VJ and CH (Please read.........)

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay ji,

Hari used strong words, and there is much sarcasm in your

words. Both of you are egotic - but that is personal not much of a concern in

the group; for us the major interest is the knowledge shared between two

knowledgeable individuals.

We already know that Chandra Hari is sincere, since he is a major

member of this group with numerous contributions to astrology up his sleeve.

(whether it be books, research papers published in scientific journals or what

ever).

I already know that you are genuine and knowledgeable. But for the group

you are new - and only the continuous interaction will help to earn the

'expected' respect. I and many members in this group already know that you have

already earned your place and respect in astrological community through your

contributions.

==>

If

he is a scholar, ask him to behave like a scholar, and I will welcome him.

<==

No challenges please... We already know that both you and chandra hari

are knowledgeable. We are more interested in knowing and learning from your scholarly

interactions with each other - rather than listening to abuses and

challenges. Let the knowledge win and let Sarasvati be meditated.

The group is neither in your nor in Chandrahari's side we are just

onlookers, active listeners or learners. Moderator's responsibility is just

limited to moderating the use of abusive language (that too not by editing

messages, but by suggesting scholarly discussion - since the discussion is

between matured and knowledgeable individuals)

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> sreesog@: "Let us hold us back from personal abuses, that is not going> add value to scholarly discussions."> > I read my reply to Mr Hari again and again before posting it. If I> amabusive, point it out. I do not believe in tit-for-tat. But Mr Hari> is a warrior, glad to hurry to a conclusion without proper and fair> discussions. Hence, I replied in his own favourite language. If he is> a scholar, ask him to behave like a scholar, and I will welcome him.> > -VJ> , "Sreenadh"> sreesog@ wrote:> >> > Dear Vinay ji,> > ==>> > Astrology is a practical discipline, and wrong definitions of> > ayanamsha are resulting in wrong astrological softwares giving false> > predictions. Why ancient methods cannot be even tested, before being> > didcarded ?> > <==> > This is a good point, well presented.> > "JyotishaH phalam adesha, phalarthamarambhanam bhavati loke> > Tasmad yajna karohyadesha jyotishajnenaH"> > (Krishneeyam)> > [Astrology is a practical science. None wastes effort for something> > without useful result. Therefore astrologers should try to predict> > result (that will become true in experience).] - This is the advice> > provided by Krishneeya.> > Note: Let us hold us back from personal abuses, that is not going add> > value to scholarly discussions.> > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> > > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > >> > > Sunil jee says :"Prof. Iyengar does not know astrology at all and he> > > criticises it as he thinks that it is unscientific...".> > >> > > One should not criticize astrology unless one learns it and then finds> > > it to be wrong. Misusing one's credentials of a professor for> > > ridiculing a discipline publicly, without knowing its basics, is> > > neither scholarship not gentleman-like behaviour, to put it mildly.> > >> > > Sunil jee further says :"Around 450 BCE the Winter solstice in the> > > Makar rashi and the Vernal equinox at the beginning of Ashwin> > > coincided. Due to precession such coincidence do not occur now."> > >> > > Since I am supposed to be unaware of such things, I would like to> > > request Sunil jee to teach me how precession can be attributed to> > > explain things which Indians used in terms of ayanamsha. Equating> > > precession with ayanamsha has a two centuries of colonial history> > > beginning from Colebrooke & c. Even today, a majority of modernized> > > guys hold such a conception.> > >> > > But ayanamsha is not a modern or western concept. Please show me> > > evidences from ancient texts for equating ayanamsha with precession.> > > It is a modern hoax created by materialists who distorted data from> > > original texts to deduce what they believed to be "scientific"> > > explanation of ancient Indian astronomy. I have already explained> > > ancient definition of ayanamsha, but Sunil jee gladly overlooks the> > > real definition and supports the modern myths about ayanamsha.> > >> > > Astrology is a practical discipline, and wrong definitions of> > > ayanamsha are resulting in wrong astrological softwares giving false> > > predictions. Why ancient methods cannot be even tested, before being> > > didcarded ?> > >> > > -VJ> > > ============= ============= =============> > >> > >> > >> > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya> > > sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Sreenadhji,> > > >> > > > I too agree wth Vinayji on the assessment of these two persons, but> > > with a slight difference.> > > >> > > > A.K.Kaul's actions are more like an anti- Hindu person and his> > > knowledge of Sanskrit is as good as zero as he has misinterpreted so> > > many verses, unless he had done so wilfully. You might have seen that> > > on several occasions when I caught him in his misinterpretations, in> > > another forum and he immediately left those topics. He did not know> > > the difference between Sakendra-kala of Varahamihira and the> > > Sakanta-kala of Brahmagupta and he got the date of Varahamihira all> > > wrong. Because of his not being aware of the true date of Varahamihira> > > he thought Varahamihira copied entirely from the Greeks and called> > > Varahamihira a charalatan, in almost all his mails. He does have a> > > point about Makara Sankranti but he does not appear to know the> > > genesis of the problem correctly. You are aware that Winter solstice> > > occurred in the Makara rashi, for about two thousand years. Around 450> > > BCE the Winter solstice in the Makar rashi and the Vernal equinox at> > > the beginning of> > > > Ashwin coincided. Due to precession such coincidence do not occur> > > now. That Mesharambha calendar went to the west at that time and that> > > is the basis of the western calendar and corrections including those> > > of Pope Gregory were applied later. Though Jesus Christ was born in> > > September it was decoided in the 4th century to observe Jesus Christ's> > > birthday on that auspicious day. The Makar sankraman ie. when the Sun> > > enters the Makar rashi has shifted and how canthen one observe Makar> > > sankraman in a rashi other than Makar rashi. He wants us to observe> > > Makar sankraman in another rashi. What he should have probably said is> > > that such being the case let us observe the Winter solstice separately> > > on the day the Winter solstice actually occurs and let the Makar> > > Sankranti be observed when the Sun enters the Makar rashi. But he> > > behaves like an anti- Hindu person. Please tell me if I am wrong.> > > >> > > > On the other hand Prof. Iyengar dioes not know astrology at all and> > > he criticises it as he thinks that it is unscientific. He has reduced> > > the antiquity of the Mahabharata war by misinterpreting the data given> > > by Vedavyasa. In that his action is like Rajesh Kocchar and the> > > Marxist scholar Romila Thapar, who too revel in lowering the antiquity> > > of the ancient Hindu chronology. Kindly tell me if I am wrong.> > > >> > > > Regards,> > > >> > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Sreenadh sreesog@ wrote:> > > > Sreenadh sreesog@> > > > Re: Learn to Compute Surya> > > Siddhantic Ayanamsha before abusing it> > > > > > > > Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 1:13 AM> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Vinay ji,> > > > That was a curious and informative mail! Thanks for sharing.> > > > ==>> > > > > Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :> > > > > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning> > > > > ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu> > > > > scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of> > > Hindus.> > > > <==> > > > Good observation! That is completly true for Koul (AKK), but the> > > 2nd point is a bit too harsh for RNI it seems - I don't think he is> > so.> > > > Coming to the Siddantic concepts and statements - I am no good to> > > comment; and so helds back.> > > > Love and regards,> > > > Sreenadh> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "vinayjhaa16"> > > <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Regarding the discussion about ayanamsha, I would like to refer to> > one> > > > > of my previous posts at> > > > > http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology> > > /message/ 17045> > > > > which contains the following passage written by me :> > > > >> > > > > RNI wrote "May God save Hinduism from Vedic Astrologers, who> > advocate> > > > > the Vedic Uttarayana Punyakala (known from medieval times as> > Makara> > > > > Sankranti)to be observed on 14th January." Christian New Year> > > > > commenced from nirayana Makar Samkranti for sixteen centuries,> > before> > > > > tropicalists substracted 13 days and now Jan-1 comes 13 days> > before> > > > > Makar Samkranti. God saved Christians from this abominable Makar> > > > > Samkranti, and now RNI wishes "May God save Hinduism" too.> > > > >> > > > > Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :> > > > >> > > > > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning> > > > > ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu> > > > > scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of> > > Hindus.> > > > >> > > > > Both of them do not know the traditional definition of Ayanamsha,> > and> > > > > are misled by fools like Colebrooke and Burgess who confused> > Ayanamsha> > > > > with precession. Suryasiddhanta clearly defines that ayanamsha is> > > > > libration of the orbit of nakshatras like a pendulum, within a> > range> > > > > of +/- 27 degrees. This orbit of nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru> > > > > once in 60 years. all objects beyond this orbit are not grahas,> > like> > > > > Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. Graha of Vedic Jyotisha is defined in> > terms> > > > > of nakshatra-kakshaa and not in terms of their relation to the> > Sun.> > > > > Reverend Burgess & c had no interest in understanding and> > explaining> > > > > Suryasiddhanta. Such persons had another agenda : to poke fun at> > Hindu> > > > > astronomy. I will post the loopholes in the foolish commentaries> > of> > > > > Burgess and his chelas in a phased manner.> > > > >> > > > > This nakshatra orbit cannot be directly perceived, because no> > material> > > > > oject lies there. But its existence has already been proven. Cf.> > > > > http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+> > > to+Rain+Forecast ing> > > > >> > > > > I will explain it according to the level of curiosity in readers.> > > > >> > > > > -VJ> > > > > ============ ======== ============ ========= === ============> > =====> > > > >> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "sunil nair"> > > > > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hare ramakrishna> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > respected vinay ji> > > > > >> > > > > > namaskar> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > many thanks for disclosing to us the intricasies of surya> > > sidhantha and> > > > > > first time tho u r trying to teach a real mlecha with guru> > > chandalatwa> > > > > > we got valuable lesson and we r thankful for u and if possible> > > pls giv> > > > > > us more of ur ideas and knowledge abt it to us who r not much> > > lucky to> > > > > > delve into secrets of bharatiya ganita sastra and gola sastras> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > kaul and team is outrightly taken contract to destroy hindu> > phalita> > > > > > jyotisha as it is givng obstacles to christian and semetic> > > religions a> > > > > > gr8 threat and even after pumping billions and after 2 centuries> > > they r> > > > > > still not in victory stand and which is a dilemma if u compare> > with> > > > > > other nations and cultures which was ruled by western countries> > > ,within> > > > > > no matter of time including royal families got converted in many> > > many> > > > > > countries ruled by them or even their own culture completely> > > lost .so i> > > > > > hav strong doubts abt his real aim ,is it only celebrating> > > festivals or> > > > > > celebrating the last rites of hinduism .> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > thanks and regrds sunil nair> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology,> > "vinayjhaa16"> > > > > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to> > find a> > > > > > > supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards.> > > At first,> > > > > > > I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but> > > Mr A K> > > > > > > Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp> > > about> > > > > > > Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read> > > but could> > > > > > > not digest.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K> > > Kaul calls> > > > > > > Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I> > > feel it> > > > > > > necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He> > > says :> > > > > > > "If you take these shlokas , which are supposed to be> > referring to> > > > > > > precession/ayanamsh a as authentic and from the original Surya> > > > > > > Sidhanta, then for your information, the current ayanamsha as> > > per the> > > > > > > Surya Sidhanta is not -24 (minus twenty four) degrees as> > > claimed by> > > > > > > Lahirwalas nor about 23 degrees as claimed by Shakuntala Devi> > > but +47> > > > > > > (plus forty seven) degrees! And for your further information,> > > these> > > > > > > very "trimshat kritva..." shlokas have been quoted by Narada> > Rishi> > > > > > > (sic!) in Narad Purana,which is supposed to be an authority> > > for "Vedic> > > > > > > astrologers" but Gita Press Hindi translator/commenta tor has> > > > > > > interpreted those very shlokas in such a manner as to make the> > > > > > > ayanamsha equal to that of Lahiri!"> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am> > > here using> > > > > > > the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :> > > > > > >> > > > > > > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600> > > librations/trepidat ions> > > > > > > of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of> > > +/- 27> > > > > > > degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga> > > began> > > > > > > (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000> > =)> > > > > > > 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out> > > of 600> > > > > > > librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have> > > completed.> > > > > > > Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a> > fraction> > > > > > > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It> > > is one> > > > > > > full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a> > > > > > > positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative> > > half-cycle.> > > > > > > First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets> > down to> > > > > > > zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27> > > degrees> > > > > > > and again to zero. This is negative half cycle.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the> > > positive> > > > > > > half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for> > > > > > > Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will> > > attain> > > > > > > its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with> > > 0.7095833333 -> > > > > > > 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four> > > quartets of> > > > > > > 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333> > libration is> > > > > > > equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06". it is negative.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God> > > knows> > > > > > > where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a> > > > > > > "scholar" who boasts thus : "I have read quite a few sidhants,> > > > > > > especially the SS with Sanskrit commentary Sudha Varshini by> > Pt.> > > > > > > Sudhakar Dwivedi, Hindi commentary by Mahavir Prasad> > > Shrivastav and of> > > > > > > course, the world famous Burgess translation! All the> > commentators> > > > > > > have declared unequivocally that Maya the mlechha had> > > absolutely no> > > > > > > knowledge of precession. On the other hand, the world famous> > > shlokas> > > > > > > trimshat kritva yuge bhanam... of the SS are an interpolation> > of a> > > > > > > much later date of about tenth century AD! That also has been> > > admitted> > > > > > > by all the comentators! "> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like> > > Reverend> > > > > > > Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not> > > understand the> > > > > > > intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could> > not> > > > > > > understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a> > true> > > > > > > planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real> > > > > > > forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme> > knowledge of> > > > > > > jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its "topsy turvy> > > > > > > ayanamsha".> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained> > brahma-jnana> > > > > > > ("rahasyam brahma sammitam", cf. last verse of SS) by means of> > > > > > > tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part> > > of Indian> > > > > > > culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya> > > worshipped Vedic> > > > > > > god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE> > > knowledge> > > > > > > about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).> > > > > > >> > > > > > > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say> > so.> > > > > > > Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions,> > > otherwise> > > > > > > evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or> > > visiting> > > > > > > a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden> > things> > > > > > > which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c.> > > Whether> > > > > > > SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a> > braha> > > > > > > jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of> > > Reverend> > > > > > > Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mr Kaul says :" trimshat kritva yuge bhanam... of the SS are> > an> > > > > > > interpolation of a much later date of about tenth century AD!> > That> > > > > > > also has been admitted by all the comentators! " He is either> > > lying or> > > > > > > has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a> > later> > > > > > > invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize> > > is the> > > > > > > fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of> > > equinoxes.> > > > > > > The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon> > > ancient texts> > > > > > > like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of> > it,> > > > > > > because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its> > > grahas are> > > > > > > deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after> > > tapasya.> > > > > > > Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive> > > part :> > > > > > > phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept> > the> > > > > > > existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get> > > benefits of> > > > > > > jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use> > > > > > > physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of> > Jaimini in> > > > > > > Phalita, but such a "scientific" jyotisha is neither science> > nor> > > > > > jyotisha.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta> > > and test> > > > > > > its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but> > by> > > > > > > testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians> > are> > > > > > > destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita,> > > which has> > > > > > > made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to> > > reform Phlita> > > > > > > as well !> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of> > > computing from> > > > > > > yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest> > > important> > > > > > > phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana> > > tables of> > > > > > > Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the> > > basis of the> > > > > > > extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any> > > epoch. It is> > > > > > > not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero> > > ayanamsha.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means> > > that real> > > > > > > jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to> > > see is> > > > > > > that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute> > sunrise,> > > > > > > ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension,> > etc.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the> > > > > > > mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals> > with> > > > > > > physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due> > to> > > > > > > uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its> > > manuscripts> > > > > > > were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major> > astronomical> > > > > > > constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of> > > Saurpakshiya> > > > > > > mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena.> > > Salient> > > > > > > points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three> > > years ago,> > > > > > > but is now our of print. It is being translated.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of> > Suryasiddanta.> > > > > > > Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees> > > exactly in SS.> > > > > > > Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha> > > ecliptic> > > > > > > planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78)> > > degrees, and> > > > > > > then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum> > Drikpakshiya> > > > > > > declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48" . Now-a-days,> > > nutation> > > > > > > is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely> > > accurate> > > > > > > value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple,> > > yet so> > > > > > > superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind> > > deserve this> > > > > > > divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology,> > > otherwise we> > > > > > > will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of> > all> > > > > > > followeres of Lahiri are doing today.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he> > > can ever> > > > > > > imagine. But not if he abuses its "topsy-turvy" things which> > > he does> > > > > > > not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations> > shown> > > > > > above.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta> > > before> > > > > > > abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.> > > > > > > Suryasiddanta is "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam" , which has never> > been> > > > > > > given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong> > > > > > > brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but> > > brahmacharya is> > > > > > > the first condition for getting "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam" .> > > However,> > > > > > > materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of> > > > > > > Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the> > Suryasiddhantic> > > > > > > world of Noumena.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will> > > be dealt> > > > > > > with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of> > > Colebrooke and> > > > > > > his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to> > an> > > > > > > abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to> > > undergo some> > > > > > > penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr> > > Kaul and> > > > > > > others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and> > > > > > sincerity.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -VJ> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>