Comments Posted By Abhirama das
Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments
Yes, Vraja Kishor prabhu! Your wording is much better. My English is far from being perfect and this is my first attempt to publish something in English.
I am not sure about why this particular Latitude, yet, but this definitely has something to do with AstroCartoGraphy. It is interesting that there are two lines on the Earth that have the names of Rashis or Zodiac Signs or Constellations or whatever you call them. And we also have an Equator which is obviously Tula or Libra as it divides the Earth into two hemispheres like Libra does to the Zodiac. So, in this way we have three Rashis or Signs presented on the Earth already and all these three are cardinal ones. I will continue the research.
Comment Posted By Abhirama das On 01.11.2012 @ 17:33
Antardwipa Prabhu, I find no reason to respect an article that quotes only those shlokas that support the view of an author and conveniently ignores all tropical definitions of the Zodiac given in the various shastras. Shyamasundara Prabhu did the same in his articles. We all can do this. It is easy.
This is not a research. Research is collecting facts and then making conclusions. You already have a conclusion and then you select quotes to prove it. I can do the same.
I don’t know why you are doing this. If this is to convince in your views, it is not working and does the opposite actually. Because using such an approach proves the lack of actual proof.
A serious approach would be to present ALL the definitions that are available and then to try to show why one quote is stronger than another or where those quotes should be used and where not. And all this should not be based just on author’s own logic but he should show that a guru and sadhus have interpreted the shastra in this way.
And before quoting any guru it would be nice to make sure that he is actually a guru. Which means he should belong to bona fide parampara. Unfortunately most astrologers who call themselves Vedic, are following a Lahiri apasampradaya.
If I am wrong calling this an apasampradaya then somebody please present the disciplic succession of that sampradaya going back to the times of Vedic texts.
It is so easy to say that someone lacks proper training and that without a teacher one can not penetrate into the meanings of Vedas and so on. It is so easy to make such a statements but it seems to me that followers of Lahiri haven’t even understood what the parampara is and that a guru should have a guru too.
Comment Posted By Abhirama das On 30.10.2012 @ 18:44
I found my old photo of the quote from Vishnu Purana.
Here it is.
Comment Posted By Abhirama das On 17.07.2012 @ 17:04
Yes, Vraja Kishor prabhu, I have arrived into the same conclusion. There are many instances of Zodiac description in the Vedas, including in our Srimad Bhagavatam, all of them Tropical. And there is no description of Sidereal Zodiac in the Vedas. I have asked many authorities, including Shyamasundara prabhu, if they know of at least one description of Sidereal Zodiac in the Vedas, but no, nobody has been able to present any. Which makes life easier. If there would be two concurrent Zodiac descriptions in the Vedas, then we could think why it is so and in which cases one should be used and in which cases the other, but now, we don’t have this problem. There is only Tropical Zodiac described in the Vedas and this is the only Zodiac that can honestly be called Vedic. Others are not Vedic.
In addition to your quotes I can add that there is also one Zodiac description in Vishnu purana. But this is basically the same as the one in Surya Siddhanta.
Atmavidya prabhu, you of course are making an ‘argumentum ad hominem’ here. Instead of commenting the arguments, you are commenting the author. Thus you do not qualify for a discussion partner. ‘Argumentum ad hominem’ is a lowest type of logical fallacy one can make. As long as one commits such thinking errors, there is no hope for one to understand the higher topics.
But you know, Vraja Kishor prabhu, astrology is a science but most so called astrologers are not scientists. The worst cases are religious astrologers. They are as far from the science as possible. They are believers and they accept no arguments. And when they write lengthy articles about their views they conveniently omit the definitions of Zodiac given in the Vedas as these do not prove their views. These do not fit into their worldviews so to say.
So, there is no sense to argue. You will be demonized and insulted in every possible way.
Comment Posted By Abhirama das On 16.07.2012 @ 11:20