The real Vedic Hindu calendar must be without Mesha etc. Rashis

[Guest guest]

Shri Sreenadhji,

Namaskar!

The following post appeared

in HinduCalendar forum on September 27, 2006.

Regards,

AKK

HinduCalendar , " jyotirved " <jyotirvedwrote: Re: The real Vedic Hindu calendar must be without Mesha etc. Rashis.

 

Shri

Narayan Prasad ji,

Namaste!

I am indeed thankful to you for prodding me to make my thoughts

about Vedic luni-solar months etc. articulate and cohesive. I, therefore,

request you to please go through this post carefully so that we take some

constructive steps in the right direction for streamlining our calendars at the

earliest.

 

The shlokas quoted by Diksit are from recent

works:

The two sholkas that you have quoted from “Bahratiya Jyotish

Shastra” of S. B. Dikshit in support of Rashi based lunar months, are

actually from “Kala Madhava” of thirteenth century and “Kala

Tattva Vivechan” of sixteenth century AD. As such, both these works

are quite recent ones and it is not surprising at all that they have advocated

to calculate lunar months vis-à-vis astrological Rashis like Aries, Taurus etc.

 

Vedic calendars were framed without astrological

Rashis:

However, the task we have at our hands is to streamline our

calendars in accordance with the Vedic lore that should be applicable to whole

of India

and not as per Narada etc. Purana, that is based on the Surya Sidhanta of Maya

the mlechha, or some so called Jyotisha shastra etc.

Let us, therefore, see the relevant references for that purpose

i.e., the real fundamentals of the calendar as it existed during the Vedic and

post-Vedic period.

 

 

4000 BCE:

The earliest reference---at least of around 4000 BCE----we have to an

intercalary month (adhika-masa) is in the Rigveda 1/25/8. An

adhika-masa can take place only when lunar synodic months are calculated

vis-à-vis solar sankrantis. Since in the Vedic period only Madhu, Madhava

etc. solar months and not Aries etc. astrological rashis were in vogue, it

means that even the earliest references to lunar months in the Vedas are

without Mesha etc. Rashis but in relation to Madhu, Madhava etc.

solar/lunar months.

3000 BCE:

Taittiriya Samhita 1/4/14

says: “Madhushcha madhavashcha shukrashcha shuchishcha nabhashcha

nabhasyashcha ishashcha oorjashcha sahashcha sahasyashcha tapashcha

tapasyashchai up yam griheeto asi samsarpo asi amhaspatyay tva”

 

Here Madhu, Madhava etc. twelve months have been named and then

samsarpa is the thirteenth (intercalary/adhika) month and amhaspati a decayed

(kshyaya) month. THERE ARE NO RASHIS HERE AND LUNAR MONTHS, INCLUDING

ADHIKA/KSHAYA-MASA, WERE RELATED TO MADHU, MADHAVA ETC. SOLAR MONTHS AND EVEN

NAMED AS (LUNAR, APART FROM SOLAR) MADHU, MADHAVA ETC. WITHOUT ANY DOUBT.

3. Again the same Taitiriya Samhita

5/6/7 says “shadratrir deekshitah syat shadva ritavah

samvatsarah…dwadasha ratreer deekshitah syat dwadasha masah

samvatsarah… trayodasha ratreer deekshitah syat, trayodasha masah samvatsarah”

i.e. “One should get consecrated for six days as the year

comprises six seasons. One should get consecrated for 12 days as the year

comprises 12 months. One should get consecrated for 13 days as the year

comprises 13 months (including an adhika masa)”. There are no rashis

involved here but the solar months Madhu, Madhava etc. are implied because of

references to six seasons, and thereby the lunar months are related to those

very solar months.

4. 3000 BCE:

Vajasaneya Samhita 22/31 says:

“Madhave svaha, madhavay svaha, shukray svaha shuchaye svaha,

nabhase svaha, nabhasyaya svaha, ishay svaha, oorjay svaha, sahase svaha,

sahasyay svaha, tapase svaha, tapasyaya svaha, amhaspataye

svaha”

 

Here all the twelve solar months of Madhu, Madhava etc. have been

named consecutively and the thirteenth month has been named as amhaspati.

Obviously, the thirteenth is an adhika lunar month. Thus as per this

proof also, lunar months were known by the names of solar months of Madhu,

Madhva etc. in early Vedic days!

..

 

3000 BCE and 100 BCE:

In Shatapatha Brahmana 4/5/14 we find “Upayama griheeto asi Madhave tu

etyeva advaryur-grihnati upyama griheeto asi madhavay tveti pratiprastha

taitaveva vasantikav sayad vasante aushadhayo jayante vanaspatayah

pachyante tena haitav madhushcha madhavshcha”

 

Translation “Since in the Vasnata (spring season) grains in

the fields start sprouting that is why the two months of that season are known

as Madhu and Madhvava”.

The commentary on this mantra by Shri Hari-Swamin says, “Madhu

Madhavaviti chaitra vaishakhav ritu grahanam chaitradayo masah devatah.

Chaitra vaishakhayor madhu madhava namdheya praptim darshayati. Etav uktav

masav vasantikav”

Translation “Madhu and Madhava are Chaitra and Vaishakha as

they are the two months of Spring season. As such the shruti has shown

the names of Chaitra and Vaishakha as Madhu and Madhava”

Shri Hari-Swamin is said to be a scholar of around first century

BCE. It means that the tradition of calling solar months Madhu, Madhava

by lunar names like Caitra, Vaishakha etc. and vice-versa was prevailing then.

 

 

1400 BCE:

Acharya Lagadha’s Vedanga Jyotisha says:

 

“Svarakramete somarkav yada sakam savasavav, syat tadadi

yugam maghastapah shuklo ayanam hyudak”

As per Dikshit’s translation, it means ”When the sun

and the moon while moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha i.e. Beta

Delphini) star together, then the yuga, the Magha (month), the tapas (seasonal

month), the light half of the month, and the Winter Solstice, all commence

together”.

 

Sixth mantra of the same VJ says

 

“Prapadyate shavishthadav surya chandramasav udak, sarpardhe

dkshinarkastu, magha shravanayoh sada”

Dikshit’s translation: “The sun and the moon turn

towards North in the beginning of Dhanishtha and towards South in the middle of

Ashlesha. The sun always does this in the month of Magha and

Shravana”

THIS IS THE VERY FIRST INDIGENOUS ASTRONOMICAL WORK OF 14TH

CENTURY BCE AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SO CALLED ARIES ETC. RASHIS,

WHETHER SAYANA OR NIRAYANA, BUT TELLS US THE METHODLOGY OF CALCULATING ALL THE

TWELVE MONTHS, BOTH SOLAR AND LUNAR, LIKE TAPAH AND MAGHA, APART FROM WINTER

SOLSTICE AND SUMMER SOLSTICE ETC. IF ACHARYA LAGADHA COULD DO IT IN EARLY

14TH CENTURY BCE, WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL RASHIS,

WHY CAN’T WE DO IT TODAY?

 

1400 BCE to 400 BCE:

The Mahabharata contains

quite a few “finishing touches” of a post Vedanga Jyotisha Era

since it follows the VJ methodology for calculating adhika-masa etc. This

“itihasa” could therefore be of a period of 1400 BCE to 400

BCE, since the latter was the period when Graecho-Chaldean rashis had

started gaining a foothold in India. Mangal, Shani etc.

planets, had, however been propagated in India prior to 400 BCE, as is

evident from the Atharva Jyotisha of about 500 BCE. That is why there is

no mention of Aries etc. astrological rashis in the MBh either but there

are references to nakshatras times without number. We also find

reference to Magha, Kaumudi etc. months at several places. In the Gita,

which is a part of the MBh, Lord Krishna has identified Himself with

Margasheersha.

 

Besides, it is also common knowledge that Bhishma waited for

Uttarayana to shed off his mortal coil but we do not find even by mistake

anywhere in the entire MBh any mention of Makara Rashi/sankranti, which is

supposed to be the synonym of Utarayana by “Sayana Vedic jyotishis”.

Similarly, Bhishma is said to have shed off his mortal coil on Magha Shukla

ashtami in Rohini nakshatra as per Shanti Parva 47/3 which reads as:

“shuklapakshyasyashtamyam maghamasasya parthiva, prajapatye

cha nakshatre madyam prapte divakare….”

Here Magha Shukla ashtami and Rohini nakshatra have been mentioned

clearly without any reference to any Makara etc. rashi/sankranti.

Same is the case with several other references in the MBh, which proves it

beyond any doubt that Magha, Phalguna etc. solar/lunar months besides

Uttarayana etc. phenomena were calculated during those days also without any

“assistance from” Aries etc. astrological Rashis!

 

 

875 AD:

Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th century AD, says in

Chapter 3, verse 29  “The months Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. are called,

according to the Vedas, Madhu, Madhava, Shukra, Shuchih, Nabhas, Nabhasya,

Isha, Urja, Sahas, Sahasya, Tapas and Tapasya respectively. The names of the seasons have come down to us since the time of

the Vedas”.

 

On page 423 of the same work (translated by K. S. Shukla, published

by INSA, Delhi)

there is a table listing Chaitra etc. 12 months vis-à-vis Madhu etc. Vedic

months which have been clubbed with the respective seasons! IF VATESHWARA

COULD CALCULATE SOLAR AND LUNAR MONTHS WITHOUT THE “ASSISTANCE OF”

ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL RASHIS, WHY CAN’T WE DO IT TODAY?

10. 1375 AD:

A mantra in the Samaveda Samhita 4/6/4/2 reads:

“Vasanto innur antyo greeshmo innur antyah varshani anu

sharado hemanta shishir innurantyah”

As per this mantra six seasons of Vasanta, Grishma etc. have been

discussed. And this is how Acharya Sayana of 14th century AD

has commented on it:

“Vasantah innu – vasant eva chaitra vaishakharupi

vasanta ritureva rantyah – ramaneeyah bhavati. Greeshma innu

jyeshtha ashadarupo greeshm ritureva rantyah ramaneeyah. Varshani varsha

shravan bhadrapad rupen avayavi bhuta pravrit ritur eva rantyah ramaneeyah.

Tanyanu sharadah ashvina kartika rupena avayaveebhoot rituh rantyah

ramaneeyah. Hemanta margasheersha pausha roop eve rantya ramneeyah

shishir innu magha phalguna roop eva rantyah ramneeyah”

A simple and running English translation of this commentary of

Sayana is “Vasanta comprises two months of Chaitra and Vaishakha.

Vasanta is a pleasant season. Greeshma comprises two months of Jyeshtha

and Ashada. It is a pleasant season. Varsha comprises two limbs of

Shravana and Bhadra. Varsha is a pleasant season. Ashvina and

Kartika are the two months of Sharad ritu. Sharad ritu is a pleasant

season. Margashersha and Pausha are the two months of Hemanta.

Hemanta is a pleasant season. Magha and Phalguna are the two months of

Shishira Ritu. Shishira Ritu is a pleasant season”.

 

We have thus seen above that right from the earliest Veda i.e. the

Rigveda (about 4000 BCE) till the end of the fourteenth century AD, there is an

unbroken stream of clubbing Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. lunar months with the solar

months of similar names and also Madhu and Madhava etc. solar months with the

lunar months of similar names without any assistance from any Aries etc.

astrological Rashis. Thus these very names serve the purpose of solar as

well as lunar months. We have seen that Acharya Sayana also has subsumed

Chaitra etc. months into Vasanta etc. seasons. It means that Chaitra etc.

were the names of solar months even according to him. Since these are

also the names of lunar months, obviously, lunar Chaitra would follow a solar

Chaitra, lunar Vaishakha a solar Vaishakha and so on.

 

Vedic months Madhu, Madhava are synonymns of

Chaitra, Vaishakha etc.

That completely accounts for the following pattern of the Vedic

calendar, as summarized by Dr. A. K. Bag, in (“History of Astronomy in India”, published by INSA, Delhi) in his article

“Astronomy in Indus Civilization and during Vedic Times”. In

fact, this is the summary given by him as per the Taittiriya Samhita 4/4/11

a) Vasanta Ritu comprising two solar months

of Madhu and Madhava which are also known as (solar) Chaitra and Vaishakha,

with lunar Chaitra and Vaishakha following the solar months of similar

names.

b) Grishma Ritu comprising two solar months of Shukrah

and Shuchih, also known as (solar) Jyeshtha and Ashada, with lunar Jyeshtha and

Ashada following the respective solar months.

c) Varsha Ritu comprising two solar months of Nabhas and

Nabhasya also known as (solar) Shravana and Bhadra, with the lunar Shravana and

Bhadra following the respective solar months.

d) Sharad Ritu comprsing the two solar months of Isha

and Urja, also known as (solar) months of Ashvina and Kartika, with lunar

Ashvina and Kartika following their respective solar months.

e) Hemanta Ritu comprising the two solar months of Sahas

and Sahasya, also known as (solar) months of Margasheersha and Pausha,

with lunar Margasheersha and Pausha following their respective solar

names.

f) Shishira Ritu comprising the two solar months of

Tapas and Tapasya, also known as (solar) months of Magha and Phalguna,

with lunar Magha and Phalguna following their respective solar months.

 

THAT IS THUS THE REAL VEDIC CALENDAR, AS ADVOCATED BY THE VEDAS,

BRAHMANAS, THE VEDANGA JYOTISHA, THE MAHABHARATA AND OUR ACHARYAS LIKE

HARISWAMIN, VATESHWARA AND SAYANA.

 

Early Vedic lunar months were not

necessarily as per Chitra etc. nakshatra Full Moons:

Regarding the names of lunar months as per the Full Moon nakshatra,

this is the system being followed at present for Lahiri festivals. As we

have seen above, if we want to adopt the real Vedic calendar, we do not have to

run after a Full Moon conjoining a particular lunar nakshatra for the name of

that lunar month.

 

S. B. Dikshit has also clarified it at several places that the Full

Moon conjoining the relevant nakshatra for the names of lunar months is a much

later phenomenon. This is what he has said on page 30 of his work

(English translation of Part I):

“In short the terms Chaitra etc. were not in vogue in the

Samhita and Brahmana period. Thus it can be proved from the historical point of

view that these terms came into use after a very long period of time after the

terms Madhu, etc. became current”

 

But by the time of Vedanga Jyotisha (14th century BCE),

Chaitra etc. nomenclature for solar as well as lunar months, without reference

to either nakshatra based Purnimas or any Aries etc. astrological Rashis, had

got fully established.

A practical demonstration of this point is that the VJ says that

Dakshinayana-cum-solar (Nabhasya)-cum-Shravana always starts when the New Moon (Amanta)

falls in the middle of Ashlesha and Uttarayana-cum-Tapah-cum-Magha always

starts when the New Moon is in Dhanishtha. Neither of these two

conditions gets always fulfilled either for Dakshinayana or Uttarayana whether

we take Lahiri nakshata division or the so called sayana nakshatra division,

the simple reason being that according to the VJ, the nakshatras start from

Krittika instead of from Ashvini, and the year started from Uttarayana!

 

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO A RE-THNK ABOUT THE NAKSHATRA DIVISION AS

TO WHETHER IT SHOULD START FROM ASHVINI OR KRITTIKA AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE AN

EQUAL DIVISION OF 27 NAKSHATRAS OR AN UNEQUAL DIVISION OF 28 NAKSHATRAS AS

SUGGESTED BY BHASKARA-I AND OTHER EALIER ACHARYAS. THAT IS APART FROM THE FACT

AS TO WHETHERE THE NAKHATRAS SHOULD BE SO CALLED SAYANA OR SO CALLED NIRAYANA!

(Pl. se my post “When was the real Onam”).

 

“Sayana Vedic astrology” falls on its

face by dint of the “crutches” of Sayana nakshatras!

WHILE TALKING ABOUT NAKSHATRAS, I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT THE

GREATEST DRAW-BACK WITH NAKSHATRAS VIS-À-VIS THE SO CALLED SAYANA RASHIS IS

THAT ALL THE PROMINENT STARS, KNOWN AS “MILE POSTS”, ARE AWAY BY AT

LEAST TWENTY DEGREES FROM THE RELEVANT NAKSHATRA! E.g. The Star Ashvini (Beta

Arietis) had an ecliptic longitude of about 34 degrees as on January 1, 2000

whereas the nakshatra division of that (Ashvini) name of the so called Sayana

Rashichakra would range from 0 to 13-20’ i.e. the Ashvini Star is out of

the range by at least 20 degrees from the outermost limit of the nakshatra

division of that very name. Equally, Bharni Star (41 Arietis) had a longitude

of 48 degrees in 2000 AD whereas that division ranges from 13-20 to 26-40. Thus

Bharni star is out of range by at least 21 degrees from the outermost limit of

that very Bharani nakshatra division. Same is the case with all the other

nakshatras!

 

THOSE “JYOTISHIS” CLAMOURING FOR A SO CALLED SAYANA

RASHICHKARA FOR PREDICTIVE GIMMICKS DO NOT SEE THE IRONY THAT THEY WILL NOT BE

ABLE TO CALCULATE ANY OF THE DASHA-BHUKTIS CORRECTLY SINCE NO NAKSHATRA WILL

FALL IN THE RELEVANT DIVISION NOR WILL THE RELEVANT STAR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO

WITH THE NAME-SAKE OF THAT VERY NAKSHATRA DIVISION!

BUT THEN “SAYANA VEDIC JYOTSHIS” ARE HARDLY BETTER THAN

“NIRAYANA VEDIC JYOTISHIS” SINCE BOTH ARE BLIND TO THE WRITING ON

THE WALL!

 

“First Point of Aries” in the

Kritika nakshatra

How useless the so called Sayana rashis are vis-à-vis the actual

Vedic nakshatras will be clear from the following example:

Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/2 says “Krittikasu agnim

adadheeta…eta ha vai prachyai disho na chyavante…”. It

means, “One should get consecrated in Krittika nakshatra. They do

not deviate from the East”. Krittikas did not “deviate from

the East” since the “First Point of Aries” was in that

nakshatra then i.e. about 3000 BCE. This nakshatra division ranges from

26-10’ to 40-00 degrees. However, the longitude of the Krittika

star (Eta Tauri a.k.a. Alcyone) as on January 1, 2000 AD was about 60

degrees. Thus we will only be making a laughing stock of ourselves if we

try to link the so called sayana rashichakra to krittika nakshatra since it is

away by about 20 degrees from the extreme limit of that very nakshatra

division! Therefore it could hardly be such a non-existent krittika

nakshatra which our Vedic Rishis were talking about!

 

Nakshatras in the Mahabharata:

In the Shalya Parva 5/6, we find the following reference

“Chatvarimshad ahanyadya dve me nissritasya vai, pushyena

samprayatoasmi, shravane punaragatah”

Translation “I (Balarama) have been away for forty-two

days. I left this place on Pushya nakshatra and am back in Shravna

nakshatra”

Obviously, these could not be imaginary so called sayana nakshatras

but the actual nakshatras or prominent stars of those names, with which the

moon had been conjunct during the period of forty-two days when Balarama was

away. Pushya to Punarvasu means 27 nakshatras/days (excluding Abhijit)

and then again Pushya to Shravana means 15 days. Thus it becomes 42 days

(if we include both Pushya the day of departure and Shravana the day of coming

back) but if we include Abhijit also, it will be 28 days from Pushya to

Punarvasu and then 14 days from Pushya to Utarashadha – excluding

Shravana. But since in the VJ, there are only 27 nakshatras, it appears the MBH

also has been calculating the lunar nakshatra days in multiples of 27 only.

Besides, Abhijita is a nakshatra of very short duration -- hardly a few

degrees, thus the lunar conjunction with that nakshatra could not be that long

to be taken as one day. It could have been subsumed in other nakshatras.

In any case, it goes to prove that instead of artificial nakshatra

divisions of the so called “Sayana Vedic Jyotishis” the MBh also

was taking into account the actual nakshatras.

 

Duplicate Chaitra etc. names

Coming

to your next point,

<If

at all duplicate nomenclature is to be used for the solar months, let it be on

the name of Rashis, as used in South India.>

 

We

have just seen in the commentary of Acharya Sayana as to how he clubbed Chaitra

etc. solar and lunar months with Vasanta etc. seasons.

 

Acharya

Sayana was a minister of Viajayanagar empire of South

India besides being the younger brother of Madhvacharya

a.k.a. Vidyaranya Muni of the “Panchadashi” fame.   Acharya Sayana

was a scholar of extraordinary calibre and I have not seen yet any commentator

of his stature who has explained all the four Vedas in such an exhaustive and

lucid manner. There is hardly any scholar, whether from East or West, who

does not acknowledge the authority of Sayana about the Vedic interpretations.

Aries etc. Rashis were very much prevalent at Acharya Sayana’s time in India

– 14th century AD--since the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the

mlechha had got entrenched in our cultural ethos by then completely. THE

MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION THAT ARISES HERE IS AS TO WHY DID ACHARYA SAYANA SPURN

THE SO CALLED MESHA ETC. RASHIS AND TALK ABOUT CHAITRA, VIAISHAKHA ETC.

MONTHS VIS-À-VIS VEDIC SEASONS?

Obviously,

these Aries etc. signs being a creation of astrologers, did not suit him

(Acharya Sayana) at all, and he just ignored them with the disdain and

contempt these astrological rashis deserve. SCHOLARS THROUGHOUT INDIA

SHOULD EMULATE ACHARYA SAYANA IN THIS RESPECT i.e. they must spurn rashi based

calendar! But on the other hand, for the last about a hundred years, maximum

support of these good for nothing astrological rashis is being

provided/mustered by ”Vedic astrologers” through their astrological

magazines and “Vedic jyotisha” monthlies and so on and so

forth! These “scholars” also preside over several

“panchanga standardization committees” and are always back at

square one by opting for the same “almighty” Lahiri Rashichakra

that was being already used sine 1950, thanks to N. C. Lahiri’s jugglery!

Thus

these “Vedic scholars/astrologers” are decimating those very Vedas

that they pretend to defendand they are doing so just for the sake of sinful

crumbs which they earn by dint of “Vedic astrology”---i.e.

“correct predictions from incorrect data”!

 

I,

therefore, do not see any valid reason against naming Madhu, Madhava etc. Vedic

months as solar Chaitra and Vaishakha etc. as was done by every Seer from

Lagadha of the VJ to Acharya Syana of Samaveda Bhashya. These very names

can be used for lunar months.

 

Even alternative names of solar momths can be without

astrological rashis:

If,

however, you are still of the opinion that the use of Chaitra etc. names for

solar as well as lunar months will create some confusion, we can think over the

thirteen names of solar/lunar months as given in Taittiriya Brahmana

3/10/1. These are:

1)

Arunah; 2)Arunarajah; 3) Pundareekah; 4) Vishvajit; 5) Abhijit; 6) Ardrah 7)

Pinvaman; 8) Unnavan; 9) Rasavan; 10) Iravan; 11) Sarvaushadhah; 12) Sambharah;

13) Mahaswan

 

 

(Please

see page 27 of Dikshit’s “Bharatiya Jyotisha”--English

translation—Vol. I)

 

This

will obviate the necessity of duplicating Chaitra etc. names for solar as well

lunar months without our having to fall back upon Aries etc. astrological

rashis.

 

Amanta and Purnimanta systems -- both can and should

continue:

Regarding

your earlier suggestion that there should be one pattern of lunar months

throughout India

i.e. they should be either Amanta (New Moon to New Moon) or Purnimanta (Full

Moon to Full Moon), I am of the opinion that we must continue with both the

systems since both of them are Vedic, as explained by me in one of my earlier

posts to you about the same. I do not want to make any changes in any

pattern arbitrarily unless and until they are warranted by the Vedas and are

unavoidable. We are almost divided in the middle --- half of India celebrating Amanta and half Purnimanta

– and it will create further confusion when we change the system from

Makara to Tapah and then ask Northern India to

make Krishna Paksha follow Shukla paksha or South and Central India etc. etc.

to put Krishna Paksha before Shukla Paksha. It will take them a

considerable time to get to grips with that double confusion, without any

advantage or plus points. It is also not necessary that they will agree

with this suggestion of ours, since it is not an easy job to change the settled

pattern

 

Sayana versus Nirayana is the worst conflict:

Thus,

in any case, once we shun Aries etc. Rashis completely for the real Vedic

Calendar, we shall then not have to enter into an endless discussion and

conflict with either “Vedic” or “anti-Vedic” or

“non-Vedic” jyotishis, since we will not be using rashis at all for

Vedic calendar, which means there will be no confusion whether the rashis are

sayana or nirayana. Let the jyotishis continue to wallow in the mud of those

sayana and Lahiri and Ramana and Fagan Rashis and give a full demonstration of

their charlatanism but at least our “Vedic calendar” will steer

clear of the same since we will not refer to Aries etc. astrological Rashsi as

our Vedic Rishis never referred to them, at least in respect of deciding the

calendar.

AND

THAT IS NO MEAN ACHIEVEMENT.

Sayana versus Nirayana was the main reason of the failure of

“Calendar Reform”

Before

closing this note, I must put on record my views as to why the earlier efforts

of streamlining the calendar failed:

As

we know through “Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra” of Dikshit and other

works, real scholars of Vedic lore were feeling highly perturbed with the

anachronism of celebrating Uttarayana etc. phenomena after at least a fortnight

or so of the actual phenomenon over the last about couple of hundred

years. They also tried to put it back on rails and quite a few seminars

were held; quite a few “calendar reform committees” established,

but it had just become a zero sums game! Almost every

“Committee” had recommended the so called Sayana Rashis for

celebrating festivals etc. but the efforts were never successful in spite of

even the Jagadguru Shankarachrya of Dwarka, on a representation by V. R. Lele,

issuing an Adesha-Patra more than a 100 years back (in Shaka 1814)that only (so

called) Sayana rashis must be used for deciding fairs and festivals (Pl. see

“Bharatiya Jyotish Shastra”). But now the same Dwarka Peetha,

including the current Jagadguru Shankaracharya of that Peetha, is celebrating

all its festivals and muhurtas not as per the Vedas or other shastras, but as

“dictated” by “almighty” Lahiri! WHY?

Only because all these “reformists” were talking of (so called)

Sayana rashis, which is an anathema to “Vedic Jyotishis”!

They just do not want to lose their sinful crumbs, however hard we may try to

instil God’s fear into them! Money for them is more powerful and

intoxicating than Jeevan Mukti!

THEREFORE,

IT IS BETTER TO SHELVE THE RASHIS COMPLETELY -- WHETEHR THE SO CALLED

SAYANA OR THE SO CALLED NIRAYANA – FOR THE PURPOSE OF STREAMLINING OUR

CALENDAR! LET US PREPARE A “TITHI-PATRAK’ WHICH DOES NOT

CARRY THE NAMES OF ANY RASHIS, SO THAT WE CELEBRATE OUR FESTIVALS ON CORRECT

DAYS AND LET THE “SAYANA VEDIC ASTROLOGERS” AS WELL AS THE “NIRAYANA

VEDIC ASTROLOGERS” CONTINUE TO “MAKE CORRECT PREDEICTIONS FROM

INCORRECT DATA”.

We

must, therefore, select the seasonal year with Madhu, Madhava etc. months with

Aruna et. synonyms and Vasanta etc. seasons plus Chaitra, Vaishakha etc.

solar/lunar months coupled with Krittika etc. actual 28 nakshatras (including

Abhijit) instead of the so called sayana or nirayana nakshatra division of 27

equal nakshatras.

With

regards,

Avtar

Krishen Kaul

President

All

India

Calendar Reform Committee

New Delhi

 

 

HinduCalendar [HinduCalendar ] On Behalf Of Narayan Prasad

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

12:16 AM

HinduCalendar

RE: [HinduCalendar] Re:

First Point of Aries -- Definition as per Modern Astronomy

 

Dear Shri Avtar ji,

 

Namaste !

 

You wrote:

 

<<I have never seen any lunar month ever being

named as per any rashi in any part of the country! >>

 

My reply:

 

I thought you have fully read Pt S B Dixit’s book

“bhAratiiya jyotiSa-shAstrAchA itihaas”. On pp.390-391 he

writes:

 

<QUOTE>

 

“meSAdisthe savitari yo yo mAsaH prapUryate chAndraH |

chaitrAdyaH sa j~neyaH

pUrti-dvittve’dhimAso’ntyaH ||”

 

&

 

“miinAdisthe raviryeSAm-Arambha-prathame kSaNe |

bhavet te’bde cAndra-mAsAsh-chaitrAdyA dvAdasha smRtAH

||”

 

<UNQUOTE>

 

Kindly translate into English these two Sanskrit shlokas

yourself to explain other members also what they mean.

 

You wrote:

<< also known as solar Ashvina as per the Vedanga Jyotisha …… that was the start of the Lunar Ashvina….. also known as solar Kartika as per the

Vedanga Jyotisha….

 

lunar months are always

supposed to be named as per nakshatra division where the Full Moon falls! For

example,

Chaitra month is given that name because the Purnima of that month is supposed to

fall in Chitra nakshatra, Vaishakha has that name because the full Moon is in

Vishakha nakshatra, Jyeshtha is Jyeshtha as the full moon is in Jyeshtha

nakshatra and so on! It may be mentioned here that even nirayana lunar months

fail on this count! >>

 

My reply:

 

As I expressed my view earlier, I do not like the use of the

same nomenclature for solar months and lunar months, because in general they

will start on different dates. We must not force lunar months’

nomenclature to solar ones, if we want to be scientific.

Why give same scientific name to two entities which do not indicate

the same thing in the same context ?

 

Moreover, you are contradicting your own statements. It appears

that you yourself name the lunar months based on nakSatra names (Ashvina,

Kartika,…), and at other place you yourself ridicule such idea.

 

Kind regards.

Narayan Prasad

 

 

 

 

 

HinduCalendar [HinduCalendar ] On Behalf Of jyotirved

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

3:01 PM

HinduCalendar

Cc:

hinducivilization ; akandabaratam ;

arya ; haindavakeralam ;

VaidikaVillage ; hinduopenforum ;

IndiaArchaeology ; IndiaDivine

RE: [HinduCalendar] Re:

First Point of Aries -- Definition as per Modern Astronomy

 

Shri Narayan Prasad Ji,

Namaste!

Regarding adhika/kshyaya-masa, example is better than precept:

If you peruse the “List of correct dates of some festivals

for 2006”,

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Kaul ji,

I have some fundamental doubts about your convictions -

==>

1) 4000 BCE: The earliest reference---at least of around 4000 BCE----

.......in the Rigveda

2) 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita

3) 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita

4) 3000 BCE and 100 BCE: In Shatapatha Brahmana

4) 1400 BCE: Acharya Lagadha's Vedanga Jyotisha

5) 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata

6) 875 AD: Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th century AD

<==

 

1) Don't you think it is the most absurd thing to argue that these

books are written at these periods when no archeological evidence of

Sanskrit script prior to BC 200 is not available?

 

2) How can you be sure that these texts are written in these periods?

Note: If you argue that you are depending on the evidence of

precision of equinoxes in these texts, then-

a) How can you sure that those quotes are not interpolated?

b) How can you be sure that the vedic people knew about the

precession of equinoxes etc?

 

3) How can you determine the period of a whole text based on some

lone quotes which refer to some astronomical information ?

a) Especially when these texts got edited by multiple people at

multiple times, and various versions of the same texts available,

which differ from one another?

b) Also when these texts are Samhitas (collections) rather than

independent text written by a single individual then how can you

determine the period of the whole text based on a single quote?

 

4) How many scholars or archeologists do you think will support your

arguments about the period of these texts and the assumptions based

on that?

a) If these arguments 'your conviction' about the years or origin

or compilation years of these books are controversial; don't you

think these arguments are absurd than that of astrologers about the

Vedicness of it?!!

b) What archeological evidence can you provide to support 'your

conviction' about these years?

 

5) At the end if a calendar is made based on such 'individual

convictions' do you think you can find anyone other than that

individual itself?

a) Do you think that the whole of India will accept such a

calendar?

b) Do you think it would be of much use to the public - when the

Vedic culture itself is lost, and the new calendar itself could be

erroneous (it is based on a single person conviction - not supported

by scholars or archeological evidence)

 

The whole story seems to be absurd than the arguments of astrologer

about the Vedic presence of Nirayana astrology in its fully developed

state which you fight this much against!!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after seeing these numbers and

the conviction with which they are presented.

It is seems to be a blind against deaf - both handicapped, but one

still making fun of other.

Please reply in detail.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, " jyotirved "

<jyotirved wrote:

>

> Shri Sreenadhji,

>

> Namaskar!

>

> The following post appeared in HinduCalendar forum on September 27,

2006.

>

> Regards,

>

> AKK

>

> HinduCalendar , " jyotirved "

> <jyotirved@>

> wrote:

>

> Re: The real Vedic Hindu calendar must be without Mesha etc. Rashis.

>

>

>

>

> Shri Narayan Prasad ji,

>

> Namaste!

>

> I am indeed thankful to you for prodding me to make my thoughts

about Vedic

> luni-solar months etc. articulate and cohesive. I, therefore,

request you to

> please go through this post carefully so that we take some

constructive

> steps in the right direction for streamlining our calendars at the

earliest.

>

>

>

> The shlokas quoted by Diksit are from recent works:

>

> The two sholkas that you have quoted from " Bahratiya Jyotish

Shastra " of S.

> B. Dikshit in support of Rashi based lunar months, are actually

from " Kala

> Madhava " of thirteenth century and " Kala Tattva Vivechan " of

sixteenth

> century AD. As such, both these works are quite recent ones and it

is not

> surprising at all that they have advocated to calculate lunar months

> vis-à-vis astrological Rashis like Aries, Taurus etc.

>

>

>

> Vedic calendars were framed without astrological Rashis:

>

> However, the task we have at our hands is to streamline our

calendars in

> accordance with the Vedic lore that should be applicable to whole

of India

> and not as per Narada etc. Purana, that is based on the Surya

Sidhanta of

> Maya the mlechha, or some so called Jyotisha shastra etc.

>

> Let us, therefore, see the relevant references for that purpose

i.e., the

> real fundamentals of the calendar as it existed during the Vedic and

> post-Vedic period.

>

>

>

> 1. 4000 BCE: The earliest reference---at least of around 4000

BCE----we

> have to an intercalary month (adhika-masa) is in the Rigveda

1/25/8. An

> adhika-masa can take place only when lunar synodic months are

calculated

> vis-à-vis solar sankrantis. Since in the Vedic period only Madhu,

Madhava

> etc. solar months and not Aries etc. astrological rashis were in

vogue, it

> means that even the earliest references to lunar months in the

Vedas are

> without Mesha etc. Rashis but in relation to Madhu, Madhava etc.

solar/lunar

> months.

> 2. 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita 1/4/14 says: " Madhushcha

madhavashcha

> shukrashcha shuchishcha nabhashcha nabhasyashcha ishashcha

oorjashcha

> sahashcha sahasyashcha tapashcha tapasyashchai up yam griheeto asi

samsarpo

> asi amhaspatyay tva "

>

> Here Madhu, Madhava etc. twelve months have been named and then

samsarpa is

> the thirteenth (intercalary/adhika) month and amhaspati a decayed

(kshyaya)

> month. THERE ARE NO RASHIS HERE AND LUNAR MONTHS, INCLUDING

> ADHIKA/KSHAYA-MASA, WERE RELATED TO MADHU, MADHAVA ETC. SOLAR

MONTHS AND

> EVEN NAMED AS (LUNAR, APART FROM SOLAR) MADHU, MADHAVA ETC. WITHOUT

ANY

> DOUBT.

>

> 3. Again the same Taitiriya Samhita 5/6/7 says " shadratrir

deekshitah

> syat shadva ritavah samvatsarah…dwadasha ratreer deekshitah syat

dwadasha

> masah samvatsarah… trayodasha ratreer deekshitah syat, trayodasha

masah

> samvatsarah "

>

> i.e. " One should get consecrated for six days as the year comprises

six

> seasons. One should get consecrated for 12 days as the year

comprises 12

> months. One should get consecrated for 13 days as the year

comprises 13

> months (including an adhika masa) " . There are no rashis involved

here but

> the solar months Madhu, Madhava etc. are implied because of

references to

> six seasons, and thereby the lunar months are related to those very

solar

> months.

>

> 4. 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita 22/31 says:

>

> " Madhave svaha, madhavay svaha, shukray svaha shuchaye svaha,

nabhase svaha,

> nabhasyaya svaha, ishay svaha, oorjay svaha, sahase svaha, sahasyay

svaha,

> tapase svaha, tapasyaya svaha, amhaspataye svaha "

>

> Here all the twelve solar months of Madhu, Madhava etc. have been

named

> consecutively and the thirteenth month has been named as amhaspati.

> Obviously, the thirteenth is an adhika lunar month. Thus as per

this proof

> also, lunar months were known by the names of solar months of

Madhu, Madhva

> etc. in early Vedic days!

>

> .

>

> 5. 3000 BCE and 100 BCE: In Shatapatha Brahmana 4/5/14 we

find " Upayama

> griheeto asi Madhave tu etyeva advaryur-grihnati upyama griheeto asi

> madhavay tveti pratiprastha taitaveva vasantikav sayad vasante

aushadhayo

> jayante vanaspatayah pachyante tena haitav madhushcha madhavshcha "

>

> Translation " Since in the Vasnata (spring season) grains in the

fields start

> sprouting that is why the two months of that season are known as

Madhu and

> Madhvava " .

>

> The commentary on this mantra by Shri Hari-Swamin says, " Madhu

Madhavaviti

> chaitra vaishakhav ritu grahanam chaitradayo masah devatah. Chaitra

> vaishakhayor madhu madhava namdheya praptim darshayati. Etav uktav

masav

> vasantikav "

>

> Translation " Madhu and Madhava are Chaitra and Vaishakha as they

are the two

> months of Spring season. As such the shruti has shown the names of

Chaitra

> and Vaishakha as Madhu and Madhava "

>

> Shri Hari-Swamin is said to be a scholar of around first century

BCE. It

> means that the tradition of calling solar months Madhu, Madhava by

lunar

> names like Caitra, Vaishakha etc. and vice-versa was prevailing

then.

>

>

>

> 6. 1400 BCE: Acharya Lagadha's Vedanga Jyotisha says:

>

> " Svarakramete somarkav yada sakam savasavav, syat tadadi yugam

maghastapah

> shuklo ayanam hyudak "

>

> As per Dikshit's translation, it means " When the sun and the moon

while

> moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha i.e. Beta Delphini)

star

> together, then the yuga, the Magha (month), the tapas (seasonal

month), the

> light half of the month, and the Winter Solstice, all commence

together " .

>

> 7. Sixth mantra of the same VJ says

>

> " Prapadyate shavishthadav surya chandramasav udak, sarpardhe

dkshinarkastu,

> magha shravanayoh sada "

>

> Dikshit's translation: " The sun and the moon turn towards North in

the

> beginning of Dhanishtha and towards South in the middle of

Ashlesha. The

> sun always does this in the month of Magha and Shravana "

>

> THIS IS THE VERY FIRST INDIGENOUS ASTRONOMICAL WORK OF 14TH CENTURY

BCE AND

> HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SO CALLED ARIES ETC. RASHIS,

WHETHER

> SAYANA OR NIRAYANA, BUT TELLS US THE METHODLOGY OF CALCULATING ALL

THE

> TWELVE MONTHS, BOTH SOLAR AND LUNAR, LIKE TAPAH AND MAGHA, APART

FROM WINTER

> SOLSTICE AND SUMMER SOLSTICE ETC. IF ACHARYA LAGADHA COULD DO IT

IN EARLY

> 14TH CENTURY BCE, WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL

RASHIS, WHY

> CAN'T WE DO IT TODAY?

>

> 8. 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata contains quite a

few " finishing

> touches " of a post Vedanga Jyotisha Era since it follows the VJ

methodology

> for calculating adhika-masa etc. This " itihasa " could therefore be

of a

> period of 1400 BCE to 400 BCE, since the latter was the period when

> Graecho-Chaldean rashis had started gaining a foothold in India.

Mangal,

> Shani etc. planets, had, however been propagated in India prior to

400 BCE,

> as is evident from the Atharva Jyotisha of about 500 BCE. That is

why there

> is no mention of Aries etc. astrological rashis in the MBh either

but there

> are references to nakshatras times without number. We also find

reference

> to Magha, Kaumudi etc. months at several places. In the Gita, which

is a

> part of the MBh, Lord Krishna has identified Himself with

Margasheersha.

>

> Besides, it is also common knowledge that Bhishma waited for

Uttarayana to

> shed off his mortal coil but we do not find even by mistake

anywhere in the

> entire MBh any mention of Makara Rashi/sankranti, which is supposed

to be

> the synonym of Utarayana by " Sayana Vedic jyotishis " . Similarly,

Bhishma is

> said to have shed off his mortal coil on Magha Shukla ashtami in

Rohini

> nakshatra as per Shanti Parva 47/3 which reads as:

>

> " shuklapakshyasyashtamyam maghamasasya parthiva, prajapatye cha

nakshatre

> madyam prapte divakare…. "

>

> Here Magha Shukla ashtami and Rohini nakshatra have been mentioned

clearly

> without any reference to any Makara etc. rashi/sankranti. Same is

the case

> with several other references in the MBh, which proves it beyond

any doubt

> that Magha, Phalguna etc. solar/lunar months besides Uttarayana etc.

> phenomena were calculated during those days also without

any " assistance

> from " Aries etc. astrological Rashis!

>

>

>

> 9. 875 AD: Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th century

AD, says

> in Chapter 3, verse 29 " The months Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. are

called,

> according to the Vedas, Madhu, Madhava, Shukra, Shuchih, Nabhas,

Nabhasya,

> Isha, Urja, Sahas, Sahasya, Tapas and Tapasya respectively. The

names of

> the seasons have come down to us since the time of the Vedas " .

>

> On page 423 of the same work (translated by K. S. Shukla, published

by INSA,

> Delhi) there is a table listing Chaitra etc. 12 months vis-à-vis

Madhu etc.

> Vedic months which have been clubbed with the respective seasons!

IF

> VATESHWARA COULD CALCULATE SOLAR AND LUNAR MONTHS WITHOUT

THE " ASSISTANCE

> OF " ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL RASHIS, WHY CAN'T WE DO IT TODAY?

>

> 10. 1375 AD: A mantra in the Samaveda Samhita 4/6/4/2 reads:

>

> " Vasanto innur antyo greeshmo innur antyah varshani anu sharado

hemanta

> shishir innurantyah "

>

> As per this mantra six seasons of Vasanta, Grishma etc. have been

discussed.

> And this is how Acharya Sayana of 14th century AD has commented on

it:

>

> " Vasantah innu – vasant eva chaitra vaishakharupi vasanta ritureva

rantyah –

> ramaneeyah bhavati. Greeshma innu jyeshtha ashadarupo greeshm

ritureva

> rantyah ramaneeyah. Varshani varsha shravan bhadrapad rupen

avayavi bhuta

> pravrit ritur eva rantyah ramaneeyah. Tanyanu sharadah ashvina

kartika

> rupena avayaveebhoot rituh rantyah ramaneeyah. Hemanta

margasheersha pausha

> roop eve rantya ramneeyah shishir innu magha phalguna roop eva

rantyah

> ramneeyah "

>

>

>

> A simple and running English translation of this commentary of

Sayana is

> " Vasanta comprises two months of Chaitra and Vaishakha. Vasanta is

a

> pleasant season. Greeshma comprises two months of Jyeshtha and

Ashada. It

> is a pleasant season. Varsha comprises two limbs of Shravana and

Bhadra.

> Varsha is a pleasant season. Ashvina and Kartika are the two

months of

> Sharad ritu. Sharad ritu is a pleasant season. Margashersha and

Pausha are

> the two months of Hemanta. Hemanta is a pleasant season. Magha and

> Phalguna are the two months of Shishira Ritu. Shishira Ritu is a

pleasant

> season " .

>

>

>

> We have thus seen above that right from the earliest Veda i.e. the

Rigveda

> (about 4000 BCE) till the end of the fourteenth century AD, there

is an

> unbroken stream of clubbing Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. lunar months

with the

> solar months of similar names and also Madhu and Madhava etc. solar

months

> with the lunar months of similar names without any assistance from

any Aries

> etc. astrological Rashis. Thus these very names serve the purpose

of solar

> as well as lunar months. We have seen that Acharya Sayana also has

subsumed

> Chaitra etc. months into Vasanta etc. seasons. It means that

Chaitra etc.

> were the names of solar months even according to him. Since these

are also

> the names of lunar months, obviously, lunar Chaitra would follow a

solar

> Chaitra, lunar Vaishakha a solar Vaishakha and so on.

>

>

>

> Vedic months Madhu, Madhava are synonymns of Chaitra, Vaishakha etc.

>

> That completely accounts for the following pattern of the Vedic

calendar, as

> summarized by Dr. A. K. Bag, in ( " History of Astronomy in India " ,

published

> by INSA, Delhi) in his article " Astronomy in Indus Civilization and

during

> Vedic Times " . In fact, this is the summary given by him as per the

> Taittiriya Samhita 4/4/11

>

> a) Vasanta Ritu comprising two solar months of Madhu and

Madhava which

> are also known as (solar) Chaitra and Vaishakha, with lunar

Chaitra and

> Vaishakha following the solar months of similar names.

>

> b) Grishma Ritu comprising two solar months of Shukrah and

Shuchih, also

> known as (solar) Jyeshtha and Ashada, with lunar Jyeshtha and Ashada

> following the respective solar months.

>

> c) Varsha Ritu comprising two solar months of Nabhas and

Nabhasya also

> known as (solar) Shravana and Bhadra, with the lunar Shravana and

Bhadra

> following the respective solar months.

>

> d) Sharad Ritu comprsing the two solar months of Isha and Urja,

also

> known as (solar) months of Ashvina and Kartika, with lunar Ashvina

and

> Kartika following their respective solar months.

>

> e) Hemanta Ritu comprising the two solar months of Sahas and

Sahasya,

> also known as (solar) months of Margasheersha and Pausha, with

lunar

> Margasheersha and Pausha following their respective solar names.

>

> f) Shishira Ritu comprising the two solar months of Tapas and

Tapasya,

> also known as (solar) months of Magha and Phalguna, with lunar

Magha and

> Phalguna following their respective solar months.

>

>

>

> THAT IS THUS THE REAL VEDIC CALENDAR, AS ADVOCATED BY THE VEDAS,

BRAHMANAS,

> THE VEDANGA JYOTISHA, THE MAHABHARATA AND OUR ACHARYAS LIKE

HARISWAMIN,

> VATESHWARA AND SAYANA.

>

>

>

> Early Vedic lunar months were not necessarily as per Chitra etc.

nakshatra

> Full Moons:

>

> Regarding the names of lunar months as per the Full Moon nakshatra,

this is

> the system being followed at present for Lahiri festivals. As we

have seen

> above, if we want to adopt the real Vedic calendar, we do not have

to run

> after a Full Moon conjoining a particular lunar nakshatra for the

name of

> that lunar month.

>

>

>

> S. B. Dikshit has also clarified it at several places that the Full

Moon

> conjoining the relevant nakshatra for the names of lunar months is

a much

> later phenomenon. This is what he has said on page 30 of his work

(English

> translation of Part I):

>

> " In short the terms Chaitra etc. were not in vogue in the Samhita

and

> Brahmana period. Thus it can be proved from the historical point of

view

> that these terms came into use after a very long period of time

after the

> terms Madhu, etc. became current "

>

>

>

> But by the time of Vedanga Jyotisha (14th century BCE), Chaitra etc.

> nomenclature for solar as well as lunar months, without reference

to either

> nakshatra based Purnimas or any Aries etc. astrological Rashis, had

got

> fully established.

>

> A practical demonstration of this point is that the VJ says that

> Dakshinayana-cum-solar (Nabhasya)-cum-Shravana always starts when

the New

> Moon (Amanta) falls in the middle of Ashlesha and

> Uttarayana-cum-Tapah-cum-Magha always starts when the New Moon is in

> Dhanishtha. Neither of these two conditions gets always fulfilled

either

> for Dakshinayana or Uttarayana whether we take Lahiri nakshata

division or

> the so called sayana nakshatra division, the simple reason being

that

> according to the VJ, the nakshatras start from Krittika instead of

from

> Ashvini, and the year started from Uttarayana!

>

>

>

> THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO A RE-THNK ABOUT THE NAKSHATRA DIVISION AS

TO

> WHETHER IT SHOULD START FROM ASHVINI OR KRITTIKA AND WHETHER IT

SHOULD BE AN

> EQUAL DIVISION OF 27 NAKSHATRAS OR AN UNEQUAL DIVISION OF 28

NAKSHATRAS AS

> SUGGESTED BY BHASKARA-I AND OTHER EALIER ACHARYAS. THAT IS APART

FROM THE

> FACT AS TO WHETHERE THE NAKHATRAS SHOULD BE SO CALLED SAYANA OR SO

CALLED

> NIRAYANA!

>

> (Pl. se my post " When was the real Onam " ).

>

>

>

> " Sayana Vedic astrology " falls on its face by dint of

the " crutches " of

> Sayana nakshatras!

>

> WHILE TALKING ABOUT NAKSHATRAS, I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT THE

GREATEST

> DRAW-BACK WITH NAKSHATRAS VIS-À-VIS THE SO CALLED SAYANA RASHIS IS

THAT ALL

> THE PROMINENT STARS, KNOWN AS " MILE POSTS " , ARE AWAY BY AT LEAST

TWENTY

> DEGREES FROM THE RELEVANT NAKSHATRA! E.g. The Star Ashvini (Beta

Arietis)

> had an ecliptic longitude of about 34 degrees as on January 1, 2000

whereas

> the nakshatra division of that (Ashvini) name of the so called

Sayana

> Rashichakra would range from 0 to 13-20' i.e. the Ashvini Star is

out of the

> range by at least 20 degrees from the outermost limit of the

nakshatra

> division of that very name. Equally, Bharni Star (41 Arietis) had a

> longitude of 48 degrees in 2000 AD whereas that division ranges

from 13-20

> to 26-40. Thus Bharni star is out of range by at least 21 degrees

from the

> outermost limit of that very Bharani nakshatra division. Same is

the case

> with all the other nakshatras!

>

>

>

> THOSE " JYOTISHIS " CLAMOURING FOR A SO CALLED SAYANA RASHICHKARA FOR

> PREDICTIVE GIMMICKS DO NOT SEE THE IRONY THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE

TO

> CALCULATE ANY OF THE DASHA-BHUKTIS CORRECTLY SINCE NO NAKSHATRA

WILL FALL IN

> THE RELEVANT DIVISION NOR WILL THE RELEVANT STAR HAVE ANYTHING TO

DO WITH

> THE NAME-SAKE OF THAT VERY NAKSHATRA DIVISION!

>

> BUT THEN " SAYANA VEDIC JYOTSHIS " ARE HARDLY BETTER THAN " NIRAYANA

VEDIC

> JYOTISHIS " SINCE BOTH ARE BLIND TO THE WRITING ON THE WALL!

>

>

>

> " First Point of Aries " in the Kritika nakshatra

>

> How useless the so called Sayana rashis are vis-à-vis the actual

Vedic

> nakshatras will be clear from the following example:

>

> Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/2 says " Krittikasu agnim adadheeta…eta ha

vai

> prachyai disho na chyavante… " . It means, " One should get

consecrated in

> Krittika nakshatra. They do not deviate from the East " . Krittikas

did not

> " deviate from the East " since the " First Point of Aries " was in that

> nakshatra then i.e. about 3000 BCE. This nakshatra division ranges

from

> 26-10' to 40-00 degrees. However, the longitude of the Krittika

star (Eta

> Tauri a.k.a. Alcyone) as on January 1, 2000 AD was about 60

degrees. Thus

> we will only be making a laughing stock of ourselves if we try to

link the

> so called sayana rashichakra to krittika nakshatra since it is away

by about

> 20 degrees from the extreme limit of that very nakshatra division!

> Therefore it could hardly be such a non-existent krittika nakshatra

which

> our Vedic Rishis were talking about!

>

>

>

> Nakshatras in the Mahabharata:

>

> In the Shalya Parva 5/6, we find the following reference

>

> " Chatvarimshad ahanyadya dve me nissritasya vai, pushyena

samprayatoasmi,

> shravane punaragatah "

>

> Translation " I (Balarama) have been away for forty-two days. I

left this

> place on Pushya nakshatra and am back in Shravna nakshatra "

>

> Obviously, these could not be imaginary so called sayana nakshatras

but the

> actual nakshatras or prominent stars of those names, with which the

moon had

> been conjunct during the period of forty-two days when Balarama was

away.

> Pushya to Punarvasu means 27 nakshatras/days (excluding Abhijit)

and then

> again Pushya to Shravana means 15 days. Thus it becomes 42 days

(if we

> include both Pushya the day of departure and Shravana the day of

coming

> back) but if we include Abhijit also, it will be 28 days from

Pushya to

> Punarvasu and then 14 days from Pushya to Utarashadha – excluding

Shravana.

> But since in the VJ, there are only 27 nakshatras, it appears the

MBH also

> has been calculating the lunar nakshatra days in multiples of 27

only.

> Besides, Abhijita is a nakshatra of very short duration -- hardly

a few

> degrees, thus the lunar conjunction with that nakshatra could not

be that

> long to be taken as one day. It could have been subsumed in other

> nakshatras.

>

> In any case, it goes to prove that instead of artificial nakshatra

divisions

> of the so called " Sayana Vedic Jyotishis " the MBh also was taking

into

> account the actual nakshatras.

>

>

>

> Duplicate Chaitra etc. names

>

> Coming to your next point,

>

> <If at all duplicate nomenclature is to be used for the solar

months, let it

> be on the name of Rashis, as used in South India.>

>

>

>

> We have just seen in the commentary of Acharya Sayana as to how he

clubbed

> Chaitra etc. solar and lunar months with Vasanta etc. seasons.

>

>

>

> Acharya Sayana was a minister of Viajayanagar empire of South

India

> besides being the younger brother of Madhvacharya a.k.a.

Vidyaranya Muni of

> the " Panchadashi " fame. Acharya Sayana was a scholar of

extraordinary

> calibre and I have not seen yet any commentator of his stature who

has

> explained all the four Vedas in such an exhaustive and lucid

manner. There

> is hardly any scholar, whether from East or West, who does not

acknowledge

> the authority of Sayana about the Vedic interpretations. Aries

etc. Rashis

> were very much prevalent at Acharya Sayana's time in India – 14th

century

> AD--since the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha had got entrenched

in our

> cultural ethos by then completely. THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION

THAT ARISES

> HERE IS AS TO WHY DID ACHARYA SAYANA SPURN THE SO CALLED MESHA ETC.

RASHIS

> AND TALK ABOUT CHAITRA, VIAISHAKHA ETC. MONTHS VIS-À-VIS VEDIC

SEASONS?

>

> Obviously, these Aries etc. signs being a creation of astrologers,

did not

> suit him (Acharya Sayana) at all, and he just ignored them with

the disdain

> and contempt these astrological rashis deserve. SCHOLARS

THROUGHOUT INDIA

> SHOULD EMULATE ACHARYA SAYANA IN THIS RESPECT i.e. they must spurn

rashi

> based calendar! But on the other hand, for the last about a hundred

years,

> maximum support of these good for nothing astrological rashis is

being

> provided/mustered by " Vedic astrologers " through their astrological

> magazines and " Vedic jyotisha " monthlies and so on and so forth!

These

> " scholars " also preside over several " panchanga standardization

committees "

> and are always back at square one by opting for the same " almighty "

Lahiri

> Rashichakra that was being already used sine 1950, thanks to N. C.

Lahiri's

> jugglery!

>

> Thus these " Vedic scholars/astrologers " are decimating those very

Vedas that

> they pretend to defendand they are doing so just for the sake of

sinful

> crumbs which they earn by dint of " Vedic astrology " ---i.e. " correct

> predictions from incorrect data " !

>

>

>

> I, therefore, do not see any valid reason against naming Madhu,

Madhava etc.

> Vedic months as solar Chaitra and Vaishakha etc. as was done by

every Seer

> from Lagadha of the VJ to Acharya Syana of Samaveda Bhashya. These

very

> names can be used for lunar months.

>

>

>

> Even alternative names of solar momths can be without astrological

rashis:

>

> If, however, you are still of the opinion that the use of Chaitra

etc. names

> for solar as well as lunar months will create some confusion, we

can think

> over the thirteen names of solar/lunar months as given in Taittiriya

> Brahmana 3/10/1. These are:

>

> 1) Arunah; 2)Arunarajah; 3) Pundareekah; 4) Vishvajit; 5) Abhijit;

6) Ardrah

> 7) Pinvaman; 8) Unnavan; 9) Rasavan; 10) Iravan; 11) Sarvaushadhah;

12)

> Sambharah; 13) Mahaswan

>

>

>

> (Please see page 27 of Dikshit's " Bharatiya Jyotisha " --English

> translation—Vol. I)

>

>

>

> This will obviate the necessity of duplicating Chaitra etc. names

for solar

> as well lunar months without our having to fall back upon Aries etc.

> astrological rashis.

>

>

>

> Amanta and Purnimanta systems -- both can and should continue:

>

> Regarding your earlier suggestion that there should be one pattern

of lunar

> months throughout India i.e. they should be either Amanta (New Moon

to New

> Moon) or Purnimanta (Full Moon to Full Moon), I am of the opinion

that we

> must continue with both the systems since both of them are Vedic, as

> explained by me in one of my earlier posts to you about the same.

I do not

> want to make any changes in any pattern arbitrarily unless and

until they

> are warranted by the Vedas and are unavoidable. We are almost

divided in

> the middle --- half of India celebrating Amanta and half

Purnimanta – and

> it will create further confusion when we change the system from

Makara to

> Tapah and then ask Northern India to make Krishna Paksha follow

Shukla

> paksha or South and Central India etc. etc. to put Krishna Paksha

before

> Shukla Paksha. It will take them a considerable time to get to

grips with

> that double confusion, without any advantage or plus points. It is

also not

> necessary that they will agree with this suggestion of ours, since

it is not

> an easy job to change the settled pattern

>

>

>

> Sayana versus Nirayana is the worst conflict:

>

> Thus, in any case, once we shun Aries etc. Rashis completely for

the real

> Vedic Calendar, we shall then not have to enter into an endless

discussion

> and conflict with either " Vedic " or " anti-Vedic " or " non-Vedic "

jyotishis,

> since we will not be using rashis at all for Vedic calendar, which

means

> there will be no confusion whether the rashis are sayana or

nirayana. Let

> the jyotishis continue to wallow in the mud of those sayana and

Lahiri and

> Ramana and Fagan Rashis and give a full demonstration of their

charlatanism

> but at least our " Vedic calendar " will steer clear of the same

since we will

> not refer to Aries etc. astrological Rashsi as our Vedic Rishis

never

> referred to them, at least in respect of deciding the calendar.

>

> AND THAT IS NO MEAN ACHIEVEMENT.

>

> Sayana versus Nirayana was the main reason of the failure

of " Calendar

> Reform "

>

> Before closing this note, I must put on record my views as to why

the

> earlier efforts of streamlining the calendar failed:

>

> As we know through " Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra " of Dikshit and

other works,

> real scholars of Vedic lore were feeling highly perturbed with the

> anachronism of celebrating Uttarayana etc. phenomena after at least

a

> fortnight or so of the actual phenomenon over the last about couple

of

> hundred years. They also tried to put it back on rails and quite a

few

> seminars were held; quite a few " calendar reform committees "

established,

> but it had just become a zero sums game! Almost every " Committee "

had

> recommended the so called Sayana Rashis for celebrating festivals

etc. but

> the efforts were never successful in spite of even the Jagadguru

> Shankarachrya of Dwarka, on a representation by V. R. Lele, issuing

an

> Adesha-Patra more than a 100 years back (in Shaka 1814)that only

(so called)

> Sayana rashis must be used for deciding fairs and festivals (Pl. see

> " Bharatiya Jyotish Shastra " ). But now the same Dwarka Peetha,

including the

> current Jagadguru Shankaracharya of that Peetha, is celebrating all

its

> festivals and muhurtas not as per the Vedas or other shastras, but

as

> " dictated " by " almighty " Lahiri! WHY? Only because all

these " reformists "

> were talking of (so called) Sayana rashis, which is an anathema

to " Vedic

> Jyotishis " ! They just do not want to lose their sinful crumbs,

however hard

> we may try to instil God's fear into them! Money for them is more

powerful

> and intoxicating than Jeevan Mukti!

>

> THEREFORE, IT IS BETTER TO SHELVE THE RASHIS COMPLETELY -- WHETEHR

THE SO

> CALLED SAYANA OR THE SO CALLED NIRAYANA – FOR THE PURPOSE OF

STREAMLINING

> OUR CALENDAR! LET US PREPARE A " TITHI-PATRAK' WHICH DOES NOT CARRY

THE

> NAMES OF ANY RASHIS, SO THAT WE CELEBRATE OUR FESTIVALS ON CORRECT

DAYS AND

> LET THE " SAYANA VEDIC ASTROLOGERS " AS WELL AS THE " NIRAYANA VEDIC

> ASTROLOGERS " CONTINUE TO " MAKE CORRECT PREDEICTIONS FROM INCORRECT

DATA " .

>

> We must, therefore, select the seasonal year with Madhu, Madhava

etc. months

> with Aruna et. synonyms and Vasanta etc. seasons plus Chaitra,

Vaishakha

> etc. solar/lunar months coupled with Krittika etc. actual 28

nakshatras

> (including Abhijit) instead of the so called sayana or nirayana

nakshatra

> division of 27 equal nakshatras.

>

> With regards,

>

> Avtar Krishen Kaul

>

> President

>

> All India Calendar Reform Committee

>

> New Delhi

>

>

>

> HinduCalendar

[HinduCalendar ]

> On Behalf Of Narayan Prasad

> Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:16 AM

> HinduCalendar

> RE: [HinduCalendar] Re: First Point of Aries -- Definition

as per

> Modern Astronomy

>

>

>

> Dear Shri Avtar ji,

>

>

>

> Namaste !

>

>

>

> You wrote:

>

>

>

> <<I have never seen any lunar month ever being named as per any

rashi in any

> part of the country! >>

>

>

>

> My reply:

>

>

>

> I thought you have fully read Pt S B Dixit's book " bhAratiiya

> jyotiSa-shAstrAchA itihaas " . On pp.390-391 he writes:

>

>

>

> <QUOTE>

>

>

>

> " meSAdisthe savitari yo yo mAsaH prapUryate chAndraH |

>

> chaitrAdyaH sa j~neyaH pUrti-dvittve'dhimAso'ntyaH || "

>

>

>

> &

>

>

>

> " miinAdisthe raviryeSAm-Arambha-prathame kSaNe |

>

> bhavet te'bde cAndra-mAsAsh-chaitrAdyA dvAdasha smRtAH || "

>

>

>

> <UNQUOTE>

>

>

>

> Kindly translate into English these two Sanskrit shlokas yourself

to

> explain other members also what they mean.

>

>

>

> You wrote:

>

> << also known as solar Ashvina as per the Vedanga Jyotisha …… that

was the

> start of the Lunar Ashvina….. also known as solar Kartika as per

the Vedanga

> Jyotisha….

>

>

>

> lunar months are always supposed to be named as per nakshatra

division where

> the Full Moon falls! For example,

> Chaitra month is given that name because the Purnima of that month

is

> supposed to fall in Chitra nakshatra, Vaishakha has that name

because the

> full Moon is in Vishakha nakshatra, Jyeshtha is Jyeshtha as the

full moon is

> in Jyeshtha nakshatra and so on! It may be mentioned here that even

nirayana

> lunar months fail on this count! >>

>

>

>

> My reply:

>

>

>

> As I expressed my view earlier, I do not like the use of the same

> nomenclature for solar months and lunar months, because in general

they will

> start on different dates. We must not force lunar months'

nomenclature to

> solar ones, if we want to be scientific.

>

> Why give same scientific name to two entities which do not indicate

the same

> thing in the same context ?

>

>

>

> Moreover, you are contradicting your own statements. It appears

that you

> yourself name the lunar months based on nakSatra names (Ashvina,

Kartika,…),

> and at other place you yourself ridicule such idea.

>

>

>

> Kind regards.

>

> Narayan Prasad

>

>

>

> _____

>

> HinduCalendar

[HinduCalendar ]

> On Behalf Of jyotirved

> Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:01 PM

> HinduCalendar

> Cc: hinducivilization ;

akandabaratam ;

> arya ; haindavakeralam ;

> VaidikaVillage ; hinduopenforum ;

> IndiaArchaeology ; IndiaDivine

> RE: [HinduCalendar] Re: First Point of Aries -- Definition

as per

> Modern Astronomy

>

>

>

> Shri Narayan Prasad Ji,

>

> Namaste!

>

> Regarding adhika/kshyaya-masa, example is better than precept:

>

> If you peruse the " List of correct dates of some festivals for

2006 " ,

>

[Guest guest]

Shri Sreenadhji,

Namaskar!

What could be the dates of the different works, including the Vedas,

the Mbh, etc. etc. according to you?

The dates of different works I have given are the ones that are not

disputed by anybody, including the nonbelievers in the Vedas etc.

In fact BG Tilak had advocated a date of about 10000 BC for the

Rigveda in his " Orion " .

If you say Yajnyavalkya Smriti is a much earlier work than even the

Vedanga Jyotiha of 1400 BCE, which is impossible, what prevents you

from accepting the dates of the Rigveda etc. as about 4000 BCE?

The Vedas, known as Shruti, are supposed to have been committed to

memory by the descendants in the Rishi parampara. As such, it is

immaterial whether " paper and ink " existed at that point of time or

not!

 

You say that Parashara Sidhanta is a work of 1400 BCE, or even prior

to that, but you are doubtful that the Rigveda is a work of about

4000 BC and the Yajurveda of around 3000 BC? Why this dichotomy?

Are the Rigveda etc. works of a date of post Parashara Sidhanta

acording to you?

 

On the one hand you go by what the scholars say about

having " exported " the Aries etc. Rashis to other countries as back

as 600 BC but at the same time, you doubt that the Vedas could be of

an earlier age than 400 BC becasue we did not have a " writing

system " at that point of time! The versions and differences --

pathabheda -- are in fact a testomny to the fact that these works

must have been of a very early age!

 

Why can't you accept astronomical proofs of the VE being in

different nakshatras at different points of time and that is how the

kritikkadi system of nakshatras etc. was born?

 

It appears that as per your presumptions we must believe in Brighu

Samhita, Kapila nadi, Agastya nadi, Aruna Samhita or even Ravana

Samhita etc. etc. to be the works of thousands of years back---of

Satya and Treta Yugas --i.e. hundeds of thousands of years back---

or even BPHS of prior to 3102 BC --- the imaginary date of an

imaginary Kaliyuga -- but you do not want to accept the

astronomical evidence that the Rig Veda was at least of 4000 BC! Do

you have any " archaeological evidence " for Kapil nadi that it is a

work of Kapila Muni who reduced to ashes 60000 offspring of Sagara

hundreds of thousands of years back? "

 

Our Rishis were not phalit jyotishis that they were worried about

Ayanamsha---which is a euphemism for precession by " Vedic

Jyotishis " . They could decide, and so can you, with the help of a

gnomon as to when the Uttarayana -- the shortest day of the year

would take place -- and even a New Moon/Full Moon was sufficient

for them to decide the start of a lunar month! The two solstices

and equinoxes are least bothered as to what the Ayanamsha is since

the shortest day of the year will always be known as Uttarayana Day,

longest day as the Dakshinayana Day and the days when day and night

are equal will alwyas be known as Sampat -- Vasant and AHemant --

equinoctial days --- whether it was 10000 BC or whether it will be

10000 AD! What has precession to do with them?

 

Similarly, the nakshatras enumerated in the Vedas and the Vedanga

Jyotisha etcf. are a unique phenomenon of the Vedas and the VJ.

Other countires have their own versions but the way the prominent

stars had been taken as mile posts and lunar nakshatras decided

accordingly is a phenomenon that is absent in any other country!

 

Believe me, the real Vedic Calendar is the simplest that could ever

be desiged and it is also the most scientific one, aligned as it is

to the seasons. You do not have to be an " astronomer royal " to

calculate Madhu, Madhava or Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. months. But we

have madee the things so complex and complicated deliberately,

thanks to " Vedic Jyotish " that we donot want to do anything without

the " Ayanamsha " curse!

To crown it all, in spite of having been persuing these elusive

ayanamshas ever since the advent of Surya Sidhanta by Maya the

mechha, we are still groping in darknes as to what that " amount " is

really!

 

No wonder, we are prepared to sacrifice our anceint Vedic chronology

just at the Ayansmah altar!

 

 

I think you are adapting an attittude " heads I win and tails you

lose " !

Regards,

AKK

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Kaul ji,

> I have some fundamental doubts about your convictions -

> ==>

> 1) 4000 BCE: The earliest reference---at least of around 4000 BCE--

--

> ......in the Rigveda

> 2) 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita

> 3) 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita

> 4) 3000 BCE and 100 BCE: In Shatapatha Brahmana

> 4) 1400 BCE: Acharya Lagadha's Vedanga Jyotisha

> 5) 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata

> 6) 875 AD: Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th century AD

> <==

>

> 1) Don't you think it is the most absurd thing to argue that

these

> books are written at these periods when no archeological evidence

of

> Sanskrit script prior to BC 200 is not available?

>

> 2) How can you be sure that these texts are written in these

periods?

> Note: If you argue that you are depending on the evidence of

> precision of equinoxes in these texts, then-

> a) How can you sure that those quotes are not interpolated?

> b) How can you be sure that the vedic people knew about the

> precession of equinoxes etc?

>

> 3) How can you determine the period of a whole text based on some

> lone quotes which refer to some astronomical information ?

> a) Especially when these texts got edited by multiple people at

> multiple times, and various versions of the same texts available,

> which differ from one another?

> b) Also when these texts are Samhitas (collections) rather than

> independent text written by a single individual then how can you

> determine the period of the whole text based on a single quote?

>

> 4) How many scholars or archeologists do you think will support

your

> arguments about the period of these texts and the assumptions

based

> on that?

> a) If these arguments 'your conviction' about the years or

origin

> or compilation years of these books are controversial; don't you

> think these arguments are absurd than that of astrologers about

the

> Vedicness of it?!!

> b) What archeological evidence can you provide to support 'your

> conviction' about these years?

>

> 5) At the end if a calendar is made based on such 'individual

> convictions' do you think you can find anyone other than that

> individual itself?

> a) Do you think that the whole of India will accept such a

> calendar?

> b) Do you think it would be of much use to the public - when

the

> Vedic culture itself is lost, and the new calendar itself could be

> erroneous (it is based on a single person conviction - not

supported

> by scholars or archeological evidence)

>

> The whole story seems to be absurd than the arguments of

astrologer

> about the Vedic presence of Nirayana astrology in its fully

developed

> state which you fight this much against!!!

> I don't know whether to laugh or cry after seeing these numbers

and

> the conviction with which they are presented.

> It is seems to be a blind against deaf - both handicapped, but

one

> still making fun of other.

> Please reply in detail.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " jyotirved "

> <jyotirved@> wrote:

> >

> > Shri Sreenadhji,

> >

> > Namaskar!

> >

> > The following post appeared in HinduCalendar forum on September

27,

> 2006.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > AKK

> >

> > HinduCalendar , " jyotirved "

> > <jyotirved@>

> > wrote:

> >

> > Re: The real Vedic Hindu calendar must be without Mesha etc.

Rashis.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Shri Narayan Prasad ji,

> >

> > Namaste!

> >

> > I am indeed thankful to you for prodding me to make my thoughts

> about Vedic

> > luni-solar months etc. articulate and cohesive. I, therefore,

> request you to

> > please go through this post carefully so that we take some

> constructive

> > steps in the right direction for streamlining our calendars at

the

> earliest.

> >

> >

> >

> > The shlokas quoted by Diksit are from recent works:

> >

> > The two sholkas that you have quoted from " Bahratiya Jyotish

> Shastra " of S.

> > B. Dikshit in support of Rashi based lunar months, are actually

> from " Kala

> > Madhava " of thirteenth century and " Kala Tattva Vivechan " of

> sixteenth

> > century AD. As such, both these works are quite recent ones and

it

> is not

> > surprising at all that they have advocated to calculate lunar

months

> > vis-à­¶is astrological Rashis like Aries, Taurus etc.

> >

> >

> >

> > Vedic calendars were framed without astrological Rashis:

> >

> > However, the task we have at our hands is to streamline our

> calendars in

> > accordance with the Vedic lore that should be applicable to

whole

> of India

> > and not as per Narada etc. Purana, that is based on the Surya

> Sidhanta of

> > Maya the mlechha, or some so called Jyotisha shastra etc.

> >

> > Let us, therefore, see the relevant references for that purpose

> i.e., the

> > real fundamentals of the calendar as it existed during the Vedic

and

> > post-Vedic period.

> >

> >

> >

> > 1. 4000 BCE: The earliest reference---at least of around 4000

> BCE----we

> > have to an intercalary month (adhika-masa) is in the Rigveda

> 1/25/8. An

> > adhika-masa can take place only when lunar synodic months are

> calculated

> > vis-à­¶is solar sankrantis. Since in the Vedic period only Madhu,

> Madhava

> > etc. solar months and not Aries etc. astrological rashis were in

> vogue, it

> > means that even the earliest references to lunar months in the

> Vedas are

> > without Mesha etc. Rashis but in relation to Madhu, Madhava etc.

> solar/lunar

> > months.

> > 2. 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita 1/4/14 says: " Madhushcha

> madhavashcha

> > shukrashcha shuchishcha nabhashcha nabhasyashcha ishashcha

> oorjashcha

> > sahashcha sahasyashcha tapashcha tapasyashchai up yam griheeto

asi

> samsarpo

> > asi amhaspatyay tva "

> >

> > Here Madhu, Madhava etc. twelve months have been named and then

> samsarpa is

> > the thirteenth (intercalary/adhika) month and amhaspati a

decayed

> (kshyaya)

> > month. THERE ARE NO RASHIS HERE AND LUNAR MONTHS, INCLUDING

> > ADHIKA/KSHAYA-MASA, WERE RELATED TO MADHU, MADHAVA ETC. SOLAR

> MONTHS AND

> > EVEN NAMED AS (LUNAR, APART FROM SOLAR) MADHU, MADHAVA ETC.

WITHOUT

> ANY

> > DOUBT.

> >

> > 3. Again the same Taitiriya Samhita 5/6/7 says " shadratrir

> deekshitah

> > syat shadva ritavah samvatsarah?dwadasha ratreer deekshitah syat

> dwadasha

> > masah samvatsarah? trayodasha ratreer deekshitah syat,

trayodasha

> masah

> > samvatsarah "

> >

> > i.e. " One should get consecrated for six days as the year

comprises

> six

> > seasons. One should get consecrated for 12 days as the year

> comprises 12

> > months. One should get consecrated for 13 days as the year

> comprises 13

> > months (including an adhika masa) " . There are no rashis involved

> here but

> > the solar months Madhu, Madhava etc. are implied because of

> references to

> > six seasons, and thereby the lunar months are related to those

very

> solar

> > months.

> >

> > 4. 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita 22/31 says:

> >

> > " Madhave svaha, madhavay svaha, shukray svaha shuchaye svaha,

> nabhase svaha,

> > nabhasyaya svaha, ishay svaha, oorjay svaha, sahase svaha,

sahasyay

> svaha,

> > tapase svaha, tapasyaya svaha, amhaspataye

svaha "

> >

> > Here all the twelve solar months of Madhu, Madhava etc. have

been

> named

> > consecutively and the thirteenth month has been named as

amhaspati.

> > Obviously, the thirteenth is an adhika lunar month. Thus as per

> this proof

> > also, lunar months were known by the names of solar months of

> Madhu, Madhva

> > etc. in early Vedic days!

> >

> > .

> >

> > 5. 3000 BCE and 100 BCE: In Shatapatha Brahmana 4/5/14 we

> find " Upayama

> > griheeto asi Madhave tu etyeva advaryur-grihnati upyama griheeto

asi

> > madhavay tveti pratiprastha taitaveva vasantikav sayad vasante

> aushadhayo

> > jayante vanaspatayah pachyante tena haitav madhushcha

madhavshcha "

> >

> > Translation " Since in the Vasnata (spring season) grains in the

> fields start

> > sprouting that is why the two months of that season are known as

> Madhu and

> > Madhvava " .

> >

> > The commentary on this mantra by Shri Hari-Swamin says, " Madhu

> Madhavaviti

> > chaitra vaishakhav ritu grahanam chaitradayo masah devatah.

Chaitra

> > vaishakhayor madhu madhava namdheya praptim darshayati. Etav

uktav

> masav

> > vasantikav "

> >

> > Translation " Madhu and Madhava are Chaitra and Vaishakha as they

> are the two

> > months of Spring season. As such the shruti has shown the names

of

> Chaitra

> > and Vaishakha as Madhu and Madhava "

> >

> > Shri Hari-Swamin is said to be a scholar of around first century

> BCE. It

> > means that the tradition of calling solar months Madhu, Madhava

by

> lunar

> > names like Caitra, Vaishakha etc. and vice-versa was prevailing

> then.

> >

> >

> >

> > 6. 1400 BCE: Acharya Lagadha's Vedanga Jyotisha says:

> >

> > " Svarakramete somarkav yada sakam savasavav, syat tadadi yugam

> maghastapah

> > shuklo ayanam hyudak "

> >

> > As per Dikshit's translation, it means " When the sun and the

moon

> while

> > moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha i.e. Beta

Delphini)

> star

> > together, then the yuga, the Magha (month), the tapas (seasonal

> month), the

> > light half of the month, and the Winter Solstice, all commence

> together " .

> >

> > 7. Sixth mantra of the same VJ says

> >

> > " Prapadyate shavishthadav surya chandramasav udak, sarpardhe

> dkshinarkastu,

> > magha shravanayoh sada "

> >

> > Dikshit's translation: " The sun and the moon turn towards North

in

> the

> > beginning of Dhanishtha and towards South in the middle of

> Ashlesha. The

> > sun always does this in the month of Magha and Shravana "

> >

> > THIS IS THE VERY FIRST INDIGENOUS ASTRONOMICAL WORK OF 14TH

CENTURY

> BCE AND

> > HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SO CALLED ARIES ETC. RASHIS,

> WHETHER

> > SAYANA OR NIRAYANA, BUT TELLS US THE METHODLOGY OF CALCULATING

ALL

> THE

> > TWELVE MONTHS, BOTH SOLAR AND LUNAR, LIKE TAPAH AND MAGHA, APART

> FROM WINTER

> > SOLSTICE AND SUMMER SOLSTICE ETC. IF ACHARYA LAGADHA COULD DO

IT

> IN EARLY

> > 14TH CENTURY BCE, WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL

> RASHIS, WHY

> > CAN'T WE DO IT TODAY?

> >

> > 8. 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata contains quite a

> few " finishing

> > touches " of a post Vedanga Jyotisha Era since it follows the VJ

> methodology

> > for calculating adhika-masa etc. This " itihasa " could therefore

be

> of a

> > period of 1400 BCE to 400 BCE, since the latter was the period

when

> > Graecho-Chaldean rashis had started gaining a foothold in India.

> Mangal,

> > Shani etc. planets, had, however been propagated in India prior

to

> 400 BCE,

> > as is evident from the Atharva Jyotisha of about 500 BCE. That

is

> why there

> > is no mention of Aries etc. astrological rashis in the MBh

either

> but there

> > are references to nakshatras times without number. We also find

> reference

> > to Magha, Kaumudi etc. months at several places. In the Gita,

which

> is a

> > part of the MBh, Lord Krishna has identified Himself with

> Margasheersha.

> >

> > Besides, it is also common knowledge that Bhishma waited for

> Uttarayana to

> > shed off his mortal coil but we do not find even by mistake

> anywhere in the

> > entire MBh any mention of Makara Rashi/sankranti, which is

supposed

> to be

> > the synonym of Utarayana by " Sayana Vedic jyotishis " . Similarly,

> Bhishma is

> > said to have shed off his mortal coil on Magha Shukla ashtami in

> Rohini

> > nakshatra as per Shanti Parva 47/3 which reads as:

> >

> > " shuklapakshyasyashtamyam maghamasasya parthiva, prajapatye cha

> nakshatre

> > madyam prapte divakare?. "

> >

> > Here Magha Shukla ashtami and Rohini nakshatra have been

mentioned

> clearly

> > without any reference to any Makara etc. rashi/sankranti. Same

is

> the case

> > with several other references in the MBh, which proves it beyond

> any doubt

> > that Magha, Phalguna etc. solar/lunar months besides Uttarayana

etc.

> > phenomena were calculated during those days also without

> any " assistance

> > from " Aries etc. astrological Rashis!

> >

> >

> >

> > 9. 875 AD: Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th century

> AD, says

> > in Chapter 3, verse 29 " The months Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. are

> called,

> > according to the Vedas, Madhu, Madhava, Shukra, Shuchih, Nabhas,

> Nabhasya,

> > Isha, Urja, Sahas, Sahasya, Tapas and Tapasya respectively. The

> names of

> > the seasons have come down to us since the time of the Vedas " .

> >

> > On page 423 of the same work (translated by K. S. Shukla,

published

> by INSA,

> > Delhi) there is a table listing Chaitra etc. 12 months vis-à­¶is

> Madhu etc.

> > Vedic months which have been clubbed with the respective

seasons!

> IF

> > VATESHWARA COULD CALCULATE SOLAR AND LUNAR MONTHS WITHOUT

> THE " ASSISTANCE

> > OF " ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL RASHIS, WHY CAN'T WE DO IT TODAY?

> >

> > 10. 1375 AD: A mantra in the Samaveda Samhita 4/6/4/2 reads:

> >

> > " Vasanto innur antyo greeshmo innur antyah varshani anu sharado

> hemanta

> > shishir innurantyah "

> >

> > As per this mantra six seasons of Vasanta, Grishma etc. have

been

> discussed.

> > And this is how Acharya Sayana of 14th century AD has commented

on

> it:

> >

> > " Vasantah innu ? vasant eva chaitra vaishakharupi vasanta

ritureva

> rantyah ?

> > ramaneeyah bhavati. Greeshma innu jyeshtha ashadarupo greeshm

> ritureva

> > rantyah ramaneeyah. Varshani varsha shravan bhadrapad rupen

> avayavi bhuta

> > pravrit ritur eva rantyah ramaneeyah. Tanyanu sharadah ashvina

> kartika

> > rupena avayaveebhoot rituh rantyah ramaneeyah. Hemanta

> margasheersha pausha

> > roop eve rantya ramneeyah shishir innu magha phalguna roop eva

> rantyah

> > ramneeyah "

> >

> >

> >

> > A simple and running English translation of this commentary of

> Sayana is

> > " Vasanta comprises two months of Chaitra and Vaishakha. Vasanta

is

> a

> > pleasant season. Greeshma comprises two months of Jyeshtha and

> Ashada. It

> > is a pleasant season. Varsha comprises two limbs of Shravana

and

> Bhadra.

> > Varsha is a pleasant season. Ashvina and Kartika are the two

> months of

> > Sharad ritu. Sharad ritu is a pleasant season. Margashersha

and

> Pausha are

> > the two months of Hemanta. Hemanta is a pleasant season. Magha

and

> > Phalguna are the two months of Shishira Ritu. Shishira Ritu is

a

> pleasant

> > season " .

> >

> >

> >

> > We have thus seen above that right from the earliest Veda i.e.

the

> Rigveda

> > (about 4000 BCE) till the end of the fourteenth century AD,

there

> is an

> > unbroken stream of clubbing Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. lunar months

> with the

> > solar months of similar names and also Madhu and Madhava etc.

solar

> months

> > with the lunar months of similar names without any assistance

from

> any Aries

> > etc. astrological Rashis. Thus these very names serve the

purpose

> of solar

> > as well as lunar months. We have seen that Acharya Sayana also

has

> subsumed

> > Chaitra etc. months into Vasanta etc. seasons. It means that

> Chaitra etc.

> > were the names of solar months even according to him. Since

these

> are also

> > the names of lunar months, obviously, lunar Chaitra would follow

a

> solar

> > Chaitra, lunar Vaishakha a solar Vaishakha and so on.

> >

> >

> >

> > Vedic months Madhu, Madhava are synonymns of Chaitra, Vaishakha

etc.

> >

> > That completely accounts for the following pattern of the Vedic

> calendar, as

> > summarized by Dr. A. K. Bag, in ( " History of Astronomy in

India " ,

> published

> > by INSA, Delhi) in his article " Astronomy in Indus Civilization

and

> during

> > Vedic Times " . In fact, this is the summary given by him as per

the

> > Taittiriya Samhita 4/4/11

> >

> > a) Vasanta Ritu comprising two solar months of Madhu and

> Madhava which

> > are also known as (solar) Chaitra and Vaishakha, with lunar

> Chaitra and

> > Vaishakha following the solar months of similar names.

> >

> > b) Grishma Ritu comprising two solar months of Shukrah and

> Shuchih, also

> > known as (solar) Jyeshtha and Ashada, with lunar Jyeshtha and

Ashada

> > following the respective solar months.

> >

> > c) Varsha Ritu comprising two solar months of Nabhas and

> Nabhasya also

> > known as (solar) Shravana and Bhadra, with the lunar Shravana

and

> Bhadra

> > following the respective solar months.

> >

> > d) Sharad Ritu comprsing the two solar months of Isha and

Urja,

> also

> > known as (solar) months of Ashvina and Kartika, with lunar

Ashvina

> and

> > Kartika following their respective solar months.

> >

> > e) Hemanta Ritu comprising the two solar months of Sahas and

> Sahasya,

> > also known as (solar) months of Margasheersha and Pausha, with

> lunar

> > Margasheersha and Pausha following their respective solar names.

> >

> > f) Shishira Ritu comprising the two solar months of Tapas and

> Tapasya,

> > also known as (solar) months of Magha and Phalguna, with lunar

> Magha and

> > Phalguna following their respective solar months.

> >

> >

> >

> > THAT IS THUS THE REAL VEDIC CALENDAR, AS ADVOCATED BY THE VEDAS,

> BRAHMANAS,

> > THE VEDANGA JYOTISHA, THE MAHABHARATA AND OUR ACHARYAS LIKE

> HARISWAMIN,

> > VATESHWARA AND SAYANA.

> >

> >

> >

> > Early Vedic lunar months were not necessarily as per Chitra etc.

> nakshatra

> > Full Moons:

> >

> > Regarding the names of lunar months as per the Full Moon

nakshatra,

> this is

> > the system being followed at present for Lahiri festivals. As

we

> have seen

> > above, if we want to adopt the real Vedic calendar, we do not

have

> to run

> > after a Full Moon conjoining a particular lunar nakshatra for

the

> name of

> > that lunar month.

> >

> >

> >

> > S. B. Dikshit has also clarified it at several places that the

Full

> Moon

> > conjoining the relevant nakshatra for the names of lunar months

is

> a much

> > later phenomenon. This is what he has said on page 30 of his

work

> (English

> > translation of Part I):

> >

> > " In short the terms Chaitra etc. were not in vogue in the

Samhita

> and

> > Brahmana period. Thus it can be proved from the historical point

of

> view

> > that these terms came into use after a very long period of time

> after the

> > terms Madhu, etc. became current "

> >

> >

> >

> > But by the time of Vedanga Jyotisha (14th century BCE), Chaitra

etc.

> > nomenclature for solar as well as lunar months, without

reference

> to either

> > nakshatra based Purnimas or any Aries etc. astrological Rashis,

had

> got

> > fully established.

> >

> > A practical demonstration of this point is that the VJ says that

> > Dakshinayana-cum-solar (Nabhasya)-cum-Shravana always starts

when

> the New

> > Moon (Amanta) falls in the middle of Ashlesha and

> > Uttarayana-cum-Tapah-cum-Magha always starts when the New Moon

is in

> > Dhanishtha. Neither of these two conditions gets always

fulfilled

> either

> > for Dakshinayana or Uttarayana whether we take Lahiri nakshata

> division or

> > the so called sayana nakshatra division, the simple reason being

> that

> > according to the VJ, the nakshatras start from Krittika instead

of

> from

> > Ashvini, and the year started from Uttarayana!

> >

> >

> >

> > THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO A RE-THNK ABOUT THE NAKSHATRA DIVISION

AS

> TO

> > WHETHER IT SHOULD START FROM ASHVINI OR KRITTIKA AND WHETHER IT

> SHOULD BE AN

> > EQUAL DIVISION OF 27 NAKSHATRAS OR AN UNEQUAL DIVISION OF 28

> NAKSHATRAS AS

> > SUGGESTED BY BHASKARA-I AND OTHER EALIER ACHARYAS. THAT IS APART

> FROM THE

> > FACT AS TO WHETHERE THE NAKHATRAS SHOULD BE SO CALLED SAYANA OR

SO

> CALLED

> > NIRAYANA!

> >

> > (Pl. se my post " When was the real Onam " ).

> >

> >

> >

> > " Sayana Vedic astrology " falls on its face by dint of

> the " crutches " of

> > Sayana nakshatras!

> >

> > WHILE TALKING ABOUT NAKSHATRAS, I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT THE

> GREATEST

> > DRAW-BACK WITH NAKSHATRAS VIS-?VIS THE SO CALLED SAYANA RASHIS

IS

> THAT ALL

> > THE PROMINENT STARS, KNOWN AS " MILE POSTS " , ARE AWAY BY AT LEAST

> TWENTY

> > DEGREES FROM THE RELEVANT NAKSHATRA! E.g. The Star Ashvini (Beta

> Arietis)

> > had an ecliptic longitude of about 34 degrees as on January 1,

2000

> whereas

> > the nakshatra division of that (Ashvini) name of the so called

> Sayana

> > Rashichakra would range from 0 to 13-20' i.e. the Ashvini Star

is

> out of the

> > range by at least 20 degrees from the outermost limit of the

> nakshatra

> > division of that very name. Equally, Bharni Star (41 Arietis)

had a

> > longitude of 48 degrees in 2000 AD whereas that division ranges

> from 13-20

> > to 26-40. Thus Bharni star is out of range by at least 21

degrees

> from the

> > outermost limit of that very Bharani nakshatra division. Same

is

> the case

> > with all the other nakshatras!

> >

> >

> >

> > THOSE " JYOTISHIS " CLAMOURING FOR A SO CALLED SAYANA RASHICHKARA

FOR

> > PREDICTIVE GIMMICKS DO NOT SEE THE IRONY THAT THEY WILL NOT BE

ABLE

> TO

> > CALCULATE ANY OF THE DASHA-BHUKTIS CORRECTLY SINCE NO NAKSHATRA

> WILL FALL IN

> > THE RELEVANT DIVISION NOR WILL THE RELEVANT STAR HAVE ANYTHING

TO

> DO WITH

> > THE NAME-SAKE OF THAT VERY NAKSHATRA DIVISION!

> >

> > BUT THEN " SAYANA VEDIC JYOTSHIS " ARE HARDLY BETTER

THAN " NIRAYANA

> VEDIC

> > JYOTISHIS " SINCE BOTH ARE BLIND TO THE WRITING ON THE WALL!

> >

> >

> >

> > " First Point of Aries " in the Kritika nakshatra

> >

> > How useless the so called Sayana rashis are vis-à­¶is the actual

> Vedic

> > nakshatras will be clear from the following example:

> >

> > Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/2 says " Krittikasu agnim adadheeta?eta

ha

> vai

> > prachyai disho na chyavante? " . It means, " One should get

> consecrated in

> > Krittika nakshatra. They do not deviate from the East " .

Krittikas

> did not

> > " deviate from the East " since the " First Point of Aries " was in

that

> > nakshatra then i.e. about 3000 BCE. This nakshatra division

ranges

> from

> > 26-10' to 40-00 degrees. However, the longitude of the Krittika

> star (Eta

> > Tauri a.k.a. Alcyone) as on January 1, 2000 AD was about 60

> degrees. Thus

> > we will only be making a laughing stock of ourselves if we try

to

> link the

> > so called sayana rashichakra to krittika nakshatra since it is

away

> by about

> > 20 degrees from the extreme limit of that very nakshatra

division!

> > Therefore it could hardly be such a non-existent krittika

nakshatra

> which

> > our Vedic Rishis were talking about!

> >

> >

> >

> > Nakshatras in the Mahabharata:

> >

> > In the Shalya Parva 5/6, we find the following reference

> >

> > " Chatvarimshad ahanyadya dve me nissritasya vai, pushyena

> samprayatoasmi,

> > shravane punaragatah "

> >

> > Translation " I (Balarama) have been away for forty-two days. I

> left this

> > place on Pushya nakshatra and am back in Shravna nakshatra "

> >

> > Obviously, these could not be imaginary so called sayana

nakshatras

> but the

> > actual nakshatras or prominent stars of those names, with which

the

> moon had

> > been conjunct during the period of forty-two days when Balarama

was

> away.

> > Pushya to Punarvasu means 27 nakshatras/days (excluding Abhijit)

> and then

> > again Pushya to Shravana means 15 days. Thus it becomes 42 days

> (if we

> > include both Pushya the day of departure and Shravana the day of

> coming

> > back) but if we include Abhijit also, it will be 28 days from

> Pushya to

> > Punarvasu and then 14 days from Pushya to Utarashadha ?

excluding

> Shravana.

> > But since in the VJ, there are only 27 nakshatras, it appears

the

> MBH also

> > has been calculating the lunar nakshatra days in multiples of 27

> only.

> > Besides, Abhijita is a nakshatra of very short duration --

hardly

> a few

> > degrees, thus the lunar conjunction with that nakshatra could

not

> be that

> > long to be taken as one day. It could have been subsumed in

other

> > nakshatras.

> >

> > In any case, it goes to prove that instead of artificial

nakshatra

> divisions

> > of the so called " Sayana Vedic Jyotishis " the MBh also was

taking

> into

> > account the actual nakshatras.

> >

> >

> >

> > Duplicate Chaitra etc. names

> >

> > Coming to your next point,

> >

> > <If at all duplicate nomenclature is to be used for the solar

> months, let it

> > be on the name of Rashis, as used in South India.>

> >

> >

> >

> > We have just seen in the commentary of Acharya Sayana as to how

he

> clubbed

> > Chaitra etc. solar and lunar months with Vasanta etc. seasons.

> >

> >

> >

> > Acharya Sayana was a minister of Viajayanagar empire of South

> India

> > besides being the younger brother of Madhvacharya a.k.a.

> Vidyaranya Muni of

> > the " Panchadashi " fame. Acharya Sayana was a scholar of

> extraordinary

> > calibre and I have not seen yet any commentator of his stature

who

> has

> > explained all the four Vedas in such an exhaustive and lucid

> manner. There

> > is hardly any scholar, whether from East or West, who does not

> acknowledge

> > the authority of Sayana about the Vedic interpretations. Aries

> etc. Rashis

> > were very much prevalent at Acharya Sayana's time in India ?

14th

> century

> > AD--since the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha had got

entrenched

> in our

> > cultural ethos by then completely. THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION

> THAT ARISES

> > HERE IS AS TO WHY DID ACHARYA SAYANA SPURN THE SO CALLED MESHA

ETC.

> RASHIS

> > AND TALK ABOUT CHAITRA, VIAISHAKHA ETC. MONTHS VIS-?VIS VEDIC

> SEASONS?

> >

> > Obviously, these Aries etc. signs being a creation of

astrologers,

> did not

> > suit him (Acharya Sayana) at all, and he just ignored them with

> the disdain

> > and contempt these astrological rashis deserve. SCHOLARS

> THROUGHOUT INDIA

> > SHOULD EMULATE ACHARYA SAYANA IN THIS RESPECT i.e. they must

spurn

> rashi

> > based calendar! But on the other hand, for the last about a

hundred

> years,

> > maximum support of these good for nothing astrological rashis is

> being

> > provided/mustered by " Vedic astrologers " through their

astrological

> > magazines and " Vedic jyotisha " monthlies and so on and so

forth!

> These

> > " scholars " also preside over several " panchanga standardization

> committees "

> > and are always back at square one by opting for the

same " almighty "

> Lahiri

> > Rashichakra that was being already used sine 1950, thanks to N.

C.

> Lahiri's

> > jugglery!

> >

> > Thus these " Vedic scholars/astrologers " are decimating those

very

> Vedas that

> > they pretend to defendand they are doing so just for the sake of

> sinful

> > crumbs which they earn by dint of " Vedic astrology " ---

i.e. " correct

> > predictions from incorrect data " !

> >

> >

> >

> > I, therefore, do not see any valid reason against naming Madhu,

> Madhava etc.

> > Vedic months as solar Chaitra and Vaishakha etc. as was done by

> every Seer

> > from Lagadha of the VJ to Acharya Syana of Samaveda Bhashya.

These

> very

> > names can be used for lunar months.

> >

> >

> >

> > Even alternative names of solar momths can be without

astrological

> rashis:

> >

> > If, however, you are still of the opinion that the use of

Chaitra

> etc. names

> > for solar as well as lunar months will create some confusion, we

> can think

> > over the thirteen names of solar/lunar months as given in

Taittiriya

> > Brahmana 3/10/1. These are:

> >

> > 1) Arunah; 2)Arunarajah; 3) Pundareekah; 4) Vishvajit; 5)

Abhijit;

> 6) Ardrah

> > 7) Pinvaman; 8) Unnavan; 9) Rasavan; 10) Iravan; 11)

Sarvaushadhah;

> 12)

> > Sambharah; 13) Mahaswan

> >

> >

> >

> > (Please see page 27 of Dikshit's " Bharatiya Jyotisha " --English

> > translation?Vol. I)

> >

> >

> >

> > This will obviate the necessity of duplicating Chaitra etc.

names

> for solar

> > as well lunar months without our having to fall back upon Aries

etc.

> > astrological rashis.

> >

> >

> >

> > Amanta and Purnimanta systems -- both can and should continue:

> >

> > Regarding your earlier suggestion that there should be one

pattern

> of lunar

> > months throughout India i.e. they should be either Amanta (New

Moon

> to New

> > Moon) or Purnimanta (Full Moon to Full Moon), I am of the

opinion

> that we

> > must continue with both the systems since both of them are

Vedic, as

> > explained by me in one of my earlier posts to you about the

same.

> I do not

> > want to make any changes in any pattern arbitrarily unless and

> until they

> > are warranted by the Vedas and are unavoidable. We are almost

> divided in

> > the middle --- half of India celebrating Amanta and half

> Purnimanta ? and

> > it will create further confusion when we change the system from

> Makara to

> > Tapah and then ask Northern India to make Krishna Paksha follow

> Shukla

> > paksha or South and Central India etc. etc. to put Krishna

Paksha

> before

> > Shukla Paksha. It will take them a considerable time to get to

> grips with

> > that double confusion, without any advantage or plus points. It

is

> also not

> > necessary that they will agree with this suggestion of ours,

since

> it is not

> > an easy job to change the settled pattern

> >

> >

> >

> > Sayana versus Nirayana is the worst conflict:

> >

> > Thus, in any case, once we shun Aries etc. Rashis completely for

> the real

> > Vedic Calendar, we shall then not have to enter into an endless

> discussion

> > and conflict with either " Vedic " or " anti-Vedic " or " non-Vedic "

> jyotishis,

> > since we will not be using rashis at all for Vedic calendar,

which

> means

> > there will be no confusion whether the rashis are sayana or

> nirayana. Let

> > the jyotishis continue to wallow in the mud of those sayana and

> Lahiri and

> > Ramana and Fagan Rashis and give a full demonstration of their

> charlatanism

> > but at least our " Vedic calendar " will steer clear of the same

> since we will

> > not refer to Aries etc. astrological Rashsi as our Vedic Rishis

> never

> > referred to them, at least in respect of deciding the calendar.

> >

> > AND THAT IS NO MEAN ACHIEVEMENT.

> >

> > Sayana versus Nirayana was the main reason of the failure

> of " Calendar

> > Reform "

> >

> > Before closing this note, I must put on record my views as to

why

> the

> > earlier efforts of streamlining the calendar failed:

> >

> > As we know through " Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra " of Dikshit and

> other works,

> > real scholars of Vedic lore were feeling highly perturbed with

the

> > anachronism of celebrating Uttarayana etc. phenomena after at

least

> a

> > fortnight or so of the actual phenomenon over the last about

couple

> of

> > hundred years. They also tried to put it back on rails and

quite a

> few

> > seminars were held; quite a few " calendar reform committees "

> established,

> > but it had just become a zero sums game! Almost

every " Committee "

> had

> > recommended the so called Sayana Rashis for celebrating

festivals

> etc. but

> > the efforts were never successful in spite of even the Jagadguru

> > Shankarachrya of Dwarka, on a representation by V. R. Lele,

issuing

> an

> > Adesha-Patra more than a 100 years back (in Shaka 1814)that only

> (so called)

> > Sayana rashis must be used for deciding fairs and festivals (Pl.

see

> > " Bharatiya Jyotish Shastra " ). But now the same Dwarka Peetha,

> including the

> > current Jagadguru Shankaracharya of that Peetha, is celebrating

all

> its

> > festivals and muhurtas not as per the Vedas or other shastras,

but

> as

> > " dictated " by " almighty " Lahiri! WHY? Only because all

> these " reformists "

> > were talking of (so called) Sayana rashis, which is an anathema

> to " Vedic

> > Jyotishis " ! They just do not want to lose their sinful crumbs,

> however hard

> > we may try to instil God's fear into them! Money for them is

more

> powerful

> > and intoxicating than Jeevan Mukti!

> >

> > THEREFORE, IT IS BETTER TO SHELVE THE RASHIS COMPLETELY --

WHETEHR

> THE SO

> > CALLED SAYANA OR THE SO CALLED NIRAYANA ? FOR THE PURPOSE OF

> STREAMLINING

> > OUR CALENDAR! LET US PREPARE A " TITHI-PATRAK' WHICH DOES NOT

CARRY

> THE

> > NAMES OF ANY RASHIS, SO THAT WE CELEBRATE OUR FESTIVALS ON

CORRECT

> DAYS AND

> > LET THE " SAYANA VEDIC ASTROLOGERS " AS WELL AS THE " NIRAYANA VEDIC

> > ASTROLOGERS " CONTINUE TO " MAKE CORRECT PREDEICTIONS FROM

INCORRECT

> DATA " .

> >

> > We must, therefore, select the seasonal year with Madhu, Madhava

> etc. months

> > with Aruna et. synonyms and Vasanta etc. seasons plus Chaitra,

> Vaishakha

> > etc. solar/lunar months coupled with Krittika etc. actual 28

> nakshatras

> > (including Abhijit) instead of the so called sayana or nirayana

> nakshatra

> > division of 27 equal nakshatras.

> >

> > With regards,

> >

> > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> >

> > President

> >

> > All India Calendar Reform Committee

> >

> > New Delhi

> >

> >

> >

> > HinduCalendar

> [HinduCalendar ]

> > On Behalf Of Narayan Prasad

> > Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:16 AM

> > HinduCalendar

> > RE: [HinduCalendar] Re: First Point of Aries --

Definition

> as per

> > Modern Astronomy

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Shri Avtar ji,

> >

> >

> >

> > Namaste !

> >

> >

> >

> > You wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > <<I have never seen any lunar month ever being named as per any

> rashi in any

> > part of the country! >>

> >

> >

> >

> > My reply:

> >

> >

> >

> > I thought you have fully read Pt S B Dixit's book " bhAratiiya

> > jyotiSa-shAstrAchA itihaas " . On pp.390-391 he writes:

> >

> >

> >

> > <QUOTE>

> >

> >

> >

> > " meSAdisthe savitari yo yo mAsaH prapUryate chAndraH |

> >

> > chaitrAdyaH sa j~neyaH pUrti-dvittve'dhimAso'ntyaH || "

> >

> >

> >

> > &

> >

> >

> >

> > " miinAdisthe raviryeSAm-Arambha-prathame kSaNe |

> >

> > bhavet te'bde cAndra-mAsAsh-chaitrAdyA dvAdasha smRtAH || "

> >

> >

> >

> > <UNQUOTE>

> >

> >

> >

> > Kindly translate into English these two Sanskrit shlokas

yourself

> to

> > explain other members also what they mean.

> >

> >

> >

> > You wrote:

> >

> > << also known as solar Ashvina as per the Vedanga Jyotisha ??

that

> was the

> > start of the Lunar Ashvina?.. also known as solar Kartika as per

> the Vedanga

> > Jyotisha?.

> >

> >

> >

> > lunar months are always supposed to be named as per nakshatra

> division where

> > the Full Moon falls! For example,

> > Chaitra month is given that name because the Purnima of that

month

> is

> > supposed to fall in Chitra nakshatra, Vaishakha has that name

> because the

> > full Moon is in Vishakha nakshatra, Jyeshtha is Jyeshtha as the

> full moon is

> > in Jyeshtha nakshatra and so on! It may be mentioned here that

even

> nirayana

> > lunar months fail on this count! >>

> >

> >

> >

> > My reply:

> >

> >

> >

> > As I expressed my view earlier, I do not like the use of the

same

> > nomenclature for solar months and lunar months, because in

general

> they will

> > start on different dates. We must not force lunar months'

> nomenclature to

> > solar ones, if we want to be scientific.

> >

> > Why give same scientific name to two entities which do not

indicate

> the same

> > thing in the same context ?

> >

> >

> >

> > Moreover, you are contradicting your own statements. It appears

> that you

> > yourself name the lunar months based on nakSatra names (Ashvina,

> Kartika,?),

> > and at other place you yourself ridicule such idea.

> >

> >

> >

> > Kind regards.

> >

> > Narayan Prasad

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> > HinduCalendar

> [HinduCalendar ]

> > On Behalf Of jyotirved

> > Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:01 PM

> > HinduCalendar

> > Cc: hinducivilization ;

> akandabaratam ;

> > arya ; haindavakeralam ;

> > VaidikaVillage ; hinduopenforum ;

> > IndiaArchaeology ; IndiaDivine

> > RE: [HinduCalendar] Re: First Point of Aries --

Definition

> as per

> > Modern Astronomy

> >

> >

> >

> > Shri Narayan Prasad Ji,

> >

> > Namaste!

> >

> > Regarding adhika/kshyaya-masa, example is better than precept:

> >

> > If you peruse the " List of correct dates of some festivals for

> 2006 " ,

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kaul ji,

 

1) What we can not determine exactly, and is under study, (in the

fundamental discrepancy in availing the proof) will remain so.

a) As far as history is concerned (or even history of Vedic

literature is concerned) only the availing of new evidences -

possibly provided by reading (no, not any kind of 'decipherment'

or 'interpretation') of Sindhu-Saraswaty script, or new archeological

findings etc - will solve the problem even to an extend.

b) Literary evidence is only secondary in supporting the primary

evidence.

==>

> If you say Yajnyavalkya Smriti is a much earlier work than even the

> Vedanga Jyotiha of 1400 BCE

----

> It appears that as per your presumptions we must believe in Brighu

> Samhita, Kapila nadi, Agastya nadi, Aruna Samhita or even Ravana

> Samhita etc. etc.

<==

As you rightly said, it all " appears " to " your erroneous

imagination " that I said or imagined so!! Kaul ji, please come to the

facts and discuss what is told and don't start answering to " your

erroneous imagination " as if it is told by somebody else!

 

==>

> You say that Parashara Sidhanta is a work of 1400 BCE, or even

> prior to that, but you are doubtful

<==

I said it 'could be' based on a literary evidence - and any true

seeker (including me) should and will consider as doubtful only in

the absence of further supporting evidence. If you miss this point -

that is your fault! Please don't shed it on others.

==>

> On the one hand you go by what the scholars say about

> having " exported " the Aries etc. Rashis ....

-----

> Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mechha ...

<==

Who told you that Maya is mlechha? What is your evidence or

credibility? Today calling somebody as mlechha in considered as a

mark of uncivilized and uncultured nature - because the meaning of

the word mlechha (foreigner) has now changed to mlechha

(uncultured/uncivilized one). And anybody hearing the same will feel

that it is the person who uses such bad words is mlechha with a

damaged brain poisoned with religious fundamentalism! If you don't

believe ask other inside this forum or outside - know this as a fact;

and try to re-phrase 'your terminologies', if you want to have a

cleaner and calmer brain.

Since by now you know well that Rigveda,Atharva Veda (quotes

provided by me), Yajna valkya Smriti, Old Surya Sidhanta, New Surya

Sidhanta, Jyotishmati Upanishad (quotes provided by me) supports

Nirayana zodiac and Meshadi signs; You are not only degrading

yourself, but also became a disgrace to the knowledge held by those

sages.

What is the amount of Vedic knowledge in your terms? As per you,

they don't even know the name of 5 planets (from Mercury to Saturn),

since you repeat again and again that there is no Vedic proof for the

existence of Mars and Saturn in Vedas, even after me providing the

quotes that directly refer to them! Not only you are a cheat but also

against Vedas! Saying some thing else even after receiving proof is

the nature of a liar. You think that Vedic sages were not even

scientific enough to create equal or unequal divisions of the lunar

or solar path and create Nakhatra divisions - even after not having a

single proof of them using the word 'Nakshatras' to refer to 'Taras'!

You are converting a malicious black mark even to true Vedic

knowledge - and mileading collection of erroneous half baked

assumptions; which may mislead even some of the future seekers.

Currently what you are doing is (note it): " Projecting your

ignorance on Vedas and Vedic sages " ; which is a bigger mistake that

any other individual in support of or against the Vedas may commit!

Your knowledge of Vedas is based on some translations and you

haven't even studied Vedas but only 'read'! Read what? That also some

translations and Sayana Vyakhya! Know that Sayana Vyakhya had a

purpose - it is commentary written for the purpose of fire worship

(Yaga, Homa), keeping that audience in mind. Vedas had many other

kind of interpretations or Vyakhyas like Nirukta Bhashya of Yaska; or

the Spiritual Vyakhya of Arabindo. It is said that almost every sloka

in Vedas could be interpreted keeping any of the six branches of

knowledge in mind! Do you have any idea that the sage names used in

Vedas are to notate the subject of the sukta? Do you know that every

sukta attributed to 'Viswamitra' is related to astronomy and and

contains astronomy? Do you know that even the first sukta of Rigveda

is had a purpose of teaching 'Grammar' (Vyakarana) as well, and that

it has got Grammatical interpretation? No you don't! Because you are

yet to 'learn' Vedas! When I quoted some suktas from the Vedic

literature you were even unaware that from where, which portion, they

are quoted! You haven't even noticed those sukltas, which are very

relevant to and important to the subject you 'boast' to be mastered -

i.e. astronomy. You don't know a thing about the depth of Vedic

knowledge man! You are in fool's paradise!

Why didn't you know much about Vedas, nor respect them? Because -

You are just a journalistic reader who reads Vedic literature like

some one who reads daily newspaper and through it away once your

purpose is fulfilled! You are a shame to that very culture - which

made the students memorize each and every of those sukatas so that it

could be protected and handed over to the future generations! Even

though they didn't fully succeeded in their effort (many branches of

knowledge and much of Vedic suktas are already lost) they for sure

succeeded to an extend; which the 'false protectors' like you are

trying to shatter!

You don't even think that they knew about the 5 planets or that

they had enough knowledge to properly study the sky, and

differentiate even the clearly visible Mars; but still you are trying

to re-establish the calendar used by those (It should have been

a 'barbarous' civilization, as per your notions) people!! What you

want to prove man! If you think that those Vedic people where that

uncivilized and gullible, what you want to attain by forcing a

calendar used by that uncivilized, ignorant civilization above the

whole of modern Indian (Hindu!) population? Your calendar is for the

Hindus only - (to do that horse sacrifice, and cow sacrifice again?!)

and it turns out that - you are nothing but an ignorant Hindu

fundamentalist.

Even though in your eyes Vedic people were the most unscientific and

uncultured community as mentioned earlier, you still argue that -

==>

Believe me, the real Vedic Calendar is the simplest that could ever

be designed and it is also the most 'scientific one'

<==

What you are trying to prove man?! Do you think that everybody is

as confused or foolish as you to run after Western astrological

system (thinking that it is Vedic!), and then turn against the

continuation of Vedic knowledge itself arguing that it

is 'chaldian'?! You ARE the puppet of the Westerners and Greeks -

blined by the some funny '20th century' awards!

==>

> Madhu, Madhava or Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. months...

<==

You don't even disserve to pronounce those words, making solar to

lunar and lunar to solar like a lunatic! Even though you don't even

know even about the theoretical and mathematical foundation of Surya

sidhanta or any other sidhanta for that matter; you still project

yourself as 'Moder Varaha Mihira' or 'Modern Aryabhatta' just by

producing an erroneous calendar, which is used just to demonstrate

that how ignorant all the sidhantic texts in ancient india where

looking through the filter of your ignorance!

 

" still groping in darkness " you may find your way out - may be after

some more years of brooding on the same subject; or may be not; who

knows!

Most people have a knowledge - at least they know what they know and

what they don't; and what are their own limitations and limitations

imposed by the subject. But there are some - who can't even see their

ignorance or the limitations; and act if they know all. As if they

are better than the sages and masters who dedicated their whole life

for some subjects, and contributed to humanity by producing some

highly intellectual works. But what is the output and contribution

from the whole life of these beings who journalistically review

(please don't mistake it for 'study'!)through the work of them? At

the end an erroneous calendar only!!! What a pity! If at all they had

the humbleness and at least a bit of awareness about mistakes they

had or might have committed; at least they had an awareness about the

limitations of their own brain; it could have been pardoned! But

alas! Even that seems to be missing!

 

Dear Kaul ji, please pardon for writing these all openly. But it is

truth! At least as per my understanding. Hope that at least some of

these points will remain in your brain for long - if so it could

help; even if not in reforming the calendar, in becoming a better

individual.

 

At the end I appreciate your efforts to reform the calendar and wish

you all success on the same, whether it be tropical or sidereal,

whether it contains Signs and Nakhatras or not. Because at least that

should be there as your contribution after all these humbug, and

lunatic efforts to re-Christian people to your facetious `vedic

calanderian', to act out the worn out rituals.

 

Note: Please pardon the strong words, it may hurt i know, but it was

unavoidable. But still the respect remains. (But you may have

something useful and peaceful to provide at least after some years)

 

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

>

> Shri Sreenadhji,

> Namaskar!

> What could be the dates of the different works, including the

Vedas,

> the Mbh, etc. etc. according to you?

> The dates of different works I have given are the ones that are not

> disputed by anybody, including the nonbelievers in the Vedas etc.

> In fact BG Tilak had advocated a date of about 10000 BC for the

> Rigveda in his " Orion " .

> If you say Yajnyavalkya Smriti is a much earlier work than even the

> Vedanga Jyotiha of 1400 BCE, which is impossible, what prevents you

> from accepting the dates of the Rigveda etc. as about 4000 BCE?

> The Vedas, known as Shruti, are supposed to have been committed to

> memory by the descendants in the Rishi parampara. As such, it is

> immaterial whether " paper and ink " existed at that point of time or

> not!

>

> You say that Parashara Sidhanta is a work of 1400 BCE, or even

prior

> to that, but you are doubtful that the Rigveda is a work of about

> 4000 BC and the Yajurveda of around 3000 BC? Why this dichotomy?

> Are the Rigveda etc. works of a date of post Parashara Sidhanta

> acording to you?

>

> On the one hand you go by what the scholars say about

> having " exported " the Aries etc. Rashis to other countries as back

> as 600 BC but at the same time, you doubt that the Vedas could be

of

> an earlier age than 400 BC becasue we did not have a " writing

> system " at that point of time! The versions and differences --

> pathabheda -- are in fact a testomny to the fact that these works

> must have been of a very early age!

>

> Why can't you accept astronomical proofs of the VE being in

> different nakshatras at different points of time and that is how

the

> kritikkadi system of nakshatras etc. was born?

>

> It appears that as per your presumptions we must believe in Brighu

> Samhita, Kapila nadi, Agastya nadi, Aruna Samhita or even Ravana

> Samhita etc. etc. to be the works of thousands of years back---of

> Satya and Treta Yugas --i.e. hundeds of thousands of years back---

> or even BPHS of prior to 3102 BC --- the imaginary date of an

> imaginary Kaliyuga -- but you do not want to accept the

> astronomical evidence that the Rig Veda was at least of 4000 BC! Do

> you have any " archaeological evidence " for Kapil nadi that it is a

> work of Kapila Muni who reduced to ashes 60000 offspring of Sagara

> hundreds of thousands of years back? "

>

> Our Rishis were not phalit jyotishis that they were worried about

> Ayanamsha---which is a euphemism for precession by " Vedic

> Jyotishis " . They could decide, and so can you, with the help of a

> gnomon as to when the Uttarayana -- the shortest day of the year

> would take place -- and even a New Moon/Full Moon was sufficient

> for them to decide the start of a lunar month! The two solstices

> and equinoxes are least bothered as to what the Ayanamsha is since

> the shortest day of the year will always be known as Uttarayana

Day,

> longest day as the Dakshinayana Day and the days when day and night

> are equal will alwyas be known as Sampat -- Vasant and AHemant --

> equinoctial days --- whether it was 10000 BC or whether it will be

> 10000 AD! What has precession to do with them?

>

> Similarly, the nakshatras enumerated in the Vedas and the Vedanga

> Jyotisha etcf. are a unique phenomenon of the Vedas and the VJ.

> Other countires have their own versions but the way the prominent

> stars had been taken as mile posts and lunar nakshatras decided

> accordingly is a phenomenon that is absent in any other country!

>

> Believe me, the real Vedic Calendar is the simplest that could ever

> be desiged and it is also the most scientific one, aligned as it is

> to the seasons. You do not have to be an " astronomer royal " to

> calculate Madhu, Madhava or Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. months. But we

> have madee the things so complex and complicated deliberately,

> thanks to " Vedic Jyotish " that we donot want to do anything

without

> the " Ayanamsha " curse!

> To crown it all, in spite of having been persuing these elusive

> ayanamshas ever since the advent of Surya Sidhanta by Maya the

> mechha, we are still groping in darknes as to what that " amount " is

> really!

>

> No wonder, we are prepared to sacrifice our anceint Vedic

chronology

> just at the Ayansmah altar!

>

>

> I think you are adapting an attittude " heads I win and tails you

> lose " !

> Regards,

> AKK

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kaul ji,

> > I have some fundamental doubts about your convictions -

> > ==>

> > 1) 4000 BCE: The earliest reference---at least of around 4000 BCE-

-

> --

> > ......in the Rigveda

> > 2) 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita

> > 3) 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita

> > 4) 3000 BCE and 100 BCE: In Shatapatha Brahmana

> > 4) 1400 BCE: Acharya Lagadha's Vedanga Jyotisha

> > 5) 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata

> > 6) 875 AD: Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th century AD

> > <==

> >

> > 1) Don't you think it is the most absurd thing to argue that

> these

> > books are written at these periods when no archeological evidence

> of

> > Sanskrit script prior to BC 200 is not available?

> >

> > 2) How can you be sure that these texts are written in these

> periods?

> > Note: If you argue that you are depending on the evidence of

> > precision of equinoxes in these texts, then-

> > a) How can you sure that those quotes are not interpolated?

> > b) How can you be sure that the vedic people knew about the

> > precession of equinoxes etc?

> >

> > 3) How can you determine the period of a whole text based on some

> > lone quotes which refer to some astronomical information ?

> > a) Especially when these texts got edited by multiple people

at

> > multiple times, and various versions of the same texts available,

> > which differ from one another?

> > b) Also when these texts are Samhitas (collections) rather

than

> > independent text written by a single individual then how can you

> > determine the period of the whole text based on a single quote?

> >

> > 4) How many scholars or archeologists do you think will support

> your

> > arguments about the period of these texts and the assumptions

> based

> > on that?

> > a) If these arguments 'your conviction' about the years or

> origin

> > or compilation years of these books are controversial; don't you

> > think these arguments are absurd than that of astrologers about

> the

> > Vedicness of it?!!

> > b) What archeological evidence can you provide to support 'your

> > conviction' about these years?

> >

> > 5) At the end if a calendar is made based on such 'individual

> > convictions' do you think you can find anyone other than that

> > individual itself?

> > a) Do you think that the whole of India will accept such a

> > calendar?

> > b) Do you think it would be of much use to the public - when

> the

> > Vedic culture itself is lost, and the new calendar itself could

be

> > erroneous (it is based on a single person conviction - not

> supported

> > by scholars or archeological evidence)

> >

> > The whole story seems to be absurd than the arguments of

> astrologer

> > about the Vedic presence of Nirayana astrology in its fully

> developed

> > state which you fight this much against!!!

> > I don't know whether to laugh or cry after seeing these numbers

> and

> > the conviction with which they are presented.

> > It is seems to be a blind against deaf - both handicapped, but

> one

> > still making fun of other.

> > Please reply in detail.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " jyotirved "

> > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Shri Sreenadhji,

> > >

> > > Namaskar!

> > >

> > > The following post appeared in HinduCalendar forum on September

> 27,

> > 2006.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > AKK

> > >

> > > HinduCalendar , " jyotirved "

> > > <jyotirved@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > Re: The real Vedic Hindu calendar must be without Mesha etc.

> Rashis.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Shri Narayan Prasad ji,

> > >

> > > Namaste!

> > >

> > > I am indeed thankful to you for prodding me to make my thoughts

> > about Vedic

> > > luni-solar months etc. articulate and cohesive. I, therefore,

> > request you to

> > > please go through this post carefully so that we take some

> > constructive

> > > steps in the right direction for streamlining our calendars at

> the

> > earliest.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > The shlokas quoted by Diksit are from recent works:

> > >

> > > The two sholkas that you have quoted from " Bahratiya Jyotish

> > Shastra " of S.

> > > B. Dikshit in support of Rashi based lunar months, are actually

> > from " Kala

> > > Madhava " of thirteenth century and " Kala Tattva Vivechan " of

> > sixteenth

> > > century AD. As such, both these works are quite recent ones

and

> it

> > is not

> > > surprising at all that they have advocated to calculate lunar

> months

> > > vis-à­¶is astrological Rashis like Aries, Taurus etc.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Vedic calendars were framed without astrological Rashis:

> > >

> > > However, the task we have at our hands is to streamline our

> > calendars in

> > > accordance with the Vedic lore that should be applicable to

> whole

> > of India

> > > and not as per Narada etc. Purana, that is based on the Surya

> > Sidhanta of

> > > Maya the mlechha, or some so called Jyotisha shastra etc.

> > >

> > > Let us, therefore, see the relevant references for that purpose

> > i.e., the

> > > real fundamentals of the calendar as it existed during the

Vedic

> and

> > > post-Vedic period.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 1. 4000 BCE: The earliest reference---at least of around

4000

> > BCE----we

> > > have to an intercalary month (adhika-masa) is in the Rigveda

> > 1/25/8. An

> > > adhika-masa can take place only when lunar synodic months are

> > calculated

> > > vis-à­¶is solar sankrantis. Since in the Vedic period only

Madhu,

> > Madhava

> > > etc. solar months and not Aries etc. astrological rashis were

in

> > vogue, it

> > > means that even the earliest references to lunar months in the

> > Vedas are

> > > without Mesha etc. Rashis but in relation to Madhu, Madhava

etc.

> > solar/lunar

> > > months.

> > > 2. 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita 1/4/14 says: " Madhushcha

> > madhavashcha

> > > shukrashcha shuchishcha nabhashcha nabhasyashcha ishashcha

> > oorjashcha

> > > sahashcha sahasyashcha tapashcha tapasyashchai up yam griheeto

> asi

> > samsarpo

> > > asi amhaspatyay tva "

> > >

> > > Here Madhu, Madhava etc. twelve months have been named and then

> > samsarpa is

> > > the thirteenth (intercalary/adhika) month and amhaspati a

> decayed

> > (kshyaya)

> > > month. THERE ARE NO RASHIS HERE AND LUNAR MONTHS, INCLUDING

> > > ADHIKA/KSHAYA-MASA, WERE RELATED TO MADHU, MADHAVA ETC. SOLAR

> > MONTHS AND

> > > EVEN NAMED AS (LUNAR, APART FROM SOLAR) MADHU, MADHAVA ETC.

> WITHOUT

> > ANY

> > > DOUBT.

> > >

> > > 3. Again the same Taitiriya Samhita 5/6/7 says " shadratrir

> > deekshitah

> > > syat shadva ritavah samvatsarah?dwadasha ratreer deekshitah

syat

> > dwadasha

> > > masah samvatsarah? trayodasha ratreer deekshitah syat,

> trayodasha

> > masah

> > > samvatsarah "

> > >

> > > i.e. " One should get consecrated for six days as the year

> comprises

> > six

> > > seasons. One should get consecrated for 12 days as the year

> > comprises 12

> > > months. One should get consecrated for 13 days as the year

> > comprises 13

> > > months (including an adhika masa) " . There are no rashis

involved

> > here but

> > > the solar months Madhu, Madhava etc. are implied because of

> > references to

> > > six seasons, and thereby the lunar months are related to those

> very

> > solar

> > > months.

> > >

> > > 4. 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita 22/31 says:

> > >

> > > " Madhave svaha, madhavay svaha, shukray svaha shuchaye svaha,

> > nabhase svaha,

> > > nabhasyaya svaha, ishay svaha, oorjay svaha, sahase svaha,

> sahasyay

> > svaha,

> > > tapase svaha, tapasyaya svaha, amhaspataye

> svaha "

> > >

> > > Here all the twelve solar months of Madhu, Madhava etc. have

> been

> > named

> > > consecutively and the thirteenth month has been named as

> amhaspati.

> > > Obviously, the thirteenth is an adhika lunar month. Thus as

per

> > this proof

> > > also, lunar months were known by the names of solar months of

> > Madhu, Madhva

> > > etc. in early Vedic days!

> > >

> > > .

> > >

> > > 5. 3000 BCE and 100 BCE: In Shatapatha Brahmana 4/5/14

we

> > find " Upayama

> > > griheeto asi Madhave tu etyeva advaryur-grihnati upyama

griheeto

> asi

> > > madhavay tveti pratiprastha taitaveva vasantikav sayad vasante

> > aushadhayo

> > > jayante vanaspatayah pachyante tena haitav madhushcha

> madhavshcha "

> > >

> > > Translation " Since in the Vasnata (spring season) grains in the

> > fields start

> > > sprouting that is why the two months of that season are known

as

> > Madhu and

> > > Madhvava " .

> > >

> > > The commentary on this mantra by Shri Hari-Swamin says, " Madhu

> > Madhavaviti

> > > chaitra vaishakhav ritu grahanam chaitradayo masah devatah.

> Chaitra

> > > vaishakhayor madhu madhava namdheya praptim darshayati. Etav

> uktav

> > masav

> > > vasantikav "

> > >

> > > Translation " Madhu and Madhava are Chaitra and Vaishakha as

they

> > are the two

> > > months of Spring season. As such the shruti has shown the

names

> of

> > Chaitra

> > > and Vaishakha as Madhu and Madhava "

> > >

> > > Shri Hari-Swamin is said to be a scholar of around first

century

> > BCE. It

> > > means that the tradition of calling solar months Madhu, Madhava

> by

> > lunar

> > > names like Caitra, Vaishakha etc. and vice-versa was prevailing

> > then.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 6. 1400 BCE: Acharya Lagadha's Vedanga Jyotisha says:

> > >

> > > " Svarakramete somarkav yada sakam savasavav, syat tadadi yugam

> > maghastapah

> > > shuklo ayanam hyudak "

> > >

> > > As per Dikshit's translation, it means " When the sun and the

> moon

> > while

> > > moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha i.e. Beta

> Delphini)

> > star

> > > together, then the yuga, the Magha (month), the tapas (seasonal

> > month), the

> > > light half of the month, and the Winter Solstice, all commence

> > together " .

> > >

> > > 7. Sixth mantra of the same VJ says

> > >

> > > " Prapadyate shavishthadav surya chandramasav udak, sarpardhe

> > dkshinarkastu,

> > > magha shravanayoh sada "

> > >

> > > Dikshit's translation: " The sun and the moon turn towards North

> in

> > the

> > > beginning of Dhanishtha and towards South in the middle of

> > Ashlesha. The

> > > sun always does this in the month of Magha and Shravana "

> > >

> > > THIS IS THE VERY FIRST INDIGENOUS ASTRONOMICAL WORK OF 14TH

> CENTURY

> > BCE AND

> > > HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SO CALLED ARIES ETC. RASHIS,

> > WHETHER

> > > SAYANA OR NIRAYANA, BUT TELLS US THE METHODLOGY OF CALCULATING

> ALL

> > THE

> > > TWELVE MONTHS, BOTH SOLAR AND LUNAR, LIKE TAPAH AND MAGHA,

APART

> > FROM WINTER

> > > SOLSTICE AND SUMMER SOLSTICE ETC. IF ACHARYA LAGADHA COULD DO

> IT

> > IN EARLY

> > > 14TH CENTURY BCE, WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL

> > RASHIS, WHY

> > > CAN'T WE DO IT TODAY?

> > >

> > > 8. 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata contains quite a

> > few " finishing

> > > touches " of a post Vedanga Jyotisha Era since it follows the VJ

> > methodology

> > > for calculating adhika-masa etc. This " itihasa " could therefore

> be

> > of a

> > > period of 1400 BCE to 400 BCE, since the latter was the period

> when

> > > Graecho-Chaldean rashis had started gaining a foothold in

India.

> > Mangal,

> > > Shani etc. planets, had, however been propagated in India prior

> to

> > 400 BCE,

> > > as is evident from the Atharva Jyotisha of about 500 BCE. That

> is

> > why there

> > > is no mention of Aries etc. astrological rashis in the MBh

> either

> > but there

> > > are references to nakshatras times without number. We also

find

> > reference

> > > to Magha, Kaumudi etc. months at several places. In the Gita,

> which

> > is a

> > > part of the MBh, Lord Krishna has identified Himself with

> > Margasheersha.

> > >

> > > Besides, it is also common knowledge that Bhishma waited for

> > Uttarayana to

> > > shed off his mortal coil but we do not find even by mistake

> > anywhere in the

> > > entire MBh any mention of Makara Rashi/sankranti, which is

> supposed

> > to be

> > > the synonym of Utarayana by " Sayana Vedic jyotishis " .

Similarly,

> > Bhishma is

> > > said to have shed off his mortal coil on Magha Shukla ashtami

in

> > Rohini

> > > nakshatra as per Shanti Parva 47/3 which reads as:

> > >

> > > " shuklapakshyasyashtamyam maghamasasya parthiva, prajapatye cha

> > nakshatre

> > > madyam prapte divakare?. "

> > >

> > > Here Magha Shukla ashtami and Rohini nakshatra have been

> mentioned

> > clearly

> > > without any reference to any Makara etc. rashi/sankranti.

Same

> is

> > the case

> > > with several other references in the MBh, which proves it

beyond

> > any doubt

> > > that Magha, Phalguna etc. solar/lunar months besides Uttarayana

> etc.

> > > phenomena were calculated during those days also without

> > any " assistance

> > > from " Aries etc. astrological Rashis!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 9. 875 AD: Vateshwara Sidhanta and Gola, a work of 9th

century

> > AD, says

> > > in Chapter 3, verse 29 " The months Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. are

> > called,

> > > according to the Vedas, Madhu, Madhava, Shukra, Shuchih,

Nabhas,

> > Nabhasya,

> > > Isha, Urja, Sahas, Sahasya, Tapas and Tapasya respectively.

The

> > names of

> > > the seasons have come down to us since the time of the Vedas " .

> > >

> > > On page 423 of the same work (translated by K. S. Shukla,

> published

> > by INSA,

> > > Delhi) there is a table listing Chaitra etc. 12 months vis-à­¶is

> > Madhu etc.

> > > Vedic months which have been clubbed with the respective

> seasons!

> > IF

> > > VATESHWARA COULD CALCULATE SOLAR AND LUNAR MONTHS WITHOUT

> > THE " ASSISTANCE

> > > OF " ARIES ETC. ASTROLOGICAL RASHIS, WHY CAN'T WE DO IT TODAY?

> > >

> > > 10. 1375 AD: A mantra in the Samaveda Samhita 4/6/4/2 reads:

> > >

> > > " Vasanto innur antyo greeshmo innur antyah varshani anu

sharado

> > hemanta

> > > shishir innurantyah "

> > >

> > > As per this mantra six seasons of Vasanta, Grishma etc. have

> been

> > discussed.

> > > And this is how Acharya Sayana of 14th century AD has commented

> on

> > it:

> > >

> > > " Vasantah innu ? vasant eva chaitra vaishakharupi vasanta

> ritureva

> > rantyah ?

> > > ramaneeyah bhavati. Greeshma innu jyeshtha ashadarupo greeshm

> > ritureva

> > > rantyah ramaneeyah. Varshani varsha shravan bhadrapad rupen

> > avayavi bhuta

> > > pravrit ritur eva rantyah ramaneeyah. Tanyanu sharadah ashvina

> > kartika

> > > rupena avayaveebhoot rituh rantyah ramaneeyah. Hemanta

> > margasheersha pausha

> > > roop eve rantya ramneeyah shishir innu magha phalguna roop eva

> > rantyah

> > > ramneeyah "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > A simple and running English translation of this commentary of

> > Sayana is

> > > " Vasanta comprises two months of Chaitra and Vaishakha.

Vasanta

> is

> > a

> > > pleasant season. Greeshma comprises two months of Jyeshtha and

> > Ashada. It

> > > is a pleasant season. Varsha comprises two limbs of Shravana

> and

> > Bhadra.

> > > Varsha is a pleasant season. Ashvina and Kartika are the two

> > months of

> > > Sharad ritu. Sharad ritu is a pleasant season. Margashersha

> and

> > Pausha are

> > > the two months of Hemanta. Hemanta is a pleasant season.

Magha

> and

> > > Phalguna are the two months of Shishira Ritu. Shishira Ritu is

> a

> > pleasant

> > > season " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > We have thus seen above that right from the earliest Veda i.e.

> the

> > Rigveda

> > > (about 4000 BCE) till the end of the fourteenth century AD,

> there

> > is an

> > > unbroken stream of clubbing Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. lunar

months

> > with the

> > > solar months of similar names and also Madhu and Madhava etc.

> solar

> > months

> > > with the lunar months of similar names without any assistance

> from

> > any Aries

> > > etc. astrological Rashis. Thus these very names serve the

> purpose

> > of solar

> > > as well as lunar months. We have seen that Acharya Sayana also

> has

> > subsumed

> > > Chaitra etc. months into Vasanta etc. seasons. It means that

> > Chaitra etc.

> > > were the names of solar months even according to him. Since

> these

> > are also

> > > the names of lunar months, obviously, lunar Chaitra would

follow

> a

> > solar

> > > Chaitra, lunar Vaishakha a solar Vaishakha and so on.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Vedic months Madhu, Madhava are synonymns of Chaitra, Vaishakha

> etc.

> > >

> > > That completely accounts for the following pattern of the Vedic

> > calendar, as

> > > summarized by Dr. A. K. Bag, in ( " History of Astronomy in

> India " ,

> > published

> > > by INSA, Delhi) in his article " Astronomy in Indus Civilization

> and

> > during

> > > Vedic Times " . In fact, this is the summary given by him as per

> the

> > > Taittiriya Samhita 4/4/11

> > >

> > > a) Vasanta Ritu comprising two solar months of Madhu and

> > Madhava which

> > > are also known as (solar) Chaitra and Vaishakha, with lunar

> > Chaitra and

> > > Vaishakha following the solar months of similar names.

> > >

> > > b) Grishma Ritu comprising two solar months of Shukrah and

> > Shuchih, also

> > > known as (solar) Jyeshtha and Ashada, with lunar Jyeshtha and

> Ashada

> > > following the respective solar months.

> > >

> > > c) Varsha Ritu comprising two solar months of Nabhas and

> > Nabhasya also

> > > known as (solar) Shravana and Bhadra, with the lunar Shravana

> and

> > Bhadra

> > > following the respective solar months.

> > >

> > > d) Sharad Ritu comprsing the two solar months of Isha and

> Urja,

> > also

> > > known as (solar) months of Ashvina and Kartika, with lunar

> Ashvina

> > and

> > > Kartika following their respective solar months.

> > >

> > > e) Hemanta Ritu comprising the two solar months of Sahas and

> > Sahasya,

> > > also known as (solar) months of Margasheersha and Pausha, with

> > lunar

> > > Margasheersha and Pausha following their respective solar

names.

> > >

> > > f) Shishira Ritu comprising the two solar months of Tapas

and

> > Tapasya,

> > > also known as (solar) months of Magha and Phalguna, with

lunar

> > Magha and

> > > Phalguna following their respective solar months.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > THAT IS THUS THE REAL VEDIC CALENDAR, AS ADVOCATED BY THE

VEDAS,

> > BRAHMANAS,

> > > THE VEDANGA JYOTISHA, THE MAHABHARATA AND OUR ACHARYAS LIKE

> > HARISWAMIN,

> > > VATESHWARA AND SAYANA.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Early Vedic lunar months were not necessarily as per Chitra

etc.

> > nakshatra

> > > Full Moons:

> > >

> > > Regarding the names of lunar months as per the Full Moon

> nakshatra,

> > this is

> > > the system being followed at present for Lahiri festivals. As

> we

> > have seen

> > > above, if we want to adopt the real Vedic calendar, we do not

> have

> > to run

> > > after a Full Moon conjoining a particular lunar nakshatra for

> the

> > name of

> > > that lunar month.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > S. B. Dikshit has also clarified it at several places that the

> Full

> > Moon

> > > conjoining the relevant nakshatra for the names of lunar months

> is

> > a much

> > > later phenomenon. This is what he has said on page 30 of his

> work

> > (English

> > > translation of Part I):

> > >

> > > " In short the terms Chaitra etc. were not in vogue in the

> Samhita

> > and

> > > Brahmana period. Thus it can be proved from the historical

point

> of

> > view

> > > that these terms came into use after a very long period of time

> > after the

> > > terms Madhu, etc. became current "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > But by the time of Vedanga Jyotisha (14th century BCE), Chaitra

> etc.

> > > nomenclature for solar as well as lunar months, without

> reference

> > to either

> > > nakshatra based Purnimas or any Aries etc. astrological Rashis,

> had

> > got

> > > fully established.

> > >

> > > A practical demonstration of this point is that the VJ says that

> > > Dakshinayana-cum-solar (Nabhasya)-cum-Shravana always starts

> when

> > the New

> > > Moon (Amanta) falls in the middle of Ashlesha and

> > > Uttarayana-cum-Tapah-cum-Magha always starts when the New Moon

> is in

> > > Dhanishtha. Neither of these two conditions gets always

> fulfilled

> > either

> > > for Dakshinayana or Uttarayana whether we take Lahiri nakshata

> > division or

> > > the so called sayana nakshatra division, the simple reason

being

> > that

> > > according to the VJ, the nakshatras start from Krittika instead

> of

> > from

> > > Ashvini, and the year started from Uttarayana!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO A RE-THNK ABOUT THE NAKSHATRA

DIVISION

> AS

> > TO

> > > WHETHER IT SHOULD START FROM ASHVINI OR KRITTIKA AND WHETHER IT

> > SHOULD BE AN

> > > EQUAL DIVISION OF 27 NAKSHATRAS OR AN UNEQUAL DIVISION OF 28

> > NAKSHATRAS AS

> > > SUGGESTED BY BHASKARA-I AND OTHER EALIER ACHARYAS. THAT IS

APART

> > FROM THE

> > > FACT AS TO WHETHERE THE NAKHATRAS SHOULD BE SO CALLED SAYANA OR

> SO

> > CALLED

> > > NIRAYANA!

> > >

> > > (Pl. se my post " When was the real Onam " ).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " Sayana Vedic astrology " falls on its face by dint of

> > the " crutches " of

> > > Sayana nakshatras!

> > >

> > > WHILE TALKING ABOUT NAKSHATRAS, I MUST PUT ON RECORD THAT THE

> > GREATEST

> > > DRAW-BACK WITH NAKSHATRAS VIS-?VIS THE SO CALLED SAYANA RASHIS

> IS

> > THAT ALL

> > > THE PROMINENT STARS, KNOWN AS " MILE POSTS " , ARE AWAY BY AT

LEAST

> > TWENTY

> > > DEGREES FROM THE RELEVANT NAKSHATRA! E.g. The Star Ashvini

(Beta

> > Arietis)

> > > had an ecliptic longitude of about 34 degrees as on January 1,

> 2000

> > whereas

> > > the nakshatra division of that (Ashvini) name of the so called

> > Sayana

> > > Rashichakra would range from 0 to 13-20' i.e. the Ashvini Star

> is

> > out of the

> > > range by at least 20 degrees from the outermost limit of the

> > nakshatra

> > > division of that very name. Equally, Bharni Star (41 Arietis)

> had a

> > > longitude of 48 degrees in 2000 AD whereas that division ranges

> > from 13-20

> > > to 26-40. Thus Bharni star is out of range by at least 21

> degrees

> > from the

> > > outermost limit of that very Bharani nakshatra division. Same

> is

> > the case

> > > with all the other nakshatras!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > THOSE " JYOTISHIS " CLAMOURING FOR A SO CALLED SAYANA RASHICHKARA

> FOR

> > > PREDICTIVE GIMMICKS DO NOT SEE THE IRONY THAT THEY WILL NOT BE

> ABLE

> > TO

> > > CALCULATE ANY OF THE DASHA-BHUKTIS CORRECTLY SINCE NO NAKSHATRA

> > WILL FALL IN

> > > THE RELEVANT DIVISION NOR WILL THE RELEVANT STAR HAVE ANYTHING

> TO

> > DO WITH

> > > THE NAME-SAKE OF THAT VERY NAKSHATRA DIVISION!

> > >

> > > BUT THEN " SAYANA VEDIC JYOTSHIS " ARE HARDLY BETTER

> THAN " NIRAYANA

> > VEDIC

> > > JYOTISHIS " SINCE BOTH ARE BLIND TO THE WRITING ON THE WALL!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " First Point of Aries " in the Kritika nakshatra

> > >

> > > How useless the so called Sayana rashis are vis-à­¶is the actual

> > Vedic

> > > nakshatras will be clear from the following example:

> > >

> > > Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/2 says " Krittikasu agnim adadheeta?

eta

> ha

> > vai

> > > prachyai disho na chyavante? " . It means, " One should get

> > consecrated in

> > > Krittika nakshatra. They do not deviate from the East " .

> Krittikas

> > did not

> > > " deviate from the East " since the " First Point of Aries " was in

> that

> > > nakshatra then i.e. about 3000 BCE. This nakshatra division

> ranges

> > from

> > > 26-10' to 40-00 degrees. However, the longitude of the

Krittika

> > star (Eta

> > > Tauri a.k.a. Alcyone) as on January 1, 2000 AD was about 60

> > degrees. Thus

> > > we will only be making a laughing stock of ourselves if we try

> to

> > link the

> > > so called sayana rashichakra to krittika nakshatra since it is

> away

> > by about

> > > 20 degrees from the extreme limit of that very nakshatra

> division!

> > > Therefore it could hardly be such a non-existent krittika

> nakshatra

> > which

> > > our Vedic Rishis were talking about!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nakshatras in the Mahabharata:

> > >

> > > In the Shalya Parva 5/6, we find the following reference

> > >

> > > " Chatvarimshad ahanyadya dve me nissritasya vai, pushyena

> > samprayatoasmi,

> > > shravane punaragatah "

> > >

> > > Translation " I (Balarama) have been away for forty-two days. I

> > left this

> > > place on Pushya nakshatra and am back in Shravna nakshatra "

> > >

> > > Obviously, these could not be imaginary so called sayana

> nakshatras

> > but the

> > > actual nakshatras or prominent stars of those names, with which

> the

> > moon had

> > > been conjunct during the period of forty-two days when Balarama

> was

> > away.

> > > Pushya to Punarvasu means 27 nakshatras/days (excluding

Abhijit)

> > and then

> > > again Pushya to Shravana means 15 days. Thus it becomes 42

days

> > (if we

> > > include both Pushya the day of departure and Shravana the day

of

> > coming

> > > back) but if we include Abhijit also, it will be 28 days from

> > Pushya to

> > > Punarvasu and then 14 days from Pushya to Utarashadha ?

> excluding

> > Shravana.

> > > But since in the VJ, there are only 27 nakshatras, it appears

> the

> > MBH also

> > > has been calculating the lunar nakshatra days in multiples of

27

> > only.

> > > Besides, Abhijita is a nakshatra of very short duration --

> hardly

> > a few

> > > degrees, thus the lunar conjunction with that nakshatra could

> not

> > be that

> > > long to be taken as one day. It could have been subsumed in

> other

> > > nakshatras.

> > >

> > > In any case, it goes to prove that instead of artificial

> nakshatra

> > divisions

> > > of the so called " Sayana Vedic Jyotishis " the MBh also was

> taking

> > into

> > > account the actual nakshatras.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Duplicate Chaitra etc. names

> > >

> > > Coming to your next point,

> > >

> > > <If at all duplicate nomenclature is to be used for the solar

> > months, let it

> > > be on the name of Rashis, as used in South India.>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > We have just seen in the commentary of Acharya Sayana as to how

> he

> > clubbed

> > > Chaitra etc. solar and lunar months with Vasanta etc. seasons.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Acharya Sayana was a minister of Viajayanagar empire of South

> > India

> > > besides being the younger brother of Madhvacharya a.k.a.

> > Vidyaranya Muni of

> > > the " Panchadashi " fame. Acharya Sayana was a scholar of

> > extraordinary

> > > calibre and I have not seen yet any commentator of his stature

> who

> > has

> > > explained all the four Vedas in such an exhaustive and lucid

> > manner. There

> > > is hardly any scholar, whether from East or West, who does not

> > acknowledge

> > > the authority of Sayana about the Vedic interpretations. Aries

> > etc. Rashis

> > > were very much prevalent at Acharya Sayana's time in India ?

> 14th

> > century

> > > AD--since the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha had got

> entrenched

> > in our

> > > cultural ethos by then completely. THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION

> > THAT ARISES

> > > HERE IS AS TO WHY DID ACHARYA SAYANA SPURN THE SO CALLED MESHA

> ETC.

> > RASHIS

> > > AND TALK ABOUT CHAITRA, VIAISHAKHA ETC. MONTHS VIS-?VIS VEDIC

> > SEASONS?

> > >

> > > Obviously, these Aries etc. signs being a creation of

> astrologers,

> > did not

> > > suit him (Acharya Sayana) at all, and he just ignored them

with

> > the disdain

> > > and contempt these astrological rashis deserve. SCHOLARS

> > THROUGHOUT INDIA

> > > SHOULD EMULATE ACHARYA SAYANA IN THIS RESPECT i.e. they must

> spurn

> > rashi

> > > based calendar! But on the other hand, for the last about a

> hundred

> > years,

> > > maximum support of these good for nothing astrological rashis

is

> > being

> > > provided/mustered by " Vedic astrologers " through their

> astrological

> > > magazines and " Vedic jyotisha " monthlies and so on and so

> forth!

> > These

> > > " scholars " also preside over several " panchanga standardization

> > committees "

> > > and are always back at square one by opting for the

> same " almighty "

> > Lahiri

> > > Rashichakra that was being already used sine 1950, thanks to N.

> C.

> > Lahiri's

> > > jugglery!

> > >

> > > Thus these " Vedic scholars/astrologers " are decimating those

> very

> > Vedas that

> > > they pretend to defendand they are doing so just for the sake

of

> > sinful

> > > crumbs which they earn by dint of " Vedic astrology " ---

> i.e. " correct

> > > predictions from incorrect data " !

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I, therefore, do not see any valid reason against naming Madhu,

> > Madhava etc.

> > > Vedic months as solar Chaitra and Vaishakha etc. as was done by

> > every Seer

> > > from Lagadha of the VJ to Acharya Syana of Samaveda Bhashya.

> These

> > very

> > > names can be used for lunar months.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Even alternative names of solar momths can be without

> astrological

> > rashis:

> > >

> > > If, however, you are still of the opinion that the use of

> Chaitra

> > etc. names

> > > for solar as well as lunar months will create some confusion,

we

> > can think

> > > over the thirteen names of solar/lunar months as given in

> Taittiriya

> > > Brahmana 3/10/1. These are:

> > >

> > > 1) Arunah; 2)Arunarajah; 3) Pundareekah; 4) Vishvajit; 5)

> Abhijit;

> > 6) Ardrah

> > > 7) Pinvaman; 8) Unnavan; 9) Rasavan; 10) Iravan; 11)

> Sarvaushadhah;

> > 12)

> > > Sambharah; 13) Mahaswan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (Please see page 27 of Dikshit's " Bharatiya Jyotisha " --English

> > > translation?Vol. I)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > This will obviate the necessity of duplicating Chaitra etc.

> names

> > for solar

> > > as well lunar months without our having to fall back upon Aries

> etc.

> > > astrological rashis.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Amanta and Purnimanta systems -- both can and should continue:

> > >

> > > Regarding your earlier suggestion that there should be one

> pattern

> > of lunar

> > > months throughout India i.e. they should be either Amanta (New

> Moon

> > to New

> > > Moon) or Purnimanta (Full Moon to Full Moon), I am of the

> opinion

> > that we

> > > must continue with both the systems since both of them are

> Vedic, as

> > > explained by me in one of my earlier posts to you about the

> same.

> > I do not

> > > want to make any changes in any pattern arbitrarily unless and

> > until they

> > > are warranted by the Vedas and are unavoidable. We are almost

> > divided in

> > > the middle --- half of India celebrating Amanta and half

> > Purnimanta ? and

> > > it will create further confusion when we change the system from

> > Makara to

> > > Tapah and then ask Northern India to make Krishna Paksha follow

> > Shukla

> > > paksha or South and Central India etc. etc. to put Krishna

> Paksha

> > before

> > > Shukla Paksha. It will take them a considerable time to get to

> > grips with

> > > that double confusion, without any advantage or plus points.

It

> is

> > also not

> > > necessary that they will agree with this suggestion of ours,

> since

> > it is not

> > > an easy job to change the settled pattern

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sayana versus Nirayana is the worst conflict:

> > >

> > > Thus, in any case, once we shun Aries etc. Rashis completely

for

> > the real

> > > Vedic Calendar, we shall then not have to enter into an endless

> > discussion

> > > and conflict with either " Vedic " or " anti-Vedic " or " non-Vedic "

> > jyotishis,

> > > since we will not be using rashis at all for Vedic calendar,

> which

> > means

> > > there will be no confusion whether the rashis are sayana or

> > nirayana. Let

> > > the jyotishis continue to wallow in the mud of those sayana and

> > Lahiri and

> > > Ramana and Fagan Rashis and give a full demonstration of their

> > charlatanism

> > > but at least our " Vedic calendar " will steer clear of the same

> > since we will

> > > not refer to Aries etc. astrological Rashsi as our Vedic Rishis

> > never

> > > referred to them, at least in respect of deciding the calendar.

> > >

> > > AND THAT IS NO MEAN ACHIEVEMENT.

> > >

> > > Sayana versus Nirayana was the main reason of the failure

> > of " Calendar

> > > Reform "

> > >

> > > Before closing this note, I must put on record my views as to

> why

> > the

> > > earlier efforts of streamlining the calendar failed:

> > >

> > > As we know through " Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra " of Dikshit and

> > other works,

> > > real scholars of Vedic lore were feeling highly perturbed with

> the

> > > anachronism of celebrating Uttarayana etc. phenomena after at

> least

> > a

> > > fortnight or so of the actual phenomenon over the last about

> couple

> > of

> > > hundred years. They also tried to put it back on rails and

> quite a

> > few

> > > seminars were held; quite a few " calendar reform committees "

> > established,

> > > but it had just become a zero sums game! Almost

> every " Committee "

> > had

> > > recommended the so called Sayana Rashis for celebrating

> festivals

> > etc. but

> > > the efforts were never successful in spite of even the Jagadguru

> > > Shankarachrya of Dwarka, on a representation by V. R. Lele,

> issuing

> > an

> > > Adesha-Patra more than a 100 years back (in Shaka 1814)that

only

> > (so called)

> > > Sayana rashis must be used for deciding fairs and festivals

(Pl.

> see

> > > " Bharatiya Jyotish Shastra " ). But now the same Dwarka Peetha,

> > including the

> > > current Jagadguru Shankaracharya of that Peetha, is celebrating

> all

> > its

> > > festivals and muhurtas not as per the Vedas or other shastras,

> but

> > as

> > > " dictated " by " almighty " Lahiri! WHY? Only because all

> > these " reformists "

> > > were talking of (so called) Sayana rashis, which is an anathema

> > to " Vedic

> > > Jyotishis " ! They just do not want to lose their sinful crumbs,

> > however hard

> > > we may try to instil God's fear into them! Money for them is

> more

> > powerful

> > > and intoxicating than Jeevan Mukti!

> > >

> > > THEREFORE, IT IS BETTER TO SHELVE THE RASHIS COMPLETELY --

> WHETEHR

> > THE SO

> > > CALLED SAYANA OR THE SO CALLED NIRAYANA ? FOR THE PURPOSE OF

> > STREAMLINING

> > > OUR CALENDAR! LET US PREPARE A " TITHI-PATRAK' WHICH DOES NOT

> CARRY

> > THE

> > > NAMES OF ANY RASHIS, SO THAT WE CELEBRATE OUR FESTIVALS ON

> CORRECT

> > DAYS AND

> > > LET THE " SAYANA VEDIC ASTROLOGERS " AS WELL AS THE " NIRAYANA

VEDIC

> > > ASTROLOGERS " CONTINUE TO " MAKE CORRECT PREDEICTIONS FROM

> INCORRECT

> > DATA " .

> > >

> > > We must, therefore, select the seasonal year with Madhu,

Madhava

> > etc. months

> > > with Aruna et. synonyms and Vasanta etc. seasons plus Chaitra,

> > Vaishakha

> > > etc. solar/lunar months coupled with Krittika etc. actual 28

> > nakshatras

> > > (including Abhijit) instead of the so called sayana or nirayana

> > nakshatra

> > > division of 27 equal nakshatras.

> > >

> > > With regards,

> > >

> > > Avtar Krishen Kaul

> > >

> > > President

> > >

> > > All India Calendar Reform Committee

> > >

> > > New Delhi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > HinduCalendar

> > [HinduCalendar ]

> > > On Behalf Of Narayan Prasad

> > > Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:16 AM

> > > HinduCalendar

> > > RE: [HinduCalendar] Re: First Point of Aries --

> Definition

> > as per

> > > Modern Astronomy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Avtar ji,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Namaste !

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <<I have never seen any lunar month ever being named as per any

> > rashi in any

> > > part of the country! >>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > My reply:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I thought you have fully read Pt S B Dixit's book " bhAratiiya

> > > jyotiSa-shAstrAchA itihaas " . On pp.390-391 he writes:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <QUOTE>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " meSAdisthe savitari yo yo mAsaH prapUryate chAndraH |

> > >

> > > chaitrAdyaH sa j~neyaH pUrti-dvittve'dhimAso'ntyaH || "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > &

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > " miinAdisthe raviryeSAm-Arambha-prathame kSaNe |

> > >

> > > bhavet te'bde cAndra-mAsAsh-chaitrAdyA dvAdasha smRtAH || "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > <UNQUOTE>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Kindly translate into English these two Sanskrit shlokas

> yourself

> > to

> > > explain other members also what they mean.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You wrote:

> > >

> > > << also known as solar Ashvina as per the Vedanga Jyotisha ??

> that

> > was the

> > > start of the Lunar Ashvina?.. also known as solar Kartika as

per

> > the Vedanga

> > > Jyotisha?.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > lunar months are always supposed to be named as per nakshatra

> > division where

> > > the Full Moon falls! For example,

> > > Chaitra month is given that name because the Purnima of that

> month

> > is

> > > supposed to fall in Chitra nakshatra, Vaishakha has that name

> > because the

> > > full Moon is in Vishakha nakshatra, Jyeshtha is Jyeshtha as the

> > full moon is

> > > in Jyeshtha nakshatra and so on! It may be mentioned here that

> even

> > nirayana

> > > lunar months fail on this count! >>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > My reply:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > As I expressed my view earlier, I do not like the use of the

> same

> > > nomenclature for solar months and lunar months, because in

> general

> > they will

> > > start on different dates. We must not force lunar months'

> > nomenclature to

> > > solar ones, if we want to be scientific.

> > >

> > > Why give same scientific name to two entities which do not

> indicate

> > the same

> > > thing in the same context ?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Moreover, you are contradicting your own statements. It appears

> > that you

> > > yourself name the lunar months based on nakSatra names

(Ashvina,

> > Kartika,?),

> > > and at other place you yourself ridicule such idea.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Kind regards.

> > >

> > > Narayan Prasad

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > HinduCalendar

> > [HinduCalendar ]

> > > On Behalf Of jyotirved

> > > Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:01 PM

> > > HinduCalendar

> > > Cc: hinducivilization ;

> > akandabaratam ;

> > > arya ; haindavakeralam ;

> > > VaidikaVillage ; hinduopenforum ;

> > > IndiaArchaeology ; IndiaDivine

> > > RE: [HinduCalendar] Re: First Point of Aries --

> Definition

> > as per

> > > Modern Astronomy

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Shri Narayan Prasad Ji,

> > >

> > > Namaste!

> > >

> > > Regarding adhika/kshyaya-masa, example is better than precept:

> > >

> > > If you peruse the " List of correct dates of some festivals for

> > 2006 " ,

> > >

> >

>