VJ

 

================== =======

 

 

________________________________

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

vedic astrology

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:34:21 AM

Fw: Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

To:

Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:46 PM

 

< Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets but

astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement. >

 

Now taste this, real culture of Hindus, it was seasonal and in Purans,

Sidhantas(your loving SS also claims the same) and VEDAS all say that we were

seasonal....

 

Purans support seasonal Rashi zodiac not corruped Sideral Rashi Zodiac which was

posed by yavanas on Hindu Culture.

 

This is also answer to SB, i promised him to show verses from purans of tropical

zodiac.....

 

Dear Public now see how JHAAA is playing with us

 

PS :- I am forwarding to some 10-20 ids to this mail as my membership have been

deleted by jealous gutter narayan iyer and pvr because i was winning the

discussion, so if anybody cares for truth then pls forward it to VA

 

In the name of God forward this to VA as anti Hindu PVR and Narayan Iyer has

played the game with true Hindu culture and deleted me from the VA without any

reason as i didnt abuse JHAAA

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets but

astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ===

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now!

 

Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more. Click

here.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I told you many times that BPHS (chapter-2) and Suryasiddhanta (ch-1) clearly

state that astrological Grahas are incarnations of God. Why you falsely accuse

me of planting a " new story " . have you no respect for truth ? I am citing from

ancient texts and you call it my invention. This is your xtyle of " winning " ?

Hari Malla is similar.

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

vedic astrology

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:35:12 AM

Fw: Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 26/6/09, khannaanup32@ <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32@ <khannaanup32@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

To:

Friday, 26 June, 2009, 9:01 PM

 

< Mr Anup Khanna thinks he can mislead members by making false statements.

Chapter-1 of BPHS and Chapter-2 of Suryasiddhanta clearly say that astrological

planets are incarnations of God. Every Hindu knows that deities cannot be seen

without proper tapasyaa.Grahas of Jyotisha are not PHYSICAL planets. >

 

New story. Then tell me why are you locating those deities by the calculations.

Now please stop this,,, accept SS can not locate the correct locations of

planets.And precession defined by those were totally wrong. Now dont make story

that there is difference between Ayanamsha and Precession.When we are location

planets wrt to earth then there should be correct phenomenon of astronomies.

 

When somebody will make story that Surya Bhagwan gave it and will try to make

Fool Hindus then it had to happen.

 

BTW i am talking of VEDAS and PURANS,,, yes i also know you can back things only

with YAVANAS's things,, and i am backing things with VEDAS and PURANS that is we

were seasonal person

 

PS :- I am forwarding to some 10-20 ids to this mail as my membership have been

deleted by jealous gutter narayan iyer and pvr because i was winning the

discussion, so if anybody cares for truth then pls forward it to VA

 

In the name of God forward this to VA as anti Hindu PVR and Narayan Iyer has

played the game with true Hindu culture and deleted me from the VA without any

reason as i didnt abuse JHAAA

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

Mr Anup Khanna thinks he can mislead members by making false statements.

Chapter-1 of BPHS and Chapter-2 of Suryasiddhanta clearly say that astrological

planets are incarnations of God. Every Hindu knows that deities cannot be seen

without proper tapasyaa.Grahas of Jyotisha are not PHYSICAL planets. Why you

deliberately omit the word " physical " from my statement ? Deities are not

physical entities.

 

____________ _________ _________ __

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ ...>

vedic astrology

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:28:12 PM

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

< Mangal Bhagwan, Shani Bhagwan >

 

one more thing there is no proof from VEDAS and VJ about planet bhagwan ie

Mangal planet Bhagwan, Shani Planet Bhagwan

 

if i am wrong then see what our DEAR Jha is talking, he is sayinng in BPHS and

SS there is talk of planet bhagwan....

 

but everbody knows that sometimes back he was talking that SS says those are not

planets so it doesnt give correct locations...

 

see the stories....

 

vedic astrology, " khannaanup32 " <khannaanup32@ ...>

wrote:

>

> < Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views.. I

have cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

>

>

> Read again what i had written:-

>

> it is as below:-

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

> Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we

know now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according

to VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

> >

> > Verse in support of it is as below:-

> >

> > YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

>

> Go and read YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10,i can also provide other

verses in spoort of it....

>

> I said God knows who have done the engineering with Dharma Shastra and see on

your own who are the culprits.... See and let all ppl see it...

>

> Very interesting thing you have written in this mail ie.:-

>

> <suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of Jyotisha are

incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to give Phala >

>

> But you were saying and all knows about it ie you were saying in SS there is

talk of Mangal Bhagwan, Shani Bhagwan and those are not planets so that is the

rason SS doesnt give exact location of planets..and so everybody should test(or

TASTE like you make always OMLETE) the SS..but now see what you are talking just

now....

>

> GAJAB KI MAHIMA HAI SAAB SS KI

>

> You cant not throw dust in the eyes of public

>

>

> vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

> >

> > Mr Prashant pandey (alias anup khanna) is deliberately distorting views.. I

have cited BPHS, suryasiddhanta, etc in previous mails which say that Grahas of

Jyotisha are incarnations of God and the purpose of these incarnations is to

give Phala to creatures according to their Karmas. It is, therefore, wrong to

confuse these deities of the Bhuvaloka with physical planets of the Martyaloka.

There are countless stories of Suryadeva giving darshana after Tapasyaa.

Astrological Grahas cannot be seen without Tapasyaa.

> >

> > Mr Prashant Pandy should accept/refute the case studies at following site :

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains , instead of wasting time

over futile arguments.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

> > ============ ======== ===

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

> > vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:53:36 PM

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > < The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the inter-nakshatra distances are

not the same between all adjacent nakshatras. >

> >

> > Thank you for accepting this, but still Jha has to accept

> >

> > NP i will give more VERSES from VEDAS and VEDANGA JYOTISH to Jha

> >

> > Shri SBji, even if NKS would not be of equal space behind Rashi those will

not effect to Rashis in anyway.(In VEDAS it was cluster of stars.)

> >

> > How one star near to ecliptic will have any impact on Rashi.It could be in

any Rashi, it will not matter.

> >

> > Shri SBji,in VEDAS and VEDANGA Jyotish lord of NKS are not planets like we

know now-a-days, lords of those NKS were our deities(God) not planets according

to VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish.God knows who has done the engineering.

> >

> > Verse in support of it is as below:-

> >

> > YAJURVEDA, TAITTERIYA SHAKHA, 4.4.10

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

wrote:

> >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

> > > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > > vedic astrology

> > > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 1:28 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The Nakshatras are not equispaced ie. the

> > > inter-nakshatra distances are not the same between all

> > > adjacent nakshatras. But the Nakshatra-divisions s in the

> > > Zodiac for the astrological purpose are equal and A.K.Kaul

> > > knows that.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@

> > > >

> > >

> > > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > vedic astrology@

> > > . com

> > >

> > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:33 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I DONT KNOW WHAT A K KAUL SAYS....

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > WHY ARE YOU SO WORRIED OF Mr. A K Kaul

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > He also says that NKS are of unequal divison, i have

> > > already provided VERSE from scriture in replied mail to JHA

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I WILL TALK ONLY OF VERSES FROM VEDAS AND PURANS...HIGH

> > > AUTHORITY OF HINDU DHARMA

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > WAIT SOMETIME I WILL COME WITH MANY MANY VERSES FROM PURANS

> > > ITSELF

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Wed, 24/6/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya

> > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a

> > > @>

> > >

> > > Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 12:18 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You do not know the difference of the Tropical and the

> > > Sidereal system. Vamana purana clearly gave the Nakshatras

> > > within each Rashi. Therefore the Rashis mentioned in the

> > > Vamana Purana are Sidereal and not Tropical. In Tropical

> > > system the Rashis are not related to Nakshatras. A.K.Kaul

> > > also says that in Tropical calendar forget about the

> > > Nakshatras.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

> > >

> > > [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 4:32 AM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more

> > > and more on this topic.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you DARLING.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Story begins from here.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in

> > > the Vamana purana.? >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many

> > > many PURANS, but all are TROPICAL ONE.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl

> > > started mingling it with our seasonal things like seasonal

> > > months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc etc....) which is

> > > clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in

> > > Purans Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus

> > > are not beyond VEDAS and PURANS.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in

> > > support of it.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS

> > > and Vedanga Jyotish and still nobody has provided even

> > > single Mantra from over there so there is no bone of

> > > contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those

> > > are mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i

> > > have also given VERSE that those were of unequal division(In

> > > support of it i can also provide more Mantras and i can also

> > > books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written

> > > about it).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Thank you very much.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to

> > > be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from

> > > the Greeks. >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i

> > > cant say anything more about it.Some black-sheeps are still

> > > between us to desecrate our VEDAS and PURANS.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to

> > > write i am dying.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vedic astrology, Sunil

> > > Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Have you noticed the following line.

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Quote

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better

> > > to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi?

> > > I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the

> > > Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which

> > > pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt

> > > Jyotisha from the Greeks.

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Best wishes,

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > > ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > > " vedic astrology "

> > > <vedic astrology>

> > >

> > > > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RishiRahul

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> > >

> > > > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Brother,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such

> > > anguish!!!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of

> > > astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is

> > > not corrupt yet... absolutely not! It is what you choose to

> > > believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from

> > > India. Again if we have to gain from the Western thought it

> > > is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if very little to

> > > gain from anyone.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us

> > > predict about the Future or, more so, the Past accurately,

> > > rather than arguing about what says who and who says what,

> > > like many do.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology

> > > thoughts, not for venting frustrations arising out of

> > > Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which

> > > occurred after reading previous post and the one before.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are

> > > Certainly Great, so long as our Truth is in the Right path.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RishiRahuk

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > khannaanup32@

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > You have talked about one word called as

> > > 'ARUDHA'.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > So i will say only something that in the name of

> > > Jyotish whatever we have imported from others to India is

> > > totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of

> > > astrology, it is great and nobody is even standing near of

> > > it.But there is so much mess now in this field, only very

> > > very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin and

> > > what is of others.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really

> > > great in astrology and it is in the name of Naadi and it is

> > > free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i think it

> > > is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN

> > > SEA RAHU AND KETU CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN

> > > PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD RECENTLY

> > > IN THIS CENTURY.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE

> > > BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS

> > > UNPARALLELED.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > WE ARE GREAT !

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Thank you very much

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@

> > > hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in

> > > Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > " vedic astrology "

> > > <vedic astrology>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I wonder!!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > khannaanup32@

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts

> > > including or excluding your replies being forwarded to other

> > > forums. If I have to do so, I will do it myself.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to

> > > discuss things with you.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Sincerely

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > k. k. mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic

> > > scholar "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and

> > > go all out to prove myself as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too

> > > vast and it is not easy for one to call oneself as a Vedic

> > > scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

> > > great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the

> > > rituals point of view. I have written in mails what I knew

> > > about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you opined that I am

> > > not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your

> > > opinion on that.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 2)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You also said as follows "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > " However, they always seem to me always

> > > converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic science,as

> > > witnessed from your discussion in this and other

> > > forums "

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the

> > > Advaita forum I have not talked about Astrology at all so

> > > far, as there was no need for that. Avtar Krishen Kaul sent

> > > some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

> > > made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 3)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Now will you please tell me at least about

> > > yourself so that at least I can get know about your

> > > scholarship?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 4)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their

> > > chronology you are free to hold your own views. If you think

> > > that the Vedic words and the verses do not have any paroksha

> > > meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

> > > Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the

> > > Paroksha meaning of the Vedic verses? You took the name of

> > > Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about it and report to the

> > > forum. He may remove your doubts.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail

> > > carefully. He mentions about the seven layers of meanings?of

> > > the Vedic words and verses.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 5)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas

> > > are zero-veda then that is your opinion. BTW do you know

> > > what are the five criteria to be met by the Puranas?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > 6)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana

> > > and this purana mentions the Rashis. About the date of the

> > > earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the findings of

> > > Dr. Narahari Achar.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sincerely,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@

> > > > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > WAVES-Vedic

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how

> > > you can claim to know " parokshya " meaning of the

> > > Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you do not

> > > have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am

> > > impressed to see your varied interests. However, they seem

> > > to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being a Vedic

> > > science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and

> > > other forums. That is why I said that you were trying to

> > > pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the

> > > Puranas etc. also makes me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was

> > > correct when he had said that there had been tamperings with

> > > the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

> > > Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us

> > > that the Puranas and itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides,

> > > if we have to study ithasas and Puranas before the Vedas,

> > > then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that

> > > Yaska and several other Acharyas etc. have not given any

> > > " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way you

> > > have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an

> > > exception for such " hidden " meanings!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr.

> > > Wilkinson in this forum where he claims that he had seen

> > > Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga and tapasya

> > > and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the

> > > Winter Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to

> > > have " parokshya " knowledge about from the Vedas or

> > > is it some other zodiac?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no

> > > knowldge of that work, pl. give me the complete address of

> > > the website where it is available. I could not find it on

> > > INSA site.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is

> > > again a lot of material avaialbe in your discussions in

> > > other forums. Nobody is denying that there are rashis in the

> > > Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been

> > > taken from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from

> > > other sources, espedially when the Rashis are supposed to be

> > > " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and

> > > the Vedas as well Upanishadas according to you so that I

> > > could understand as to whether it was the puranas that

> > > talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > It is my humble request that there is nothing

> > > personal in this discussion but just an exchange of views. I

> > > want to improve my own knowledge.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > With regaqrds,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > Yours sincerely,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > K K Mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I agree with you that I appear to be

> > > hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your assumption that I am an

> > > astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist and

> > > with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy

> > > and the Jyotish Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and

> > > Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic forum itself there may

> > > be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

> > > views sooner or later.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to

> > > assume that I am insisting that you must accept my

> > > interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given my

> > > views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not

> > > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It

> > > is upto?you to accept or not what I said but please do not

> > > be judgemental like that.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Quote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > > us to accept two axioms:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > > as the true truth!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Unquote

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr.

> > > Sathaye saying that he is put off by my two axioms.? I just?

> > > simply told him that the Vedic words and the verses have

> > > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

> > > (4.2.2) says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha

> > > dvishah " , which means that the gods love the indirect

> > > or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or

> > > obvious.?Let him not accept that if he likes.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on

> > > the Veda. But?I understand that for proper comprehension of

> > > the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas first and then

> > > one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If

> > > this requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He

> > > does not have to accept my firm?interpretation .

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > He has not told me whether he could find the

> > > verse on Rashi in the Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that

> > > the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

> > > Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have

> > > access to it in?five. minutes.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > He has also not given any feedback whether

> > > he could see the Rashi in the Bhagavata Purana. Recently

> > > Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum with the

> > > verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana

> > > Purana .

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > He just wants only to extract information

> > > and criticize unnecessarily.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?Sincerely,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra

> > > <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic

> > > literature, the Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > " Avinash Sathaye "

> > > <sohum@>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I was under the impression that I had posted

> > > my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC forum.? On seeing your response,

> > > I checked the reason and? find that the mail reaches, by

> > > default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This

> > > happens only with WAVES!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s

> > > insistence that we must accept only his interpretations of

> > > the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

> > > appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be

> > > one. He is more of an astrologer than anything else, who is

> > > trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I

> > > have read Dayananda Saraawati's Bhashya of the Vedas.? I

> > > am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of his

> > > interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana

> > > Bhashya, since I do not have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye

> > > <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

> > > Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants

> > > us to accept two axioms:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this

> > > meaning and these people are not responsible to explain even

> > > a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their view.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > We have to simply accept their declaration

> > > as the true truth!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > In other words, any argument with SB is

> > > likely to produce anything useful or rational.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > This is the reason I have decide not to

> > > waste my time on this discussion. If one of these seers were

> > > to describe their methodology, their full understaanding of

> > > their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

> > > interested.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and

> > > did write down extensive commentaries. While I don't

> > > always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I respect

> > > his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Once again, thank you.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Respected members,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is

> > > quite interesting and is going on in several forums, where I

> > > have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses without any

> > > mail from Shri Sathaye.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's

> > > interpretations. It can hardly be presumed that Vasishtha

> > > and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope reading or

> > > match-making!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Best wishes

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > K K Mehrotra

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > WAVES-Vedic,

> > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil

> > > K. Bhattacharjya.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > However, I still see many problems with the

> > > claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Here are my observations:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > SB said:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 1)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda

> > > (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an

> > > adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " -

> > > creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > leads to rains!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the

> > > whole verse please!!

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My

> > > request to get a parokSha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *SB further said:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7;

> > > 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There

> > > the word kanyA exists as an

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > sAyaNa

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > describes as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation

> > > of the whole verse which

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names

> > > appearing somewhere, then I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > can find many more references in

> > > Rigveda(:-))

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > SB further said;

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi),

> > > where Agastya and

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????

> > > ???????? ????? |

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????

> > > ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash

> > > but we know that Agastya was

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo

> > > and not from a pot. So we

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha

> > > Rashi. Here one has to

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha,

> > > Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with

> > > Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he

> > > knows

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > that the Veda itself says that it has

> > > Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > the verses.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha

> > > is a Rashi, then what is the

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > explanation of the rest?

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping

> > > equal amount of semen in

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and

> > > Vasishtha.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the

> > > whole mantra please? Without

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of

> > > Rashi as an assertion of

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr.

> > > vartak?)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > *

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > SB frurther said:

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the

> > > Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti

> > > rasayaH

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa

> > > parigrihaH

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > [

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in

> > > the Veda

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this?

> > > I cannot locate this verse

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse

> > > in mine already. I also gave

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > the exact reference to my source. Please

> > > reciprocate. */

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > /

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > --

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > With Best Regards,

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Avinash Sathaye

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > --- End forwarded message ---

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket

> > > website. Enter http://cricket.

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

you are deliberately neglecting the need to prove Magha Shukla Pratipada at the

start of Sun and Moon's entry into Dhanishtha in uttarayana around 1400 BCE.

Colebrooke neglected Magha Shukla Pratipada. Why you repeat his errors ? Read

VJ, it clearly states Magha Shukla Pratipada.

 

Similarly Chhandogya Upanishada speaks of Raashi Vidyaa but you call it my

stories. I did not write Chhandogya Upanishada. Why are you stooping to blatant

falsehood ? Is it your style of Dharma ?

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

vedic astrology

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:35:14 AM

Fw: Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

To:

Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:20 PM

 

< Modern experts say that the language of Vedanga Jyotisha belongs to the

period 3-5th century BCE, but the original materials are believed to belong to

1400 BCE due to faulty computation OMITTING lunar montha at Dhanishthaa' s

beginning. If your view is accepted ( " written in 1500 BC " ) >

 

Who said you thatit was written in 3-5 th century, i said it was written in

around 1500 BC

I have told you all calculations according to simple Uttarayana and Dakshiyana

but you are making stories with SS and saying that see how it is wrong.

 

with the speed of precession 50 " try to track down the VE within Dhanista.

And see how Seers were using word Dakshiyana and Uttarayan but in your zodiac

system there is no use of it, means Tropical things have been disappeared.

 

< If your view is accepted ( " written in 1500 BC " ), then Mahatma Lagadha composed

the unwritten Shruti much earlier ! You have not read Vedanga Jyotisha ,

otherwise you would not have refuted me. >

 

I have not read that is why i am not talking of It hehehehehe.. ..

I have read that is why i am refuting you very simply by Uttarayana and

Dakhsiyana.It is so simple thing and you are

 

making complex by SS....I know about the controvery about mahatma Lagdha wrote

it or not....i didnt talk of it...you raised that thing and answering for

yourself...here i am talking of VJ only....

 

< Read either my earlier posts or read Chhandogya Upanishada. It is freely

available on internet, why should I repeat the task of supplying verses ? The

main text is not voluminous. If you do not want to read Chhandogya Upanishada,

you can call me a liar, I do not need your certificate. >

I didnt talk of Chhandogya Upanishada,, you are making stories on your own, i am

also saying that in Purans there are Rashis but all are Tropical ones....

 

PS :- I am forwarding to some 10-20 ids to this mail as my membership have been

deleted by jealous gutter narayan iyer and pvr because i was winning the

discussion, so if anybody cares for truth then pls forward it to VA

 

In the name of God forward this to VA as anti Hindu PVR and Narayan Iyer has

played the game with true Hindu culture and deleted me from the VA without any

reason as i didnt abuse JHAAA

 

--- On Fri, 26/6/09, andrewsymonds98 <andrewsymonds98@ > wrote:

 

andrewsymonds98 <andrewsymonds98@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

khannaanup32@ .co. in

Friday, 26 June, 2009, 3:18 PM

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

 

Read either my earlier posts or read Chhandogya Upanishada. It is freely

available on internet, why should I repeat the task of supplying verses ? The

main text is not voluminous. If you do not want to read Chhandogya Upanishada,

you can call me a liar, I do not need your certificate.

 

< Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says that

the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. >

 

Modern experts say that the language of Vedanga Jyotisha belongs to the period

3-5th century BCE, but the original materials are believed to belong to 1400 BCE

due to faulty computation OMITTING lunar montha at Dhanishthaa' s beginning. If

your view is accepted ( " written in 1500 BC " ), then Mahatma Lagadha composed the

unwritten Shruti much earlier ! You have not read Vedanga Jyotisha , otherwise

you would not have refuted me. Vedanga Jyotisha says it was WRITTEN by a later

person on the basis of knowledge transmitted from Mahatma Lagadha. Mahatma

Lagadha did not WRITE it, he created it in ORAL form. There is no Greek

influence on Vedanga Jyotisha or on Suryadidhanta.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= =

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...>

vedic astrology

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:31:09 AM

Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

 

< False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa.>

 

Give VERSE then i will answer you OK.

 

< Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says that

the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. >

 

I said it would have been written in 1500 BCE not 4'th BCE.

 

< Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed an orally transmitted text which was written

down much later around 4-5th cen BCE >

 

One update regarding my mistake instead of 4- BCE i was intended to write in

4-th cetury BCE(360 BC) but in hurry i forgot to write century word.All knows

when GREEKS attacked india so it is only update from myside.

 

--- On Thu, 25/6/09, khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ > wrote:

 

khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ >

[vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Thursday, 25 June, 2009, 2:41 PM

 

< False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa. Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says

that the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed

an orally transmitted text which was written down much later around 4-5th cen

BCE. >

 

You and your stories

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> <<< After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India >>>

>

> False. Chhandogya Upanishada belongs to Vedic Period. It mentions Raashi

Vidyaa. Vedanga Jyotisha was written down around 4-th century BCE, but it says

that the original composer was Mahatma Lagadha. Hence, Mahatma Lagadh composed

an orally transmitted text which was written down much later around 4-5th cen

BCE.

>

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> khannaanup32 <khannaanup32@ ...>

> vedic astrology

> Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:02:12 PM

> [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks to give me more and more opportunity to write more and more on this

topic.

>

> Thank you DARLING.

>

> Story begins from here.

>

> < I have already shown that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana..? >

>

> Instead of VAMANA PURAn, there is mention of Rashi in many many PURANS, but

all are TROPICAL ONE.

>

> After around 4'th BC when Rashis came to India ppl started mingling it with

our seasonal things like seasonal months(Tapa, Tapasya, Madhu, Madhav etc

etc....) which is clear from UTTARAYANA's mention in VJ and VEDAS.So in Purans

Rashis are tropical not sidereal.

>

> So accordingly we should reformed our Hindu Calendar.Hindus are not beyond

VEDAS and PURANS.

>

> I can provide many many VERSES from many many Purans in support of it.

>

> Everybody has given consent that Rashis are not in VEDAS and Vedanga Jyotish

and still nobody has provided even single Mantra from over there so there is no

bone of contention over there.Yes NKS were there in VEDAS and those are

mentioned in VEDAS and those are of our origin and i have also given VERSE that

those were of unequal division(In support of it i can also provide more Mantras

and i can also books written by JYOISHIS itself who have clearly written about

it).

>

> Thank you very much.

>

> < There is a whole anti-Hindu group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to

show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha from the Greeks. >

>

> If talking of PURANS and VEDAS and VJ is anti-Hindu then i cant say anything

more about it.Some black-sheeps are still between us to desecrate our VEDAS and

PURANS.

>

> Please write more and more and give me more opportunity to write i am dying.

>

> vedic astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rishi Rahulji,

> > ?

> > Have you noticed the following line.

> > ?

> > Quote

> > ?

> > .I am researcher in astrology so i think it is better to push away Rashi

from Indian system.

> >

> > Unquote

> > ?

> > What a researcher to brush aside the mention of Rashi? I have already shown

that the Rashis are mentioned in the Vamana purana.?There is a whole anti-Hindu

group, which pretends to be Hindu but wants to show that Hindus learnt Jyotisha

from the Greeks.

> > ?

> > Best wishes,

> > ?

> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

> > ?

> > ?

> > ?

> >

> > --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ ...>

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> > Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 12:52 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sorry not RishiRahuk, but RishiRahul

> >

> > There is no edit option here, unfortunately.

> >

> > RishiRahul

> >

> > vedic astrology

> > rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com

> > Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:22 +0530

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Dear Brother,

> >

> > I did not expect a strong reaction as this. Such anguish!!!

> >

> > Whatever originated in India is not in the name of astrology but 'Jyotish'.

> >

> > Maybe some corrupted it, or tried to do so. But it is not corrupt yet....

absolutely not! It is what you choose to believe.. I mean the REA YOU.

> >

> > Certainly the Arudha thing/concept originated from India. Again if we have

to gain from the Western thought it is Jyotish's gain. There is much, even if

very little to gain from anyone.

> >

> > Whatever you said in BOLD is about the PAST. Let us predict about the Future

or, more so, the Past accurately, rather than arguing about what says who and

who says what, like many do.

> >

> > This is a forum dedicated to Jyotish/Astrology thoughts, not for venting

frustrations arising out of Jyotish/Astrology or Whatever.

> >

> > By the way, my comment was about the Arudha, which occurred after reading

previous post and the one before.

> >

> > I am sure you will try to agree with me & We are Certainly Great, so long as

our Truth is in the Right path.

> >

> > RishiRahuk

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > khannaanup32@

> >

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:31 -0700

> >

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > Dear Shri RishiRahulji,

> >

> > You have talked about one word called as 'ARUDHA'.

> >

> > So i will say only something that in the name of Jyotish whatever we have

imported from others to India is totally corrupt and rubbish and holds no water.

> >

> > Whatever have been originated in India in the field of astrology, it is

great and nobody is even standing near of it.But there is so much mess now in

this field, only very very very learned person can tell what is of ours origin

and what is of others.

> >

> > Indians mainly Hindu's contribution is really great in astrology and it is

in the name of Naadi and it is free from Rashi.I am researcher in astrology so i

think it is better to push away Rashi from Indian system.

> >

> > THERE IS A STORY IN OUR SCRIPTURES THAT BY CHURNING IN SEA RAHU AND KETU

CAME IN EXISTENCE, IT IS NOW HAVE BEEN PROVED AND VERIFIED BY SCIENTISTS AROUND

THE WORLD RECENTLY IN THIS CENTURY.

> >

> > SO I WILL SAY WE HINDU ARE GREAT AND WHATEVER HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED IN THE

NAME ASTROLOGY IN INDIA IS UNPARALLELED.

> >

> > WE ARE GREAT !

> >

> > Thank you very much

> >

> > --- On Tue, 23/6/09, Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > Rishi Rahul <rishirahul1961@ hotmail.com>

> >

> > RE: [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > " vedic astrology " <vedic astrology>

> >

> > Tuesday, 23 June, 2009, 5:05 PM

> >

> > Are we seeing the Arudha concept working here?

> >

> > I wonder!!

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > khannaanup32@

> >

> > Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:48:01 -0700

> >

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > WAVES-Vedic, " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > I have seen this mail on some other forums.

> >

> > Pl. note that I am not interested in my posts including or excluding your

replies being forwarded to other forums. If I have to do so, I will do it

myself.

> >

> > Now I can understand as to why people are reluctant to discuss things with

you.

> >

> > Sincerely

> >

> > k. k. mehrotra

> >

> > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Mehrotra,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 1)

> >

> > > Did you not yourself opine as follows;

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ? " To me, he appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Did you expect me to challenge your opinion and go all out to prove myself

as a Vedic scholar? Vedas are too vast and it is not easy for one to call

oneself as a Vedic scholar. I understand that many hold the view that even the

great Sayanacharya had given the meanings more from the rituals point of view. I

have written in mails what I knew about the Rashi in veda and Purana?and you

opined that I am not a scholar. So I have no intention of changing your opinion

on that.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 2)

> >

> > > You also said as follows "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Quote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > " However, they always seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha

being a Vedic science,as witnessed from your discussion in this and other

forums "

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Unquote

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Here I contest your views. For example, in the Advaita forum I have not

talked about Astrology at all so far, as there was no need for that. Avtar

Krishen Kaul sent some posts in some fora and I?contested his views and that

made you to jump to the hasty conclusion made as above.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 3)

> >

> > > Now will you please tell me at least about yourself so that at least I can

get know about your scholarship?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 4)

> >

> > > As regards the Vedas and the puranas and their chronology you are free to

hold your own views. If you think that the Vedic words and the verses do not

have any paroksha meaning it is upto you. I have quoted what the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad said. How do you say that I alone?hold about the Paroksha meaning of

the Vedic verses? You took the name of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Ask him about

it and report to the forum. He may remove your doubts.

> >

> > > You have not read Dr. N.R.Joshi's mail carefully. He mentions about the

seven layers of meanings?of the Vedic words and verses.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 5)

> >

> > > If you come to the conclusion that the Puranas are zero-veda then that is

your opinion. BTW do you know what are the five criteria to be met by the

Puranas?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > 6)

> >

> > > I have given that date of the Bhagavata purana and this purana mentions

the Rashis. About the date of the earliest date of the RigVeda I concur with the

findings of Dr. Narahari Achar.

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sincerely,

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > Sunil K.Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > > ?

> >

> > >

> >

> > > --- On Fri, 6/19/09, kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ > wrote:

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > kk.mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic

> >

> > > Friday, June 19, 2009, 12:25 PM

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Dear Shri Bhattacharjya,

> >

> > > If you are not a Vedic scholar, I do not know how you can claim to know

" parokshya " meaning of the Vedic mantras when actually you say yourself that you

do not have " pratakshya " knowledge of the Vedas either.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > I do not know about Mr. Sathaye, but I am impressed to see your varied

interests. However, they seem to me always converging on phalita-jyotisha being

a Vedic science, as witnessed from your discussions in this and other forums.

That is why I said that you were trying to pass astrology on the shoulders of

the Vedas.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > Your statements that some Upanishadas talk of the Puranas etc. also makes

me feel that Dayananda Saraswati was correct when he had said that there had

been tamperings with the puranas and even some Vedic parts. If the Itihasas and

Puranas came after the Vedas, how could the Vedas advise us that the Puranas and

itihasas were the fifth Veda! Besides, if we have to study ithasas and Puranas

before the Vedas, then they could be called Zero-Veda and not the fifth Veda!

> >

> > >

> >

> > > It has been pointed out by Dr. N. R. Joshi that Yaska and several other

Acharyas etc. have not given any " parokshya " meanings of the mantras, the way

you have done. I wonder why you alone have been chosen as an exception for such

" hidden " meanings!

> >

> > > I also saw a lot of your correspondence with Dr. Wilkinson in this forum

where he claims that he had seen Tropical zodiac in the Vedas through his yoga

and tapasya and wanted the Hindus to celebrate Makar Sankranti on the Winter

Solstice. Is it the same zodiac that you claim to have " parokshya " knowledge

about from the Vedas or is it some other zodiac?

> >

> > > Regarding Vedanga Jyotisha, since I have no knowldge of that work, pl..

give me the complete address of the website where it is available. I could not

find it on INSA site.

> >

> > >

> >

> > > About Rashis in Bhagawata Purana etc., there is again a lot of material

avaialbe in your discussions in other forums. Nobody is denying that there are

rashis in the Puranas. But how does that prove that those rashis have been taken

from the Vedas, and they are not interpolations from other sources, espedially

when the Rashis are supposed to be " paroskhya " in the Vedas.

> >

> > > Can you pl. give the dates of various puranas and the Vedas as well

Upanishadas according to you so that I could understand as to whether it was the

puranas that talked about the Vedas or it was the other way round.

> >

> > > It is my humble request that there is nothing personal in this discussion

but just an exchange of views. I want to improve my own knowledge.

> >

> > > With regaqrds,

> >

> > > Yours sincerely,

> >

> > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > WAVES-Vedic, sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Mehrotraji,

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I agree with you that I appear to be hardly?a Vedic scholar. But your

assumption that I am an astrologer is also not correct. I am a retired scientist

and with interest in Ancient Indian History, Indian Philosophy and the Jyotish

Shastra, which includes Hindu Astronomy?and Hindu Astrology.. In the WAVES-Vedic

forum itself there may be some Vedic scholars and I hope they will express their

views sooner or later.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I wish to clarify that you are mistaken to assume that I am insisting

that you must accept my interpretations of the Vedic Mantras. I have just given

my views. To accept or not is at your discretion. I am also not trying to pass

astrology on the shoulders of the Vedas. It is upto?you to accept or not what I

said but please do not be judgemental like that.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathayeji says as follows:

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Quote

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> >

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Unquote

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I am shocked?by the accuasations from Dr. Sathaye saying that he is put

off by my two axioms.? I just? simply told him that the Vedic words and the

verses have Paroksha and Pratyaksha meanings. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.2.2)

says?:? " paroksha priya hi devaah pratyaksha dvishah " , which means that the gods

love the indirect or obscure meanings? and dislikes the evident or obvious.?Let

him not accept that if he likes.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > I do not claim myself to be an authority on the Veda. But?I understand

that for proper comprehension of the Vedic verses one must read the Puranas

first and then one must also know the Vyakarana, Nirukta and?Chanda etc. If this

requirement makes someone special then it is so.?He does not have to accept my

firm?interpretation .

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He has not told me whether he could find the verse on Rashi in the

Vedanga Jyotisha. I wrote to?him that the INSA's?publication on?the " Vedanga

Jyotisha " is available in the Internet and one can have access to it in?five.

minutes.

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He has also not given any feedback whether he could see the Rashi in the

Bhagavata Purana. Recently Parameshwaranji sent a mail to the USBrahmins forum

with the verses (with rashis mentioned in them) from the Vamana Purana .

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > He just wants only to extract information and criticize unnecessarily.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > ?Sincerely,

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya?

> >

> > > > ?

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Wed, 6/17/09, K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra <kk.mehrotra@ ...>

> >

> > > > [WAVES-Vedic] Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant

Chronology and the Sidereal

> >

> > > > " Avinash Sathaye " <sohum@>

> >

> > > > Cc: waves-vedic

> >

> > > > Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 12:31 AM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Sathayeji,

> >

> > > > I was under the impression that I had posted my mail to the WAVES-VEDIC

forum.? On seeing your response, I checked the reason and? find that the mail

reaches, by default, to the person concerned instead of the forum!? This happens

only with WAVES!

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I also find Shri Bhattacharjya' s insistence that we must accept only

his interpretations of the Vedic mantras a bit difficult to digest.? To me, he

appears to be hardly a Vedic scholar, though he poses to be one. He is more of

an astrologer than anything else, who is trying to pass astrology on the

shoulders of the Vedas.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I do not know much about Aurobindo but I have read Dayananda Saraawati's

Bhashya of the Vedas.? I am not an Arya Samaji, but I agree with almost all of

his interpretations. ? I wish I coiuld understand Sayana Bhashya, since I do not

have much knowledge of Sanskrit.

> >

> > > > Anyway, many thanks for the prompt reply.

> >

> > > > K. K. Mehrotra

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathaye <sohum@ edu>

> >

> > > > Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the Relevant Chronology and the

Sidereal

> >

> > > > " kk.mehrotra " <kk.mehrotra@ >

> >

> > > > Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 3:43 PM

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dear Malhotraji,

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Thank you for agreeing with me.

> >

> > > > I have given up on Sunilji because he wants us to accept two axioms:

> >

> > > > 1. Vedas have a hidden meaning.

> >

> > > > 2. Only special people are entitled to this meaning and these people are

not responsible to explain even a whole Richa, let alone a Sukta based on their

view.

> >

> > > > We have to simply accept their declaration as the true truth!

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > In other words, any argument with SB is likely to produce anything

useful or rational.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > This is the reason I have decide not to waste my time on this

discussion. If one of these seers were to describe their methodology, their full

understaanding of their alternate meaning on a rational basis, then I am very

interested.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Aravind had his spiritual interpretation and did write down extensive

commentaries. While I don't always agree with his twist on the Vedic meanings, I

respect his intellectual honesty and overall view.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Once again, thank you.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > kk.mehrotra wrote:

> >

> > > > Respected members,

> >

> > > > I am a new comer to this forum.

> >

> > > > This discussion of Rashis in the Vedas is quite interesting and is going

on in several forums, where I have seen on Shri Bhattacharjya' s responses

without any mail from Shri Sathaye.

> >

> > > > I am in full agreement with Avinashji's interpretations. It can hardly

be presumed that Vasishtha and Vishwamitra etc. Rishis indulged in horoscope

reading or match-making!

> >

> > > > Best wishes

> >

> > > > K K Mehrotra

> >

> > > > WAVES-Vedic, Avinash Sathaye <sohum@> wrote:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > I was happy to see more details from Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

> >

> > > > However, I still see many problems with the claim of Rashis in the Veda.

> >

> > > > Here are my observations:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > SB said:

> >

> > > > /A) Rashi in Veda

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > 1)

> >

> > > > Rarshis are mentioned in the Veda. Rig Veda (RV) mentions Vrshabha (RV

> >

> > > > 6.47.5; 8.93.1),

> >

> > > > /

> >

> > > > *In 6.47.5 vRRiShabha is used as an adjective of Soma. sAyaNa explains

> >

> > > > it as " vRRiSheTirjanayitA " - creator of rains, since offering of Soma

> >

> > > > leads to rains!

> >

> > > > Could we have a parokSha explanation of the whole verse please!!

> >

> > > > I have already given 8.93.1 in detail. My request to get a parokSha

> >

> > > > explanation of it is still not resolved.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > *SB further said:

> >

> > > > /Mithun (RV 3..39.3), Simha (RV 5.83.7; 9.89.3) and Kanya (RV 6.49.7)./

> >

> > > > *

> >

> > > > Of these, I quickly checked 6.49.7. There the word kanyA exists as an

> >

> > > > adjective to the Goddess Saraswati.

> >

> > > > Where does one get the Rashi?

> >

> > > > sAyaNa

> >

> > > > describes as

> >

> > > > kanyA=kamanIyA.

> >

> > > > Again, pleas give us a complete translation of the whole verse which

> >

> > > > justifies the alternate meaning.

> >

> > > > If one were to go by just the Rashi names appearing somewhere, then I

> >

> > > > can find many more references in Rigveda(:-))

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > SB further said;

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > / /*/There is also mention of Kumbha (Rasi), where Agastya and

> >

> > > > Vasishtha were born. The verse is :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > ????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? |

> >

> > > > ??? ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? || (RV 7.33.13)

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Ordinarily Kumbha will mean a pot or kalash but we know that Agastya was

> >

> > > > born from the womb of his mother haribhoo and not from a pot. So we

> >

> > > > understand that Agastya was born in Kumbha Rashi. Here one has to

> >

> > > > interpret the metaphors properly.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Dr.Vartak pointed out the mention of Mesha, Vrischika and Dhanu Rashis

> >

> > > > in Veda. He also identified Anas-Ratha with Tula Rashi and Shyena as

> >

> > > > Meena Rashi in the Veda. I

> >

> > > > fully support Dr. Vartak's view as he knows

> >

> > > > that the Veda itself says that it has Paroksha and Pratyaksha meaning of

> >

> > > > the verses.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /*If, as Dr. Vartak and SB say this kumbha is a Rashi, then what is the

> >

> > > > explanation of the rest?

> >

> > > > The verse is mentioning Mitravaruna dropping equal amount of semen in

> >

> > > > the kumbha and from it were born Agastya and Vasishtha.

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Could we have a parokSha translation of the whole mantra please? Without

> >

> > > > that, we simply have to take the mention of Rashi as an assertion of

> >

> > > > faith (perhaps in the great seer Dr. vartak?)

> >

> > > > *

> >

> > > > SB frurther said:

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /2) Rashi in Vedanga Jyotisha

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Meena Rashi is clearly mentioned in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajur Vedanga

> >

> > > > Jyotisha-verse 5). The verse is :

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > Ye brihaspatina bhuktva MEENAN prabhriti rasayaH

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > te hritaH panchabhiryataH yaH seshaH sa parigrihaH

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > (Yajur Vedanga Jyotisha - sloka 5)

> >

> > > > [

> >

> > > > Here 'Meenan prabhriti RasayaH'

> >

> > > > means Meena and other Rashis. As Dr.

> >

> > > > Vartak points out Meena was called Shyena in the Veda

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > /*Please tell us what edition of VJ is this? I cannot locate this verse

> >

> > > > in my copy at all. I wrote the fifth verse in mine already. I also gave

> >

> > > > the exact reference to my source. Please reciprocate. */

> >

> > > > /

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > --

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > > > With Best Regards,

> >

> > > > Avinash Sathaye

> >

> > > > (859)277-0130 (H) (859)257-8832 (O)

> >

> > > > Web: www.msc.uky. edu/sohum

> >

> > > >

> >

> > >

> >

> > --- End forwarded message ---

> >

> > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter

http://cricket.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Vedic-astrology " Attachments " say " The Group's Email Attachment Archive

setting is currently set to not archive attachments. Please contact the group

moderator to enable this setting. "

 

Why you send the file to me directly ?

-VJ

 

 

 

 

________________________________

thakurjagmohansingh <thakurjagmohansingh

vedic astrology

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:46:19 AM

Fw: Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

File is uploaded in file section named as :-

 

Hindus_and_seasons( from VEDAS and PURANS).pdf

 

if anybody needs file separately write mail to khannaanup32@

/khannaanup32@ .co. in

 

vedic astrology, Thakur Jagmohan Singh

<thakurjagmohansing h wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> To:

> Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:46 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

< Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets

but astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement. >

> ?

> Now taste this, real culture of Hindus, it was seasonal and in Purans,

Sidhantas(your loving SS also claims the same)?and VEDAS all say that we were

seasonal....

> ?

> Purans support seasonal Rashi zodiac not corruped Sideral Rashi Zodiac which

was posed by yavanas on Hindu Culture.

> ?

> This is also answer to SB, i promised him to show verses from purans of

tropical zodiac.....

> ?

> Dear Public now see how JHAAA is playing with us

>

> PS :- I am forwarding to some 10-20 ids to this mail as my membership have

been deleted by jealous gutter narayan iyer and pvr because i was winning the

discussion, so if anybody cares for truth then pls forward it to VA

> ?

> In the name of God forward this to VA as anti Hindu PVR and Narayan Iyer has

played the game with true Hindu culture and deleted me from the VA without any

reason as i didnt abuse JHAAA?

> ?

> vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets but

astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ===

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now!

>

>

> Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more. Click

here.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Attachment section of vedic astrology says it contains no files at all !

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Thakur Jagmohan Singh <thakurjagmohansingh

vedic astrology

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:02:33 AM

Re: Fw: Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

 

 

 

 

 

File had been deleted from mail so i have uploaded it in filesection, this file

is related to this mail

 

name of the file is :-

 

Hindus_and_seasons( from VEDAS and PURANS).pdf

 

If anybody wants file on their separate id, write to :-

 

khannaanup32@ .co. in, khannaanup32@

 

--- On Fri, 6/26/09, thakurjagmohansingh <thakurjagmohansingh @> wrote:

 

thakurjagmohansingh <thakurjagmohansingh @>

Fw: Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

vedic astrology

Friday, June 26, 2009, 10:24 PM

 

Please download the uploaded file from filesection. ..

 

name of the file is :-

 

Hindus_and_seasons( from VEDAS and PURANS).pdf

 

If anybody wants file on their separate id, write to :-

 

khannaanup32@ .co. in, khannaanup32@

 

vedic astrology, Thakur Jagmohan Singh

<thakurjagmohansing h wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Fri, 6/26/09, Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...> wrote:

>

>

> Anup Khanna <khannaanup32@ ...>

> Re: [vedic astrology] Fwd: Re: Rashi in Vedic literature, the

Relevant Chronology and the Sidereal

> To:

> Friday, June 26, 2009, 9:46 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

< Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets

but astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement. >

> ?

> Now taste this, real culture of Hindus, it was seasonal and in Purans,

Sidhantas(your loving SS also claims the same)?and VEDAS all say that we were

seasonal....

> ?

> Purans support seasonal Rashi zodiac not corruped Sideral Rashi Zodiac which

was posed by yavanas on Hindu Culture.

> ?

> This is also answer to SB, i promised him to show verses from purans of

tropical zodiac.....

> ?

> Dear Public now see how JHAAA is playing with us

>

> PS :- I am forwarding to some 10-20 ids to this mail as my membership have

been deleted by jealous gutter narayan iyer and pvr because i was winning the

discussion, so if anybody cares for truth then pls forward it to VA

> ?

> In the name of God forward this to VA as anti Hindu PVR and Narayan Iyer has

played the game with true Hindu culture and deleted me from the VA without any

reason as i didnt abuse JHAAA?

> ?

> vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from those of physical planets but

astrological results of Suryasiddhanta are perfect. If you want to TASTE SS

instead of testing it ASTROLOGICALLY, I cannot prevent you. I am surprised that

you fail to understand this simple statement.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ========= ===

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

>

>

>

> Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now!

>

>

> Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more. Click

here.

>

>

>

>

>