y not a single ekadasi for all?

[Guest guest]

i'd like to know y there is such diff'ces in the day of ekadashi

[panchanga]from one mutt to other.as 'there can b only one eternity

in a place' someone is doing wrong.is it right to go on like this

foolishly?

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

, " pradeep_ts181

<pradeepts181@h...> " <pradeepts181@h...> wrote:

> i'd like to know y there is such diff'ces in the day of ekadashi

> [panchanga]from one mutt to other.as 'there can b only one eternity

> in a place' someone is doing wrong.

I fail to understand the connection between 'one eternity' and 'same

ekadashi for all'

 

> is it right to go on like this foolishly?

these are differences in practise and not philosophy.

Before terming it foolish one need to ask the following questions.

1. does the difference in practise amount to descrimination?

2. does the difference in practise cause inconvenience to any group?

3. does the difference in practise is vaalid or justified?

 

Withour raising these issues, calling it foolish is not justified, I

hope.

 

Anand

[Guest guest]

>

> pradeep_ts181 <pradeepts181

> [pradeepts181]

> Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:03 PM

>

> y not a single ekadasi for all?

 

 

> i'd like to know y there is such diff'ces in the day of ekadashi

> [panchanga]from one mutt to other.as 'there can b only one eternity

> in a place' someone is doing wrong.is it right to go on like this

> foolishly?

 

Can you explain your second statement, pls?

Coming to the basic issue of why there are differences among various maThs

(ITRANS scheme; not same as mathematics! See P.S.), knowledge of what is meant

by ekAdashi astrologically/astronomically is necessary.

 

As you would know, there is something called as 'zodiac'. It has got more to do

with astronomy than with astrology. AFAI Understand, the vedAN^ga 'Jyotisha'

deals with astronomy rather than astrology.

 

a. The positions of grahas are 'fixed' against the backdrop of 27

constellations. In this system of 'grahas' are included Moon, Sun and two points

in space related to Moon's position that are considered Rahu and Ketu.

 

b. These positions are calculated with (i) the lattitude/longitude of the place

and (ii) sun-rise time at that location. People used to having a Timezone over a

large area might have some questions regarding point (ii), but suffice it to say

that all deviations due to Time-zone concept get nullified.

 

c. For example, as of now i.e. at 3.09 PM in Bangalore, the Moon is at 22

degrees, 4 minutes (where the full zodiac circle measures to 360 degrees, just

in case somebody doesn't know :-)) of Aries (Mesha), the Sun is at 0 d, 27 m of

Sagittarius which is 240 d, 27 minutes from the 0th degree.

 

d. The tithi of the day is determined by the relative distance between Moon and

Sun. If the distance between Moon and Sun is 180 d, it implies that earth is in

between Moon and Sun, thus, you would have a full moon day. If the distance

between Moon and Sun is 0d, the tithi is amAvAsya.

 

e. When the Moon has advanced the Sun (it will always lead the Sun because,

relative to earth, moon completes its cycle faster than sun) by 12 d, it is

considered one tithi.

 

f. ekAdashi is when the distance b/w Moon and Sun is in the range of 120-132

degrees (it is shukla ekAdashi) or in the range of 300-312 (it is krishna

ekadashi).

 

g. All the rules of 'one should not fast on ekAdashi that is tainted by dashami'

is 'executable' based on the above calculations. If at the time of sun-rise, the

tithi was dashami tithi, but rest of the day was ekAdashi, then no fasting.

These rules are laid down in Srimad Acharya's KrishnamrtamaharNava, but there

are similar references in the purANAs that some texts such as dharmasindhu and

nirNayasindhu also refer to.

 

Now to the actual problem:

 

The above theory remains same for all maThs. However, notice that the (radial)

distance b/w the moon and sun can be calculated if only the position of 0th

degree in space can be fixed accurately. That depends on something called as

'Ayanamsa'.

 

The method for calculating the ayanAmsa is subjective and has been explained

differently from j~nAnis of different maThs. Uttaradi MaTh, AFAIK, follows

Chalari Acharya's 'smrithyarthasAgara' or 'smR^iti muktAvaLi', while Sri

Raghavendra Swami's MaTh follows the Krishnaavadhoota paNDita's work (I don't

know its name). I am not sure what the aShThamaThas follow.

 

That these methods are from jnAnis and well-accepted people imposes the actual

problem, ironically! It is rather that every person, scholar or otherwise,

living now has accepted one's own limitedness in knowledge and thought and

consider it dangerous to tread a path against the methodologies of one's

superior; which is why many attempts to reconcile have failed.

 

Attempts that I know were one from Sri Satyadhyana tirtha and MANY from Sri

Vidyamanya tirtha. Perhaps there were other attempts, but I don't know. Such

attempts have failed because people who know astronomy were afraid of going

against their superiors. Note that these superiors were not just chronologically

superior, but actually so in knowledge.

 

It is not that this issue cannot be solved, but it needs heavy leadership skills

and real courage, backed up by solid intellect. But right now, our tradition has

so many other things to focus on (Read the concluding part of " History of Dvaita

school of Vedanta " ), that this issue is at the backseat. One might object to

relegating this issue quoting Ekadashi's importance etc. But given that we don't

have what is needed to solve the problem, we should find solace in the fact that

the Lord accepts many activities directed by gurus, though it might seem

adharmic.

To raise noise about this issue and how it represents the banal attitude of

mAdhvas etc are all timepass activities one does when one does not know what to

do. There are many controversial issues on earth and mAdhva tradition has a good

share of it. To indulge in discussions on such or to expect answers to such, I

doubt, will bring in anything that will aid you in following Srimad Acharya's

dictum:

 

smartavyaM satataM viShNuM, vismartavyaM na kadAchit(?)

 

Whatever activities one does, one should always think of Vishnu and should never

forget Him in their activities.

 

Until we get there, I don't think laymen like us should get into these

controversial issues.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

P.S. The meaning of word 'Mutt' from dictionary.com:

 

mutt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mut) n. Informal

A mongrel dog.

A stupid person; a dolt.

[Guest guest]

Pardon if this is a repeat.

 

>

> pradeep_ts181 <pradeepts181

> [pradeepts181]

> Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:03 PM

 

> i'd like to know y there is such diff'ces in the day of ekadashi

> [panchanga]from one mutt to other.as 'there can b only one eternity

> in a place' someone is doing wrong.is it right to go on like this

> foolishly?

 

Can you explain your second statement, pls?

Coming to the basic issue of why there are differences among various

maThs (ITRANS scheme; not same as mathematics! See P.S.), knowledge

of what is meant by ekAdashi astrologically/astronomically is

necessary.

 

As you would know, there is something called as 'zodiac'. It has got

more to do with astronomy than with astrology. AFAI Understand, the

vedAN^ga 'Jyotisha' deals with astronomy rather than astrology.

 

a. The positions of grahas are 'fixed' against the backdrop of 27

constellations. In this system of 'grahas' are included Moon, Sun and

two points in space related to Moon's position that are considered

Rahu and Ketu.

 

b. These positions are calculated with (i) the lattitude/longitude of

the place and (ii) sun-rise time at that location. People used to

having a Timezone over a large area might have some questions

regarding point (ii), but suffice it to say that all deviations due

to Time-zone concept get nullified.

 

c. For example, as of now i.e. at 3.09 PM in Bangalore, the Moon is

at 22 degrees, 4 minutes (where the full zodiac circle measures to

360 degrees, just in case somebody doesn't know :-)) of Aries

(Mesha), the Sun is at 0 d, 27 m of Sagittarius which is 240 d, 27

minutes from the 0th degree.

 

d. The tithi of the day is determined by the relative distance

between Moon and Sun. If the distance between Moon and Sun is 180 d,

it implies that earth is in between Moon and Sun, thus, you would

have a full moon day. If the distance between Moon and Sun is 0d, the

tithi is amAvAsya.

 

e. When the Moon has advanced the Sun (it will always lead the Sun

because, relative to earth, moon completes its cycle faster than sun)

by 12 d, it is considered one tithi.

 

f. ekAdashi is when the distance b/w Moon and Sun is in the range of

120-132 degrees (it is shukla ekAdashi) or in the range of 300-312

(it is krishna ekadashi).

 

g. All the rules of 'one should not fast on ekAdashi that is tainted

by dashami' is 'executable' based on the above calculations. If at

the time of sun-rise, the tithi was dashami tithi, but rest of the

day was ekAdashi, then no fasting. These rules are laid down in

Srimad Acharya's KrishnamrtamaharNava, but there are similar

references in the purANAs that some texts such as dharmasindhu and

nirNayasindhu also refer to.

 

Now to the actual problem:

 

The above theory remains same for all maThs. However, notice that the

(radial) distance b/w the moon and sun can be calculated if only the

position of 0th degree in space can be fixed accurately. That depends

on something called as 'Ayanamsa'.

 

The method for calculating the ayanAmsa is subjective and has been

explained differently from j~nAnis of different maThs. Uttaradi MaTh,

AFAIK, follows Chalari Acharya's 'smrithyarthasAgara' or 'smR^iti

muktAvaLi', while Sri Raghavendra Swami's MaTh follows the

Krishnaavadhoota paNDita's work (I don't know its name). I am not

sure what the aShThamaThas follow.

 

That these methods are from jnAnis and well-accepted people imposes

the actual problem, ironically! It is rather that every person,

scholar or otherwise, living now has accepted one's own limitedness

in knowledge and thought and consider it dangerous to tread a path

against the methodologies of one's superior; which is why many

attempts to reconcile have failed.

 

Attempts that I know were one from Sri Satyadhyana tirtha and MANY

from Sri Vidyamanya tirtha. Perhaps there were other attempts, but I

don't know. Such attempts have failed because people who know

astronomy were afraid of going against their superiors. Note that

these superiors were not just chronologically superior, but actually

so in knowledge.

 

It is not that this issue cannot be solved, but it needs heavy

leadership skills and real courage, backed up by solid intellect. But

right now, our tradition has so many other things to focus on (Read

the concluding part of " History of Dvaita school of Vedanta " ), that

this issue is at the backseat. One might object to relegating this

issue quoting Ekadashi's importance etc. But given that we don't have

what is needed to solve the problem, we should find solace in the

fact that the Lord accepts many activities directed by gurus, though

it might seem adharmic.

To raise noise about this issue and how it represents the banal

attitude of mAdhvas etc are all timepass activities one does when one

does not know what to do. There are many controversial issues on

earth and mAdhva tradition has a good share of it. To indulge in

discussions on such or to expect answers to such, I doubt, will bring

in anything that will aid you in following Srimad Acharya's dictum:

 

smartavyaM satataM viShNuM, vismartavyaM na kadAchit(?)

 

Whatever activities one does, one should always think of Vishnu and

should never forget Him in their activities.

 

Until we get there, I don't think laymen like us should get into

these controversial issues.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

P.S. The meaning of word 'Mutt' from dictionary.com:

 

mutt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mut) n. Informal

A mongrel dog.

A stupid person; a dolt.