Comments Posted By Somayaji
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 40 Comments
In #37 Mother Visakha Priya dd wrote:
âFrom my point of view, using the same words, phrases, and expressions as someone else to make a different point doesnât constitute a breach of etiquette as long as it is not attributed to the person from whom one borrows the terminology. Does this refutation make sense to you, my son?â
I donât know if it makes sense to Krishna Kirti Prabhu but it doesnât make sense to me. Kauteya did not specifically attribute the lexically engineered text to Krsna Kirti Prabhu but he did attribute it to his opponents, which is just as unethical.
Kaunteya Prabhu purposely kept everyone in the dark as to who or what he was quoting so that you could not check his sources to see if he did so correctly. We would not have known this if Krsna Kirti Prabhu had not pointed out what Kaunteya had done to his writing, slicing and dicing it to fit his needs. That is unethical. Who knows what else he has done. Such lack of transparency certainly makes it justifiable to doubt his motives, especially since this seems to the modus operendi of the pro-FDG camp.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 11.03.2013 @ 08:58
regarding comment #8 by “bbd” (who is bbd?) I would have to whole heartedly agree with Nitai Prabhu’s comment #9 bbd’s comments are complete speculation or wishful thinking and have no support in sastra. It’s as if “bbd” never read any of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Just last night I was reading in Krsna book about the marriage of Usa and Annirudha and the great efforts that were taken by Usha’s father to keep her away from boys. This was not a singularity but the theme of the sastras. So we find it very strange that “bbd” comes to the exact opposite conclusion regarding the mixing of the sexes than that of Vedic culture as explained in sastra and by our acaryas and sadhus.
Regarding the so called influence of Islam and the British regarding mixing of the sexes a study was done which showed that for North Indian girls they began to feel uncomfortable if an unknown male came within 2 meters, whereas in South India where Vedic culture is much stronger because of little Islamic influence because of the Vijayanagar Empire which kept them out the S Indian girls feel uncomfortable if an unknown male comes within 4 meters, twice that of the N Indian girl. So in areas of India where Vedic culture is strongest (S India) there is stronger aversion for free mixing of the sexes.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 01.01.2013 @ 16:12
Acyuta Prabhu wrote:
I donât believe it has yet been mentioned that the GBCâs Sastric Advisory Council has already (nearly ten years past) completed an investigation of this issue.
Though not available as a download there is a paper commissioned by the Indian RGB that resoundingly rebuts the SAC paper. It is widely distributed on the net in different locations. If you google “A Reply to the GBC Action Order 305 (2009)” including the “” you get about 900 results on the SERP.
To quote you “I urge all devotees interested in this topic to take the time to read it.”
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 06.12.2012 @ 08:54
Dear Antadwipa Prabhu,
I had been following the discussion on http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10661 and was eagerly awaiting this article, it is really excellent. It successfully and conclusively deprecates the idea of using Tropical zodiac in Vedic astrology. You have provided excellent pramana from many authoritative sources like Surya Siddhanta Siddhanta, Srimad Bhagavatam, Brahat Samhit and Brhat Jataka.
You have shown that sastras mention both sidereal and tropical systems and when they are to be used. It was a breath of fresh air to see the actual facts presented in a convincing manner by someone who actually knows the subject.
I want to also thank Shyamasundara Prabhu for encouraging Antardwipa Prabhu to write this article I am sure it will be read by many astrology students such as myself in the future to clear their heads from the fog of confusion that others have created.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 21.10.2012 @ 14:27
As Sitalatma Prabhu points out according to sastra one should approach a guru, it is not enough to simply read books. This is true even for material subjects like medicine or law; simply reading the books do not qualify you to practice medicine or law. So even if we accept your unproved statement:
âHowever, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the idea that there are astrological âgurusâ with bona-fide astrological âparamparaâ is just a dream, a fantasy.â
We should still accept a teacher for subjects like jyotisa after carefully studying their qualifications.
I notice that on Shyamasundara Prabhuâs website http://shyamasundaradasa.com/jyotish/main/about_shyamasundara_dasa.html he gives a list of all his teachers. I would assume that all his teachers also had teachers who themselves had teachers and so on, so this is a parampara. And other astrology teachers also had teachers. Perhaps they do not keep lists like we do of the 32 previous acaryas, (they donât keep such lists in law or medical schools either) but still it is expected that one have a teacher or guru and that one is not self taught for as it is said âone who has himself for a student has a fool for a teacher.â
As members of ISKCON we are supposed to be presenting Vedic culture. That includes the concept of accepting a teacher, a superior authority, and studying under them. So the question arises: who is your teacher?
Vraja Kishore wrote:
Therefore where is the âguruâ who has the bile to say that it is âVedicâ to use a sidereal zodiac.
Maybe you should wait till after Antardvipaâs article is published before making such statements. Aside from that Shyamasundara Prabhuâs articles mentioned in #1 has already demolished the concept of using Tropical Zodiac, you have not even begun to respond to that, your comment in #34 can hardly be called a response.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 19.10.2012 @ 20:33
In #35 Vraja Kishore wrote:
It is not accurate to depict me as a lone maverick championing an oddball cause. I am merely doing my part and carrying the torch. Many, many important personalities before me have discovered and advocated the same reform I am championing. Similarly there are many others who currently share this opinion with me.
There have always been people who have been against Vedic Siddhanta. Bhaktisiddhanta was well aware of various calendar reform movements that existed in the past. He argued against tropical zodiac and accepted sidereal calendars in vogue during his stay on the planet.
You quote Dieter Kochâs article where it says:
It is hoped that at not a distant date, further reforms for locating the lunar and solar festivals in the seasons in which they were originally observed will be adopted.â
This shows the whole fallacious reasoning behind their desire to change it to tropical zodiac, to keep it according to the seasons. As Shyamasundara Prabhu showed in http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10570 this creates the absurd position of having to define two different zodiac meanings for the northern and southern hemispheres because they run opposite to each other. So according to the idea that the calendar should be according to the season then when should Gaura Purnima be in Australia? Gaura Purnima in the north is just at the beginning of spring, but that would be the fall in Australia. So to make it in the spring in Australia you would have to move it by six months, likewise for everything else. So this idea of keeping in tune with the seasons shows that it is not universal in application. You would have to have a whole different Vaisnava Calendar for the southern hemisphere to keep it in tune with the season that that particular personality appeared in. This calendar would be out of phase with the north hemisphere calendar by six months, this is completely absurd and unacceptable. Thus the argument for tropical zodiac is absurd and unacceptable.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 19.10.2012 @ 13:36
In #20 Vic wrote:
âthat Srila Bhaktisiddhanta took a stance against Sri Bapudev Shastri, Mahesha-candra Nyayaratna (Head of the Sanskrit college), Pandita Pancanana Sahityacarya was (Head of the astronomy department of the college, and âthe greatest astronomer in Bengalâ) and other luminaries who wished to reform the Indian astronomical / astrological system from the sidereal zodiac. It also seems that the matter which concerned Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was the humiliation and public defeat of a champion of atheism. It seems that astronomy was only a tool or front to achieve that end.â
Could you please clarify; the way you have written the above seems that you are implying the possibility that actually Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a proponent of tropical system of astronomy but just pretended to be a proponent of sidereal astronomy just to defeat and humiliate an atheist?
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 14.09.2012 @ 05:53
âOne of his pupilsâ means one of Bhaktisiddhantaâs pupils? So the argument was not made directly by Bhaktisiddhanta, but by his pupil?
Are you implying that his pupil was putting forward an argument that was in opposition to that of Bhaktisiddhanta?
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 14.09.2012 @ 05:48
BTW at http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10750 it mentions that a whole years worth of Jyotir Vid publication by BST have been unearthed in the Bhaktivedanta Research Library.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 14.09.2012 @ 05:43
Vic said in #23:
âThe book itself repeats a well known fact that Bhaktisiddhanta was not a Jataka, ever. The topic under discussion here is Jataka Jyotisha. Therefore even once we know confidently what Bhaktisiddhantaâs opinion on the definition of the zodiac starting point; still we have to take that point into careful consideration.â
It is mentioned in the short bio of HH Sridar Swami (in vol 2) that once BST picked up his chart and noted that because he had Rahu in the 9th that it would be a detriment in his life. So he definitely knew Jataka. Also the topic is actually astronomy because Jataka is based on astronomy and you are arguing for the utilization of tropical system of astronomy as opposed to sidereal. It also looks like you are looking for an out once it is shown that BST favored nirayana and not sayana. Will you then say âhe only knew astronomy so his opinion has no value?â
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 14.09.2012 @ 05:42