Saturday, May 11, 2013
The Veethi concept described in Part -5 contains in itself the rashi divisions. Without the prior division of the zodiac into 12 Rashis, this Veethi concept could not have been formed. The 3 Veethis are named by the first 3 rashis of the Zodiac but had different rashis in them. That is, Mesha Veethi started in Rishabha. Rishabha Veethi did not have Rishabha but had the rashis in which the spring and autumn equinoxes keep shifting. Similarly the Mithuna Veethi did not contain in itself Mithuna but had different rashis. This goes to show that the naming was that of the order of the zodiacal names, like counting one, two, three etc or 1st street, 2nd street and 3rd street.
Date: Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Is Vedic astrology derived from Greek astrology ? Part 6
Dear Ms. Jayasree,
I replace your second scan by explicit text, to be sure that it will not get lost:
nirekaá¹ƒ dvÄdaÅ›Äbhyastaá¹ƒ dviguá¹‡aá¹ƒ gatasaá¹ƒyutam
á¹£aá¹£á¹yÄ á¹£aá¹£á¹yÄ yutaá¹ƒ dvÄbhyÄá¹ƒ parvaá¹‡Äá¹ƒ rÄÅ›ir ucyate
Kupanna Sastryâ€™s translation (also quoted by you):
"Take the ordinal number of the year in the yuga. Lessen this by 1, multiply by 12, again multiply by 2, add the parvas gone in the year, for every 60 of the total parvas add 2, and the number obtained is the parva-rÄÅ›i (i. e. the total number of parvas gone at the time for which the calculations are to be made)."
Mere rhetoric! Did you look into the text or translation at all? Here I am giving my explanation. After that it is your turn to give yours!
Assume, we are at the beginning of the 5th year of the yuga.
a. (Lessen by 1:) 5 - 1 = 4.
These are the complete years past since beginning of 5-year yuga.
b. (Multiply by 12:) 4 x 12 = 48.
Number of months in these 4 years, without leap months.
c. (Multiply by 2:) 48 x 2 = 96.
Now, we have the number of fortnights in these 4 years (without leap months).
d. (Add the parvas gone in that year: as we are at the beginning of the 5th year, the number of parvas to be added is 0.
e. (For every 60 of total parvas add 2:) 96 + 2 = 98.
Two fortnights are added for the first leap month of the 5-year yuga. The second leap month will be added at the end of the fifth year, after 120 regular fortnights.
Hence, 98 is "the total number of parvas gone at the time for which the calculations are to be made" (Kupanna Sastry), namely after the 4th year is completed and at the beginning of the 5th year.
So, according to Kuppanna Sastry, the verse tells us how to calculate the number of fortnights completed since the beginning of the 5-year yuga. The obvious meaning of rashi here is "number" and the meaning of parva-rashi is "number of parvas". Is Kuppanna Sastry ridiculous?
Now it is your turn:
If you think that parva-rashi refers to the zodiac sign of the parvas, then please provide your translation of the verse and your detailed interpretation. If you agree with Kuppanna SastryÂ´s translation, and my example, then please tell me what the number 98 has to do with zodiac signs in our example.
With regard to the other verse that mentions mina rashi, you say:
<A mind untainted by the propaganda would accept this verse as original, because this says how to identify the year of Jupiter in a round of 12 years starting from Vishnu onwards (Brihad samhitha - chapter 8 on Jupiter).
Mere rhetoric again. I would say, to an unprejudiced mind ("untainted by propaganda") the verse is doubtful for the following reasons:
- The whole theory of the VJ is based on nakshatras, and nakshatras are mentioned all the time, whereas rashis do not play any part in the text except in this one verse.
- A list of all nakshatras is given, even a list of their presiding deities, whereas no list of rashis, their rulers and exaltations are given; and this in a text called Vedanga-jyotisha!
- This verse only appears only in one of the two recensions of VJ.
- Rashis do not appear in other Vedic texts either except late Puranas.
- Minarashi is not mentioned in any other Vedic text except Puranas.
With regard to "untainted by propaganda": Please do not tell me you are unprejudiced! Like so many other people here, you are determined to prove *by all means* that rashis were known to Vedic authors. Your rhetoric makes it obvious that you are not willing at all to consider this question with an unprejudiced mind.
I wonder how you skipped everything I wrote on what a Rashi is all about!!
It is obvious that you have not read the whole article or not willing to accept the meaning of Rashi.
Define a Rashi first and then we will see whether it is zodiac rashi or nakshatra Rashi or parva rashi, or Perumal rashi or Marut Rashi and so on.
Don't say that Rashi is merely a "sign" - define it and justify why that word rashi appears in so many other places - say in RJ too.
Who is prejudiced? It is the one who thinks that Rashi means only the zodiac Rashi.
It is not that "by all means" we are saying - it is that people like you ( I detest coming down to the level of people like this - but I have to say) who are not aware whatsoever of any proof of Indian antiquity and our texts can not see reason by any means. It seems you can not be saved from becoming another Max Muller. Any work that you will write with the claim on rashi and planets as Greek inventions and that Vedic sages borrowed from them, is bound to fall and bring discredit to you.