In AK Kaul wrote: > #8969 of January 9, 2012 Fwd: Date of Lord Ram

Transcription

1 In AK Kaul wrote: > #8969 of January 9, 2012 Fwd: Date of Lord Ram Forwarded message From: saroj bala Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Date of Lord Ram To: AK Kaul Dear Sir, Let us appreciate the difference in faith and science. That will do justice to our most ancient and rich heritage. In any case let us have tolerance for different views, researches and conclusions. With regards, Saroj Bala Director, I-Serve, Delhi Chapter C-II/107, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi Mobile: , On Mon, 9/1/12, AK Kaul wrote: From: AK Kaul Subject: Re: Date of Lord Ram To: "saroj bala" Cc: "S. Kalyanaraman" "Sunil Bhattacharjya" "akandabaratam" "sunil nair" "Arun Upadhyay" "Dr Bhudia Kutch Science Foundation" "World Brahman Federation Canada" "Prashant Kumar G B"

2 om, "Gayatri Devi Vasudev" "GANTA DIWAKAR" "neelam gupta" "Sanjay Rath" "Gopal Goel" "hinducalendar" "vedic_research_institute" "subash razdan" Date: Monday, 9 January, 2012, 2:34 PM Dear Madam, Jai Shri Ram! Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya has referred to my mail wherein I have proved it conclusively that the date of birth of Bhagwan Ram as January 10, 5114 BCE given by late Pushkar Bhatnagar is absolutely wrong. I am attaching a copy of my #No.3071 dt. September 11, 2009, in WAVES- VEDIC group in this regard, In fact, I had pointed out all these anachronisms to Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar when he was alive and a member of hinducivilization and hinduism_environment etc. forums, but somehow he brushed them off for reasons not difficult to discern. Though it is a certainty that Bhagwan Ram incarnated in Bharatavarsha, but when He incarnated exactly, is a moot point. It is also next to impossible that phalita-jyotisha was around in India earlier than about 600 BCE, whereas Rashi based phalita jyotisha could be in India only after 4th century BCE, since we do not find any mention of Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis in any of the indigenous astronomical works like the Vedanga Jyotisham etc. or Atharva - jyotisham etc. Thus the astrological combinations on the basis of which horoscopes galore of Bhagwaan Ram are being concocted are interpolations of a much later date, exactly like the interpolated astrological combinations of the horoscopes of Bhagwaan Krishna. And that is why there is so much of confusion about the exact dates of birth of these incarnations on the basis of astrological combinations! I am also sure you have heard/read the famous edict of the Gita à à à à à à à à à µà ¾à à à à ¾à à à à à à à ¾ à «à ²à à à à à à ¾à šà à à ¾ à à à à à «à ²à ¹à à à à à à à à à à à ¾à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à Thus if all the divine incarnations advise us to forget about bhagya and horoscopes, it is impossible that they would have subjected themselves to the suzerainty of Mangal and Shani etc. planets. FYI, I may put on record here that it is because of this very fatal infatuation

3 with phalita-jyotisha that we are celebrating all our festivals, including Shri Rama Navmi and Shri Krishna Janmashtami on wrong days, so much so that we celebrate these days Pitra-Amavasya on the day of actual Dipavali and so on, thanks to phalita jyotisha! And our "Vedic astronomers" like late Pushkar Batmanagar and today's Dr. P V. Vartak etc. etc. are tying to make divine incarnations of Bhagwaan Ram and Bhagwaan Krishna a party to our wrong decisions of festivals and muhurtas in the name of erecting their horoscopes! What an irony! Maryaada Purushottam is being made a party for break the maryaada of celebrating festivals on correct days! With regards and Jai Shri Ram! A K Kaul On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:55 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhattacharjya@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Madam, I always keep my eyes open except during sleeping at night. But it is clear that you are closing your eyes in the daytime itself, as it is inconvenient to you. In your article in 2011 in you blog (which you referred to) you repeated the date given by late Mr. Pushkar Bhatnagar. Firstly please do not close your eyes to the refutation of Pushkar Bhatnagar's date by Mr. Avtar Krishen Kaul. Mr. Kaul's refutaion has been endorsed by the Swicc ephimeris aythority also. I do not agree with Mr. kaul in quite some issues but that does not mean that I will not agree what is a fact pointed out by Mr. Kaul. Secondly you have closed your eyes to the precessional data given by Dr. Vartak. As I stated earlier Dr. Vartaka, date may not be exact (ie. may vary at most by a couple of years) yet his date is fairly correct. Thirdly Late Mr. Pushkar Bhatnagar had not read the Ramayana properly. It appears that you too have not read it carefully. Pushkar Bhatnagar said that Lord Ram was born in January 5114 CE and Mother Sita was abducted in December 5077 BCE. That means Bhatnagar assumed (and you also agree with him) that Lord Ram was past 37 years of age at the time of abduction of Mother Sita. But one who read the original Valmiki Ramayana carefully, knows that Mother Sita told Ravan at the time of abduction that Lord Ram was 25 years old. Fourthly please read the material inserted in your own blog saying as follows Quote

4 Geological.and Oceanography Reports According to Geological Survey of India report named â Project Rameshwaramâ, this bridge was capable of being used as land route between India and Sri Lanka 7,000 to 10,000.years back. As per the report of Department of Earth Sciences the existence of.mesolithic and Microlithic tools and of human fossils on both sides of Rama Sethu indicated.existence of man-made structures. As per estimate made by the inter-government panel on climate change (NASA, Global Change.Master Directory) the rise in the sea level during the last 7000 years has been about 2.8.metres which roughly corresponds to 9.3.feet.â The remains of Rama.Sethu.are.found.submerged nearly.at.a depth.of 9-10 feet. Thus, obviously.this.bridge.was.capable.of.being.used.as land.route 7000 years.back. Unquote For your information the sealevel hardly varied a couple of feet between the time period 7,000 to 10,000.years back. and this bridge was capable of being used as land route between India and Sri Lanka during that period. Dr. Vartak's date very well falls during that period. Fourthly the four-tusked elephants have mentioned in the Ramayana and some of these elephants such as the Cuvieronius became extinct only by about 7,100 years BCE. You may be afraid that you may lose face if you retract your support for the date proposed by Mr. Bhatnagar but I think the truth-lovers will in fact admire your boldness to accept the facts. Regards, Sunil KB On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:11 AM, saroj bala <sarojbala44@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear Sir, I would only request you to keep your mind open. Kindly open sarojbala.blogspot.com through google and read three articles. you will hopefully find answers to your questions. With regards, Saroj Bala Director, I-Serve, Delhi Chapter C-II/107, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri,

5 New Delhi Mobile: , On Sun, 8/1/12, sunil bhattacharjya wrote: From: sunil bhattacharjya Subject: Date of Lord Ram To: Date: Sunday, 8 January, 2012, 1:07 AM Dear Madam, I wrote tro you a mail sometime ago but received no reply. Hence this second mail. Lord Ram is worshipped by the Hindus and the Hindus have the right to protest when the wrong date proposed by late Pushkar Bhatnagar is being endorsed by some people. I see that your name is also being involved. Pushkar Bhatnagar is out and out wrong. Mr. A.K.Kaul had shown through his studies using the latest software that Lord Ram could not have been born in 5114 BCE. Moreover even a person with common sense and a bit of knowledge of astronomy will know that for the Shukla Navami to happen the Moon will have to be ahead of the Sun by at least 96 degrees. Pushkar Bhatnagar cleverly avoided any discussion on this aspect as he either did not understand this or had ignored this wilfully. As soon as his book was published some years ago I wrote to him but he did not reply. Now that he is no more I would request you that for the sake of truth please withdraw the date proposed by Pushkar Bhatnagar. Based on the precessional data Dr. Vartak proposed 74th century BCE as the time of Lord Ram and that is correc., though the exact date arrived by him may not be correct. Looking forward to hearing from you and with regards, Sunil KB In HinduCalendar@yahoogroups.com, AK Kaul <jyotirved@...> wrote: > #8969 of January 9, 2012 Fwd: Date of Lord Ram Forwarded message From: saroj bala <sarojbala44@yahoo.co.in> Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Date of Lord Ram To: AK Kaul <jyotirved@gmail.com>

6 Dear Sir, Let us appreciate the difference in faith and science. That will do justice to our most ancient and rich heritage. In any case let us have tolerance for different views, researches and conclusions. With regards, Saroj Bala Director, I-Serve, Delhi Chapter C-II/107, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi Mobile: , On Mon, 9/1/12, AK Kaul wrote: From: AK Kaul Subject: Re: Date of Lord Ram To: "saroj bala" Cc: "S. Kalyanaraman" "Sunil Bhattacharjya" "akandabaratam" "sunil nair" "Arun Upadhyay" "Dr Bhudia Kutch Science Foundation" "World Brahman Federation Canada" "Prashant Kumar G B" <gbp_kumar@yahoo.com>, balachandra_rao@rediffmail.com, mail@futuresamachar.c om, "Gayatri Devi Vasudev" <gayatridevivasudev@yahoo.co.in>, "GANTA DIWAKAR" <hariom4959@gmail.com>, "neelam gupta" <neelamgupta07@gmail.com>, "Sanjay Rath" <guruji@srath.com>, "Gopal Goel" <gkgoel1937@yahoo.co.in>, "hinducalendar" <hinducalendar@yahoogroups.com>, "vedic_research_institute" <vedic_research_institute@yahoogroups.com>, jyotishgroup@yahoogroups.com, "subash razdan" <subashrazdan@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, 9 January, 2012, 2:34 PM Dear Madam, Jai Shri Ram! Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya has referred to my mail wherein I have proved it

7 conclusively that the date of birth of Bhagwan Ram as January 10, 5114 BCE given by late Pushkar Bhatnagar is absolutely wrong. I am attaching a copy of my #No.3071 dt. September 11, 2009, in WAVES- VEDIC group in this regard, In fact, I had pointed out all these anachronisms to Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar when he was alive and a member of hinducivilization and hinduism_environment etc. forums, but somehow he brushed them off for reasons not difficult to discern. Though it is a certainty that Bhagwan Ram incarnated in Bharatavarsha, but when He incarnated exactly, is a moot point. It is also next to impossible that phalita-jyotisha was around in India earlier than about 600 BCE, whereas Rashi based phalita jyotisha could be in India only after 4th century BCE, since we do not find any mention of Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis in any of the indigenous astronomical works like the Vedanga Jyotisham etc. or Atharva - jyotisham etc. Thus the astrological combinations on the basis of which horoscopes galore of Bhagwaan Ram are being concocted are interpolations of a much later date, exactly like the interpolated astrological combinations of the horoscopes of Bhagwaan Krishna. And that is why there is so much of confusion about the exact dates of birth of these incarnations on the basis of astrological combinations! I am also sure you have heard/read the famous edict of the Gita à à à à à à à à à µà ¾à à à à ¾à à à à à à à ¾ à «à ²à à à à à à ¾à šà à à ¾ à à à à à «à ²à ¹à à à à à à à à à à à ¾à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à à Thus if all the divine incarnations advise us to forget about bhagya and horoscopes, it is impossible that they would have subjected themselves to the suzerainty of Mangal and Shani etc. planets. FYI, I may put on record here that it is because of this very fatal infatuation with phalita-jyotisha that we are celebrating all our festivals, including Shri Rama Navmi and Shri Krishna Janmashtami on wrong days, so much so that we celebrate these days Pitra-Amavasya on the day of actual Dipavali and so on, thanks to phalita jyotisha! And our "Vedic astronomers" like late Pushkar Batmanagar and today's Dr. P V. Vartak etc. etc. are tying to make divine incarnations of Bhagwaan Ram and Bhagwaan Krishna a party to our wrong decisions of festivals and muhurtas in the name of erecting their horoscopes! What an irony! Maryaada Purushottam is being made a party for break the maryaada of celebrating festivals on correct days! With regards and Jai Shri Ram! A K Kaul

8 On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:55 AM, sunil bhattacharjya wrote: Dear Madam, I always keep my eyes open except during sleeping at night. But it is clear that you are closing your eyes in the daytime itself, as it is inconvenient to you. In your article in 2011 in you blog (which you referred to) you repeated the date given by late Mr. Pushkar Bhatnagar. Firstly please do not close your eyes to the refutation of Pushkar Bhatnagar's date by Mr. Avtar Krishen Kaul. Mr. Kaul's refutaion has been endorsed by the Swicc ephimeris aythority also. I do not agree with Mr. kaul in quite some issues but that does not mean that I will not agree what is a fact pointed out by Mr. Kaul. Secondly you have closed your eyes to the precessional data given by Dr. Vartak. As I stated earlier Dr. Vartaka, date may not be exact (ie. may vary at most by a couple of years) yet his date is fairly correct. Thirdly Late Mr. Pushkar Bhatnagar had not read the Ramayana properly. It appears that you too have not read it carefully. Pushkar Bhatnagar said that Lord Ram was born in January 5114 CE and Mother Sita was abducted in December 5077 BCE. That means Bhatnagar assumed (and you also agree with him) that Lord Ram was past 37 years of age at the time of abduction of Mother Sita. But one who read the original Valmiki Ramayana carefully, knows that Mother Sita told Ravan at the time of abduction that Lord Ram was 25 years old. Fourthly please read the material inserted in your own blog saying as follows Quote Geological.and Oceanography Reports According to Geological Survey of India report named â Project Rameshwaramâ, this bridge was capable of being used as land route between India and Sri Lanka 7,000 to 10,000.years back. As per the report of Department of Earth Sciences the existence of.mesolithic and Microlithic tools and of human fossils on both sides of Rama Sethu indicated.existence of man-made structures. As per estimate made by the inter-government panel on climate change (NASA, Global Change.Master Directory) the rise in the sea level during the last 7000 years has been about 2.8.metres which roughly corresponds to 9.3.feet.â The remains of Rama.Sethu.are.found.submerged nearly.at.a depth.of 9-10 feet. Thus, obviously.this.bridge.was.capable.of.being.used.as land.route 7000 years.back.

9 Unquote For your information the sealevel hardly varied a couple of feet between the time period 7,000 to 10,000.years back. and this bridge was capable of being used as land route between India and Sri Lanka during that period. Dr. Vartak's date very well falls during that period. Fourthly the four-tusked elephants have mentioned in the Ramayana and some of these elephants such as the Cuvieronius became extinct only by about 7,100 years BCE. You may be afraid that you may lose face if you retract your support for the date proposed by Mr. Bhatnagar but I think the truth-lovers will in fact admire your boldness to accept the facts. Regards, Sunil KB On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:11 AM, saroj bala <sarojbala44@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear Sir, I would only request you to keep your mind open. Kindly open sarojbala.blogspot.com through google and read three articles. you will hopefully find answers to your questions. With regards, Saroj Bala Director, I-Serve, Delhi Chapter C-II/107, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi Mobile: , sarojbala44@yahoo.co.in --- On Sun, 8/1/12, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhattacharjya@gmail.com> wrote: From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhattacharjya@gmail.com> Subject: Date of Lord Ram To: sarojbala44@yahoo.co.in Date: Sunday, 8 January, 2012, 1:07 AM

10 Dear Madam, I wrote tro you a mail sometime ago but received no reply. Hence this second mail. Lord Ram is worshipped by the Hindus and the Hindus have the right to protest when the wrong date proposed by late Pushkar Bhatnagar is being endorsed by some people. I see that your name is also being involved. Pushkar Bhatnagar is out and out wrong. Mr. A.K.Kaul had shown through his studies using the latest software that Lord Ram could not have been born in 5114 BCE. Moreover even a person with common sense and a bit of knowledge of astronomy will know that for the Shukla Navami to happen the Moon will have to be ahead of the Sun by at least 96 degrees. Pushkar Bhatnagar cleverly avoided any discussion on this aspect as he either did not understand this or had ignored this wilfully. As soon as his book was published some years ago I wrote to him but he did not reply. Now that he is no more I would request you that for the sake of truth please withdraw the date proposed by Pushkar Bhatnagar. Based on the precessional data Dr. Vartak proposed 74th century BCE as the time of Lord Ram and that is correc., though the exact date arrived by him may not be correct. Looking forward to hearing from you and with regards, Sunil KB