Originality of Suryasiddhanta

April 21, 2009

Dear all.

Namaskar,

The Suryasiddhanta, the ancient jewel of Indian Astronomy, has been spoken of disparagingly by a lot of people, which include both Western scholars and some Indians. You can see the following facts for yourself.

Suryasiddhanta is an ancient text and it is obvious that the data given therein will not exactly hold for today. It is only imperative that the data of the Suryasiddhanta should be upgraded from time to time as the motions as well as the mutual distances of the grahas and the upagrahas do change with time. Bhaskaracharya and others corrected the data for their own time. Towards the end of the 19th century CE Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar revised the data based on his own naked eye obsevation of the heavenly bodies. Only after his bok was published that Samanta Chandrasekhar was given a telescope by a person and he exclaimed that if only he had it earlier. Samantaji never borrowed any data from the western scholars though Vinayji guesses that Samantaji got data from the western scholars. The data as corrected by Samantaji holds good for most of the astronomical calculations. The calculations of the eclipse timings

may now be somewhat off and one may need to update that data. In ancient times the astronomers were not like the arm-chair astronomers of today and therefore such updation was not a problem at all. Hartley got good results by using the data from the Suryasiddhanta and he says that the data were more accurate for past observations. This is in line with the requirement of updation of the data of Suryasiddhjanta from time to time. Thus Suryasiddhanta is an astronomical book for all time to come, if viewed positively. Only an ignorant person will condemn Suryasiddhanta. Mayasura was the composer of the Suryasiddhanta. Manu smriti tells us about people using two bhashas ie. Arya-bhasha (refined language such as sanskrit)) and Mlechha-bhasha (unrefined language). It is known that Mayasura was definitely not one of the mlecchas as Mayasura wrote the Suryasiddhanta in the Sanskrit language. Ironically some modern mlecchas (

who use foul words such as charlatan to describe others) call Mayasura as mleccha. An Asura is not necessarily a bad peerson either as even Lord Krishna had been called an "Asura" as he fought with Indra, the king of the suras.

Mayasura was the author of Suryasiddhanta and he is said to have got the knowledge of astronomy directly from Lord Surya. This obviously means that he meditated on Lord Surya and observed the movement of the heavenly bodies and thus he acquired the knowledge of astronomy. Even in the 19th century Samanta Chabndrasekhar got his knowledge by direct observation of the heavenly bodies. Only a school-child will ask if Lord Surya came in person before Mayasura and taught him Astronomy.

As regards the date of Mayasura some skeptics say that there were several Mayasuras. Suffice it to say that the last of the Mayasuras lived in the days of the Mahabharata war ie towards the end of the Dwapara yuga. So Suryasiddhanta was composed at least about three millennia before the Greeks came to know astronomy. It is also known that the Asura king Bhagadatta brought to Hastinapur, a group of Yavanas from Pragjyitishpur, which as its name indicates, was the earliest seat of Jyotisha in the ancient times.

Hope you will find this information useful.

regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sun, 4/19/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved wrote:

Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved[ind-Arch] Fwd: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhantaindiaarchaeology Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 11:49 PM

Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "Avtar Krishen Kaul" <jyotirved@. ..> wrote:Shri Vinay Jha-ji,Namaskar!Since you have alreadey downloaded a copy of Mahesh/Ganesh program and maybe even Vasishta program from Hindu calendar forum, I am sure that by now you are aware that the Surya Sidhanta fundamental arguments are anything but correct! They are the most monstrous, beyond even the imagination of a really good astronomer!Maya the mlechha is actually a liar of the worst kind since he claims to have obtained those planetary details direct from Surya Bhagwan himself at the fag end of the last Satya Yuga, i.e. at least several million years ago, as per the duration of yugas of the same

Surya Sidhanta which is being eulogized by some "Vedic astrologers" .Or do you mean to say that it was Surya Bhagwan Himelf who gave Maya the mlechha wrong arguments, and that also millions of years back?If we do not have any books even on palm leaves of an era of even 6000 BCE available by now, how come it is only works like Brighu Samhitas and Surya Sidhanta etc that have survied for millions of years?If Maya the mlechha of the Surya Sidhanta is the Maya of Satya/Trea-yuga, he is supposed to be the father-in-law of Rakishasa king Ravana! How can it be the same so called Maya of the Mahabharata era? Or do you meant to say that like Brighu Samhita, he also survived right from the end of Satya-yuga to the fag end of Dwapara-yuga to guide Arjuna through forest fire?Thus you have first to see tha janma-patri of Maya himself through your Kundalee softwaree to acertain his earlier and successive janmas to decide as to which Maya, if at all it

is the real Maya, it is that you are talking about and defending!Regards,A K KaulIndian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:>> > To All :> > One proof of archaicness and originality of Suryasiddhanta, which some> misguided persons assume to be an adaptation from Greek work.> > > > > Mahabharata (MBh) has a story that when Jaraasandha threw his (tantric)> gadaa at Mathura, it fell just adjacent to Mathura at a distance of 99> yojanas from Girivraja, the ancient capital of Magadha.> > > > > Suryasiddhanta says Earth's equatorial diameter is of 1600

yojanas,> whose modern value is 12756.4 Kms (or 12756.3) . Hence, one> Suryasiddhantic yojana measures 7.97274625 Kms.> > Computed the distance of Girivraja to Mathura and convert it into> Suryasiddhantic yojana, it comes to be 98.54 yojanas, which Vyaasa ji> rounded off to 99 in his verse.> > The value of yojana in Aryabhatiya and Panchsiddhantika was 1.5 times> greater than that of Suryasiddhantic one. In later ages, it fluctuated> towards upper side of Aryabhatta's value, and never came to lower side> near to Suryasiddhantic value. Since Panchsiddhantika mentions> Suryasiddhanta, the latter must be an earliker work than> Panchsiddhantika. Moreover, before Ajatshatru shifted the capital of> Magadha to Pataliputra around ~490 BCE (I forget the exact year), the> capital was at Rajgir. Girivraja was the capital in so-called> prehistoric period

(before ~600 BCE), and never in historic period.> Therefore, can we not say that this story of MBh and magnitude of> Suryasiddhantic yojana belong to a prehistoric period ??? This story> cannot be brushed aside as an interpolation, because it forms part of> the main story and its mathematical value is also accurate.> > Narada Purana is also accredited to Vyaasa Ji, although white and brown> sahibs can think otherwise. It gives details which fit well with> Suryasiddhanta. Moreover, the philosophical and cosmological framework> of Suryasiddhanta is perfectly in harmony with Vedic-Puranic- Epic> tradition. Therefore, the kernel of all those references to astrology or> astronomy in Vedic, Puranic and epic texts must be prehistoric which fit> with Suryasiddhantic framework. It is only a summarized view, one proof> in favour of which I have cited above.> >

There are interpolations in epic-Puranic texts which conform to> Vedic-Puranic- Epic tradition of Suryasiddhantic astrology / astronomy or> cosmology, but have a far smaller value of yojana. Such a small value> has never been attested in historical period. Hence, I guess these> interpolations belong to Harappan period perhaps. Hence, during the> entire span of Treta and Dvapar ages, Suryasiddhantic yojana must have> in vogue, unless proven otherwise, on account of aforementioned evidence> from MBh, and similarity in other writings ascribed to Vyaasa ji with> Suryasiddhantic framework.> > Now, I come to a difficult point. Almagest (Syntaxis) is a hotch-potch> written by a clever plagiarist Ptolemy. Ptolemy is a proven plagiarist,> who stole the idea of Hipparchus about precession and ascribed the> discovery to his own experiments and observations. But modern

researches> have shown that those observational values belonged to the epoch of> Hipparchus and not of Ptolemy (read the book 'The Crime of Ptolemy' by a> modern professor Newton). Another hitherto undiscovered plagiary of> Ptolemy is the fact that Suryasiddhanta has an organic unity and> beautiful systemic coherence which Almagest lacks. It is next to> impossible to prove this point, because Indians do not study either> Almagest or Suryasiddhanta, and Westerners will never listen to> Suryasiddhantic point of view. One instance of the great mathematical> coherence amounting to almost magic can be viewed by Clicking Here> <http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Suryasiddanta+ %3A+Proof+ of+Brahma% \> 27s+Age> . There are many such hidden magics in

Suryasiddhanta, the> greatest of which is the accuracy of predictive astrology based on it,> which was true in the era of Varaha Mihira and is true even today. I am> translating my Hindi works and uploading them one by one on the> internet.> > One should test the accuracy of Suryasiddhanta astrologically, by means> of Kundalee software. I have nothing to gain from it, because I never> earned a paisa out of astrology. Kundalee software will turn even a> novice into good astrologer in short time, provided intent is sincere.> > > > > -VJ> > ============ ==== ============ ====>--- End forwarded message ---

April 21, 2009

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, //Mayasura was the author of Suryasiddhanta and he is said to have got

the knowledge of astronomy directly from Lord Surya. This obviously

means that he meditated on Lord Surya and observed the movement of the

heavenly bodies and thus he acquired the knowledge of astronomy.// No - this simply means that Maya was the student of (maya learned from) the ancient well revered sage with the name Surya who is the Kulacharya (Chancellor of the University) of the Rishu kula Surya Kula (just like Vasishta Kula, Garga kula etc). This sage Surya is considered among one of the 18 Jyotisastra Pravartaka (great propogaters or teachers of astrologia wisdom) and is the originator and original teacher of Surya Siddhanta, Surya Jataka and many more texts. Maya learned from this great sage and belongs to this Kula parampara of traditional widom. That is why it is said that he learned astronomy from Surya. Here the word 'Surya' DOES NOT refer to Sun, but to an ancient sage with the name 'Surya' (i.e. Surya Acharya or Sage Surya). This is my opinion and understanding. By the way - Sage Surya's teachings on astrology is in tune with Arsha (Hindu; Sanatana) School of astrological thought than with Garga (Jain) or Yavana (Ionion) school of astrological thought. Usually each of the 18 Jyotisastra pravatakas are the Kulacharyas of some astrological school of thought with minor differences. For example Manu (mentioned among the 18 acharyas) was the propogator of Sayana (Vedic) System of astrology and Bhrigu was of Nadi system of astrology, Vyasa was of Siderial (Nakshatra) system of astrology etc (But a later day sage of the same kula named Badarayana, spoke about Nirayana system in general and longivity calculations as well). The lost system among these various schools include that of Chaivana, Angira, Atri etc. Hope this info would be useful.Love and regards,Sreenadh , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear all.> > Namaskar,> > The Suryasiddhanta, the ancient jewel of Indian Astronomy, has been spoken of disparagingly by a lot of people, which include both Western scholars and some Indians. You can see the following facts for yourself.> > Suryasiddhanta is an ancient text and it is obvious that the data given therein will not exactly hold for today. It is only imperative that the data of the Suryasiddhanta should be upgraded from time to time as the motions as well as the mutual distances of the grahas and the upagrahas do change with time. Bhaskaracharya and others corrected the data for their own time. Towards the end of the 19th century CE Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar revised the data based on his own naked eye obsevation of the heavenly bodies. Only after his bok was published that Samanta Chandrasekhar was given a telescope by a person and he exclaimed that if only he had it earlier. Samantaji never borrowed any data from the western scholars though Vinayji guesses that Samantaji got data from the western scholars. The data as corrected by Samantaji holds good for most of the astronomical calculations. The calculations of the eclipse timings may now be somewhat off and one> may need to update that data. In ancient times the astronomers were not like the arm-chair astronomers of today and therefore such updation was not a problem at all. Hartley got good results by using the data from the Suryasiddhanta and he says that the data were more accurate for past observations. This is in line with the requirement of updation of the data of Suryasiddhjanta from time to time. Thus Suryasiddhanta is an astronomical book for all time to come, if viewed positively. Only an ignorant person will condemn Suryasiddhanta. Mayasura was the composer of the Suryasiddhanta. Manu smriti tells us about people using two bhashas ie. Arya-bhasha (refined language such as sanskrit)) and Mlechha-bhasha (unrefined language). It is known that Mayasura was definitely not one of the mlecchas as Mayasura wrote the Suryasiddhanta in the Sanskrit language. Ironically some modern mlecchas ( who use foul words such as charlatan to describe others)> call Mayasura as mleccha. An Asura is not necessarily a bad peerson either as even Lord Krishna had been called an "Asura" as he fought with Indra, the king of the suras. > > Mayasura was the author of Suryasiddhanta and he is said to have got the knowledge of astronomy directly from Lord Surya. This obviously means that he meditated on Lord Surya and observed the movement of the heavenly bodies and thus he acquired the knowledge of astronomy. Even in the 19th century Samanta Chabndrasekhar got his knowledge by direct observation of the heavenly bodies. Only a school-child will ask if Lord Surya came in person before Mayasura and taught him Astronomy.> > As regards the date of Mayasura some skeptics say that there were several Mayasuras. Suffice it to say that the last of the Mayasuras lived in the days of the Mahabharata war ie towards the end of the Dwapara yuga. So Suryasiddhanta was composed at least about three millennia before the Greeks came to know astronomy. It is also known that the Asura king Bhagadatta brought to Hastinapur, a group of Yavanas from Pragjyitishpur, which as its name indicates, was the earliest seat of Jyotisha in the ancient times.> > Hope you will find this information useful.> > regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

April 21, 2009

Namaste,

I support Sunil ji's view that Maya Asura was not a mlechchha. But I hope my

differences with him on following points will be answered in good spirit.

Eclipses are based upon relative motion of Moon with respect to Sun, and is

therefore a function of synodical month. Suryasiddhantic synodical month

(29.530587946071718224742696207476 days = 53433336 synodic revolutions in a

Mahayuga of 1577917828 days) is only 0.01204949 seconds longer than long term

average value of modern astronomical value of 29.53058780661 days, which

implies a difference of merely 19 seconds in 1600 years. Hence, Hartley found

no major difference between Suryasiddhantic and pgysical eclipses.

But it is utterly wrong to say on this basis that Suryasiddhantic planets

tallied with physical planets in the past. It is a false myth created by modern

Western critics posing as experts of Suryasiddhanta. I have supplied past data

about physical and Suryasiddhantic planetary positions in detail , yet Sunil ji

is sticking to false claims that Suryasiddhantic planets conformed to " real "

(ie, physical) positions in the past. Why he does not back up his false claims

with calculations ? There is no period in past , present or future when

Suryasiddhantic planets show less than ~10 degrees of difference from physical

planets. I have supplied data from 382 - 1082 AD, and I can supply data for

other periods too if Sunil ji wants. But he has no respect for facts and is

propagating fictious ideas. I request him not to give vent to unfounded

assertions based on Western critics.

His statement is wrong : " The data as corrected by Samantaji holds good for most

of the astronomical calculations " . What is the proof ? Siddhantic method can

never be corrected for giving results acceptable with refrence to physical

planets, whatever corrections we make in terms used. Sunil ji does not know the

siddhantic formulae, that is why makes such wrong guesses. I had explained four

samskaaras made in siddhantic mean planets, but modern astronomy does not

recognize such samskaaras. Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar used siddhantic method

and made changes merely in the magnitudes of terms. Hence, he got some

approximations to planetary positions of modern astronomy for his year of

observation, but these approximations soon grew upto intolerable differences.

That is why no one accepted Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar's method, excepting

Sunil ji who may be celebrating festivals secretly according to Pandit Samanta

Chandrasekhar's calculations, perhaps !!

Only an atheist can say " Only a school-child will ask if Lord Surya came in

person before Mayasura and taught him Astronomy " and that " skeptics say that

there were several Mayasuras " (please take my words in a friendly manner).

Pragjyotishpur was the easternmost city of ancient India where first Sunrise

(Prak - jyotish) occurred. Pragjyotishpur has no special contribution to

astrology. It is useless to counter such baseless statements. Sunil ji falsely

claims that Suryasiddhanta had 100000 verses originally (only 502 are left)!!

He feels no need of giving proof in favour of his invented myths. He feels

anything can be posted on internet.

-VJ

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

indiaarchaeology

Cc: ; ;

vedic_research_institute

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:43:22 AM

Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta

Dear all.

Namaskar,

The Suryasiddhanta, the ancient jewel of Indian Astronomy, has been spoken of

disparagingly by a lot of people, which include both Western scholars and some

Indians. You can see the following facts for yourself.

Suryasiddhanta is an ancient text and it is obvious that the data given therein

will not exactly hold for today. It is only imperative that the data of the

Suryasiddhanta should be upgraded from time to time as the motions as well as

the mutual distances of the grahas and the upagrahas do change with time.

Bhaskaracharya and others corrected the data for their own time. Towards the end

of the 19th century CE Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar revised the data based on

his own naked eye obsevation of the heavenly bodies. Only after his bok was

published that Samanta Chandrasekhar was given a telescope by a person and he

exclaimed that if only he had it earlier. Samantaji never borrowed any data from

the western scholars though Vinayji guesses that Samantaji got data from the

western scholars. The data as corrected by Samantaji holds good for most of the

astronomical calculations. The calculations of the eclipse timings may now be

somewhat off and one

may need to update that data. In ancient times the astronomers were not like the

arm-chair astronomers of today and therefore such updation was not a problem at

all. Hartley got good results by using the data from the Suryasiddhanta and he

says that the data were more accurate for past observations. This is in line

with the requirement of updation of the data of Suryasiddhjanta from time to

time. Thus Suryasiddhanta is an astronomical book for all time to come, if

viewed positively. Only an ignorant person will condemn Suryasiddhanta. Mayasura

was the composer of the Suryasiddhanta. Manu smriti tells us about people using

two bhashas ie. Arya-bhasha (refined language such as sanskrit)) and

Mlechha-bhasha (unrefined language). It is known that Mayasura was definitely

not one of the mlecchas as Mayasura wrote the Suryasiddhanta in the Sanskrit

language. Ironically some modern mlecchas ( who use foul words such as charlatan

to describe others)

call Mayasura as mleccha. An Asura is not necessarily a bad peerson either as

even Lord Krishna had been called an " Asura " as he fought with Indra, the king

of the suras.

Mayasura was the author of Suryasiddhanta and he is said to have got the

knowledge of astronomy directly from Lord Surya. This obviously means that he

meditated on Lord Surya and observed the movement of the heavenly bodies and

thus he acquired the knowledge of astronomy. Even in the 19th century Samanta

Chabndrasekhar got his knowledge by direct observation of the heavenly bodies.

Only a school-child will ask if Lord Surya came in person before Mayasura and

taught him Astronomy.

As regards the date of Mayasura some skeptics say that there were several

Mayasuras. Suffice it to say that the last of the Mayasuras lived in the days of

the Mahabharata war ie towards the end of the Dwapara yuga. So Suryasiddhanta

was composed at least about three millennia before the Greeks came to know

astronomy. It is also known that the Asura king Bhagadatta brought to

Hastinapur, a group of Yavanas from Pragjyitishpur, which as its name indicates,

was the earliest seat of Jyotisha in the ancient times.

Hope you will find this information useful.

regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sun, 4/19/09, Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> wrote:

Avtar Krishen Kaul <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com>

[ind-Arch] Fwd: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta

indiaarchaeology

Sunday, April 19, 2009, 11:49 PM

Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " Avtar Krishen

Kaul " <jyotirved@. ..> wrote:

Shri Vinay Jha-ji,

Namaskar!

Since you have alreadey downloaded a copy of Mahesh/Ganesh program and maybe

even Vasishta program from Hindu calendar forum, I am sure that by now you are

aware that the Surya Sidhanta fundamental arguments are anything but correct!

They are the most monstrous, beyond even the imagination of a really good

astronomer!

Maya the mlechha is actually a liar of the worst kind since he claims to have

obtained those planetary details direct from Surya Bhagwan himself at the fag

end of the last Satya Yuga, i.e. at least several million years ago, as per the

duration of yugas of the same Surya Sidhanta which is being eulogized by some

" Vedic astrologers " .

Or do you mean to say that it was Surya Bhagwan Himelf who gave Maya the mlechha

wrong arguments, and that also millions of years back?

If we do not have any books even on palm leaves of an era of even 6000 BCE

available by now, how come it is only works like Brighu Samhitas and Surya

Sidhanta etc that have survied for millions of years?

If Maya the mlechha of the Surya Sidhanta is the Maya of Satya/Trea-yuga, he is

supposed to be the father-in-law of Rakishasa king Ravana! How can it be the

same so called Maya of the Mahabharata era? Or do you meant to say that like

Brighu Samhita, he also survived right from the end of Satya-yuga to the fag end

of Dwapara-yuga to guide Arjuna through forest fire?

Thus you have first to see tha janma-patri of Maya himself through your Kundalee

softwaree to acertain his earlier and successive janmas to decide as to which

Maya, if at all it is the real Maya, it is that you are talking about and

defending!

Regards,

A K Kaul

Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

>

> To All :

>

> One proof of archaicness and originality of Suryasiddhanta, which some

> misguided persons assume to be an adaptation from Greek work.

>

> Mahabharata (MBh) has a story that when Jaraasandha threw his (tantric)

> gadaa at Mathura, it fell just adjacent to Mathura at a distance of 99

> yojanas from Girivraja, the ancient capital of Magadha.

>

> Suryasiddhanta says Earth's equatorial diameter is of 1600 yojanas,

> whose modern value is 12756.4 Kms (or 12756.3) . Hence, one

> Suryasiddhantic yojana measures 7.97274625 Kms.

>

> Computed the distance of Girivraja to Mathura and convert it into

> Suryasiddhantic yojana, it comes to be 98.54 yojanas, which Vyaasa ji

> rounded off to 99 in his verse.

>

> The value of yojana in Aryabhatiya and Panchsiddhantika was 1.5 times

> greater than that of Suryasiddhantic one. In later ages, it fluctuated

> towards upper side of Aryabhatta's value, and never came to lower side

> near to Suryasiddhantic value. Since Panchsiddhantika mentions

> Suryasiddhanta, the latter must be an earliker work than

> Panchsiddhantika. Moreover, before Ajatshatru shifted the capital of

> Magadha to Pataliputra around ~490 BCE (I forget the exact year), the

> capital was at Rajgir. Girivraja was the capital in so-called

> prehistoric period (before ~600 BCE), and never in historic period.

> Therefore, can we not say that this story of MBh and magnitude of

> Suryasiddhantic yojana belong to a prehistoric period ??? This story

> cannot be brushed aside as an interpolation, because it forms part of

> the main story and its mathematical value is also accurate.

>

> Narada Purana is also accredited to Vyaasa Ji, although white and brown

> sahibs can think otherwise. It gives details which fit well with

> Suryasiddhanta. Moreover, the philosophical and cosmological framework

> of Suryasiddhanta is perfectly in harmony with Vedic-Puranic- Epic

> tradition. Therefore, the kernel of all those references to astrology or

> astronomy in Vedic, Puranic and epic texts must be prehistoric which fit

> with Suryasiddhantic framework. It is only a summarized view, one proof

> in favour of which I have cited above.

>

> There are interpolations in epic-Puranic texts which conform to

> Vedic-Puranic- Epic tradition of Suryasiddhantic astrology / astronomy or

> cosmology, but have a far smaller value of yojana. Such a small value

> has never been attested in historical period. Hence, I guess these

> interpolations belong to Harappan period perhaps. Hence, during the

> entire span of Treta and Dvapar ages, Suryasiddhantic yojana must have

> in vogue, unless proven otherwise, on account of aforementioned evidence

> from MBh, and similarity in other writings ascribed to Vyaasa ji with

> Suryasiddhantic framework.

>

> Now, I come to a difficult point. Almagest (Syntaxis) is a hotch-potch

> written by a clever plagiarist Ptolemy. Ptolemy is a proven plagiarist,

> who stole the idea of Hipparchus about precession and ascribed the

> discovery to his own experiments and observations. But modern researches

> have shown that those observational values belonged to the epoch of

> Hipparchus and not of Ptolemy (read the book 'The Crime of Ptolemy' by a

> modern professor Newton). Another hitherto undiscovered plagiary of

> Ptolemy is the fact that Suryasiddhanta has an organic unity and

> beautiful systemic coherence which Almagest lacks. It is next to

> impossible to prove this point, because Indians do not study either

> Almagest or Suryasiddhanta, and Westerners will never listen to

> Suryasiddhantic point of view. One instance of the great mathematical

> coherence amounting to almost magic can be viewed by Clicking Here

> <http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Suryasiddanta+ %3A+Proof+ of+Brahma%

\

> 27s+Age> . There are many such hidden magics in Suryasiddhanta, the

> greatest of which is the accuracy of predictive astrology based on it,

> which was true in the era of Varaha Mihira and is true even today. I am

> translating my Hindi works and uploading them one by one on the

> internet.

>

> One should test the accuracy of Suryasiddhanta astrologically, by means

> of Kundalee software. I have nothing to gain from it, because I never

> earned a paisa out of astrology. Kundalee software will turn even a

> novice into good astrologer in short time, provided intent is sincere.

>

> -VJ

>

> ============ ==== ============ ====

>

--- End forwarded message ---

April 22, 2009

Namaste,

Will Vinayji tell us his opinion about the Makaranda-Tables, which are based on

the Suryasiddhanta, in the light of what he said here. Makaranda develop[ed the

tables the way Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. While Makaranda corrected

the data for all the grahas probably he did not succeed in correcting the data

for Mars. Mihira (Varahamihira) was probably the last person to have seen the

original Suryasiddhanta as well as the Aryasiddhanta of the very first

Aryabhatta.

Vinayji claims to have supplied data for 382 - 1082 CE . Why did he not try the

dates around 3200 BCE, the time around which one Mayasura helped the Pandavas

establish their new capital? There could be a chance that this Mayasura was the

author of the Suryasiddhanta, though one cannot be sure. At least Vinayji should

have tried that date around 3200 BCE instead of saying that he can supply data

for other dates too if Sunilji wants.

Some people who do not have proper knowledge of the Hindu Yuga system claim that

Mayasura was there more than two million years ago. What can be more ridiculous

than that. Kaulji and his likes ridicule the Hindu Yugas just because some

ignorant Hindu scholars stick to some fantastic lengths for the yugas such as

1,296,000 years for the Dwapara yuga. One who has read the Puranas know that

the length of the Dwapara yuga is 3600 years and not 1,296,000 years. It is

because those pseudo-scholars do not know the importance of the need to use the

rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " in the interpretation of the yuga data and they

also do not know that Divya varsha is nothing but the Solar year, ie. the period

the Sun takes to come back to the same nakshatra or the Nirayana year. I read

somewhere that one author had given the date of 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta.

What can be more damaging to the Hindu Astronomy than this?

Nobody knows exactly as to how many verses the original Suryasiddhanta

contained. I too do not have any first-hand information on that as I only read

about it somewhere long time ago. Will Vinayji care to tell the group the exact

number of verses in the Suryasiddhanta as composed by Mayasura if he knows that

instead of ridiculing the figure of 100,000 verses? I hope he will also tell us

as to how he is sanguine about the number he may give if at all he can give the

correct number of verses.

Regarding the naming of Pragjyotishpur Vinayji thinks that the

ancient Indians thought the Kamrup district in Assam to be the end of the earth

on the eastern side. Interesting?

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Tue, 4/21/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta

Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 3:44 AM

Namaste,

I support Sunil ji's view that Maya Asura was not a mlechchha. But I hope my

differences with him on following points will be answered in good spirit.

Eclipses are based upon relative motion of Moon with respect to Sun, and is

therefore a function of synodical month. Suryasiddhantic synodical month

(29.530587946071718 224742696207476 days = 53433336 synodic revolutions in a

Mahayuga of 1577917828 days) is only 0.01204949 seconds longer than long term

average value of modern astronomical value of 29.53058780661 days, which implies

a difference of merely 19 seconds in 1600 years. Hence, Hartley found no major

difference between Suryasiddhantic and pgysical eclipses.