Sri Vinay Jha's Response to :A Traditional view of what the Vedas are.

233 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma

unread,
Oct 1, 2010, 6:39:06 AM10/1/10
to Bharatiya Vidvat Parishat
नमो विद्वद्भ्य:,
Sri Vinay Jha's brief response is forwarded
to this Group for study and discussion.
To know more about him and his research,
here is a brief quotation from NASA Report.
(A website containing the Papers, interactions which
lead to the Report of NASA)
"I ( Vinay Jha) had sent two fortnightly rain and flood forecasts in advance to Dr TN Jha, Patna's regional director of IMD (Indian Meteorological Department) for the whole month of September, 2006, who later reported that he could not properly verify the rain forecast for the whole country due to time constraints but had verified my flood forecasts which proved to be amazingly true. He encouraged me to write up and present papers at international seminars."
धन्यो'स्मि।

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vinay Jha <vina...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [foundation-for-indian-scientific-h A Traditional view of what the Vedas are.
To: foundation-for-india...@googlegroups.com


Sharma Ji,

Your question is not limited to Jyotisha, but Siddhanta Skandha of
Jyotisha provides most clear answer to your question. First of all,
let me state that Suryasiddhanta is the only ancient Apaurusheya
siddhanta which is extant in a usable form. Secondly, examination of
siddhantic ideas in  Puranas and Mahabharata as well as later texts
proves that Suryasiddhanta is the basis of Vedic-Puranic tradition of
Siddhanta Jyotisha. Suryasiddhanta was eulogised as the best by even
Varaha Mihira.

Suryasiddhanta says that "Bhautika" Creation vanishes during night of
Brahmaa Ji. If physical Sun vanishes, how Brahmaa Ji counts night and
day? Hence, ther must be non-physical Surya which never ceases to
exist even when physical world vanishes.

There are a lot of similar proofs about the existence of Multiverse
instead of a single Universe. But materialists do not recognise
anyrhing not perceived by sense organs. Human senses are designed only
for perceiving the physical world.

Even the idea of Presiding Deity of physical entities is not correct,
because the relation between physical Sun and non-physical Surya is
not direct and simple. Physical entities are dead things, we must
forget them while discussing Vedas and Vedaangas. Physical Sun is over
27 times farther than Surya of Bhuvaloka, Budha is 43 times farther
than physical Mercury, etc. The magic of Jyotisha can be unravelled
fully only after we forget physical astronomy and check Jyotisha
solely on the basis of ancient mathematics.

-VJ

On 9/29/10, Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <d.ramak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> अभिवन्द्य,
> The PDF is shared separately. Download and may be commented upon.
> Does it present unscientific postulates?
> आन्ध्यत्व - मान्द्यत्व - पटुत्व - धर्म: of the senses and the anta:karaNaM
> cannot be overcome by any external appliances. Hence the Brahma
> Sutras categorically emphasize जगद्व्यापारवर्जं  ईश्वरत्वं, that the human
> beings are empowered potentially to know and act except in a way Ishvara
> is cosmically capable of. कर्तुं अकर्तुं अन्यथा वा कर्तुं is NOT possible by
> any being, be it
> human or celestial.
> "स्यादीश्वरत्वं " of the Sri Dakshinamurthy Stotram of Sri Adi Shankara
> connotes what
> he commented upon in the Brahma Sutra bhasshyam, as जगद्व्यापारवर्जं
> ईश्वरत्वं.
> This does not prevent research into the adhi-daivam domain.
> But what exactly is adhi-daivam? Does it mean the astro-physical
> bodies such as "Agastya"/Canopus? Or does it mean the अभिमानिदेवता, the
> Presiding
> Consciousness as referred to in the प्रणववार्तिकं of the समाधिविधि: usually
> given to the
> initiated fourth ashrama disciples of Sringeri Parampara?
> अध्यात्मं अधिभूतं अधिदैवं in the above context are experiential and NOT
> interpretative.
> If adhi-bhutam means and includes all that is physical and elemental where
> is the question
> of adhi-daivam being the celestial/astronomical bodies? If the three are
> mutually distinctive
> and separate domains(they are, by definition), the latter two cannot be
> synonyms or of similar categories!
>
> Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Foundation for Indian Scientific Heritage" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> foundation-for-india...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> foundation-for-indian-scie...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/foundation-for-indian-scientific-heritage?hl=en?hl=en-GB
> HERITAGE AWARENESS MAKES AN ENLIGHTENED CITIZEN.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Foundation for Indian Scientific Heritage" group.
To post to this group, send email to
foundation-for-india...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
foundation-for-indian-scie...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/foundation-for-indian-scientific-heritage?hl=en?hl=en-GB
HERITAGE AWARENESS MAKES AN ENLIGHTENED CITIZEN.



--
Aangirasa/Dr.S.Ramakrishna Sharma. M.A.,Ph.D.(Eng.Lit.),Ph.D.(Sanskrit.).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages