Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Those who are eternally into the fixing of dates in antiquity, etc , I request them not to bring in " Gita press " in their muddle. There are no time wasters in Gita press, all are authentic writers, the writers there are very spiritual, and the contents of their writings are the best in India. They have been able to store and relay the information which one could never find at any other single place. Before anyone takes the name of " Gita Press " as having given them wrong information, let them quote the name of the Text printed by Gita Press, and the Page number, and the exact words mentioned therein. Those who say Gita Press is wrong, prove it theroteically with proof, quoting what is mentioned exactly which is wrong, why is it wrong and what must be the right insertion? Most of these members have all the time of the world to discuss and discuss reaching nowhere and to escape their extra erroneous chatter, they bring in names of supreme institutions like " Gita Press " to defend their nonsense utterances. Dont do so, because the Gita Press are not time wasters like you. They are real people, Godly, Wise, and Knowledgable. Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 To All, esp. Sunil Ji and Prafull ji, Sunil Ji is trying hard to prove that the Vedic-Puranic-Siddhaantic yuga concept of 4320,000 years is a misinterpretation or deliberate lie of Vinay Jha. He wrongly says that divya year was equal to normal solar year. When I sent him citations from Suryasiddhanta, he poked fun at me for quoting the English translation of Burgess. Then, I sent his website addresses for procuring Bengali and names of publishers of Sanskrit versions, after which he ignored the evidence of Suryasiddhanta and diverted the topic to Mahabharata. Mr Prafulla Mendki has joined him, by quoting verses of MBh out of context. Prafulla Ji quoted rightly, the Gita Press version of MBh contains same verses with exactly same verse number and chapter number as Prafull Ji cited (MBh 2.188.22-28, Markandeya Samasyaparva). This chapter 188 does not make it clear whether divya year is meant or normal year. But as I earlier sent the reference to Sunil Ji which he ignored, exactly same verse (2.188.22) occurs in MBh again in Moksha-dharma-parva 5.231.20 without a single word differing. But verses 2.188.23-25 have been summarized succinctly in 5.231.21, without any difference in meaning. But these verses should be read in proper context of preceding verses : verses 5.231.17-19 make it clear that the year is divya, equal to 360 normal years. This does not allow me to attach file in the files sections, hence I am sending the scanned copy of this page of Gita Press edition which is in Hindi to personal email ID of Sunil Ji. If he ignores this proof as he has done so far, I will upload this scanned page to some website and request members to see how Sunil Ji is playing with facts and calling me names for stating the truth. Please also see the only online version of complete MBh at http://www.mahabharataonline.com/translation/ , esp its 5.231 chapter at http://www.mahabharataonline.com/translation/mahabharata_12b058.php whose relevant portions are as : <<<<< " Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty Muhurtas make up one day and night. Thirty days and nights are called a month, and twelve months are called a year. Persons conversant with mathematical science say that a year is made up of two ayanas (dependent on sun's motion), viz., the northern and the southern. The sun makes the day and the night for the world of man. The night is for the sleep of all living creatures, and the day is for the doing of action. A month of human beings is equal to a day and night of the Pitris. That division (as regards the Pitris) consists in this: the lighted fortnight (of men) is their day which is for the doing of acts; and the dark fortnight is their night for sleep. A year (of human beings) is equal to a day and night of the gods. The division (as regards the gods) consists in this: the half year for which the sun travels from the vernal to the autumnal equinox is the day of the deities, and the half year for which the sun travels from the latter to the former is their night. Computing by the days and nights of human beings about which I have told thee, I shall speak of the day and night of Brahman and his years also. I shall, in their order, tell thee the number of years, that are (thus) for different purposes computed differently in respect of the Krita, the Treta, the Dwapara, and the Kali yugas. Four thousand years (of the deities) is the duration of the first or Krita age. The morning of that epoch consists of four hundred years and its evening is of four hundred years. (The total duration, therefore, of the Krita yuga is four thousand and eight hundred years of the deities). As regards the other yugas, the duration of each gradually decreases by a quarter in respect of both the substantive period with the conjoining portion and the conjoining portion itself. (Thus the duration of the Treta is three thousand years and its morning extends for three hundred years and its evening for three hundred). The duration of the Dwapara also is two thousand years, and its morning extends for two hundred years and its evening also for two hundred. The duration of the Kali yuga is one thousand years, and its morning extends for one hundred years, and its evening for one hundred. " >>>>> I had sent this reference to Sunil Ji, which he ignored. Sunil ji will get the scanned copy of Gita Press version within a few minutes through email. But I know he will ignore the evidence of MBh as he did of Suryasiddhanta, and will try to find some other text where no differentiation is made between divya and human years due to brevity, and use such " proofs " for advancing his wrong theory of 12000 human years for a Mahayuga. -Vinay Jha ================== ==== , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Prafulla, >  > You made the statement: >  > Quote >  > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. >  > Unquote >  > Do I have to ask you for the Mahabharata reference for this statement or have I to accept your word for it? I think it would have been better if you would have substantiated that statement. >  > Suni K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:23 PM > Dear Sunil > The answer toyour quetion is: > If Kaliyug was not extended ,then it would have ended in 1902BC and there would have been only eight Avatars. > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > We can not change whatever happened in history because it is past. > But we can redefine Yug system in future again if all agree. > Prafulla > > > --- On Thu, 7/5/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > Cc: " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki, > Thursday, 7 May, 2009, 4:32 PM > Dear Prafulla, >  > So you mean to say that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE (3102-1200 = 1902) and the ninth Avatara of Lord Buddha has occurred in the Satya yuga. So in the last Mahayuga there were only eight Avataras. >  > S.K.Bhattacharjya >  > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:40 AM > Dear Sunil > Chatvari ahu: sahastrani varshanam tat ktrutam yugam | > tasya tavat shati sanshya sandyansha: cha tathavidha: || 2.188.22|| > trini varshasahastrani tretayugam iha uchyate| > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandyansha: cha tat: param|| 2.188.23|| > tatha varshasahastre dve dwaparam parimanat: | > tasya api dwi shati sandhya sandhyansha: cha tathavidha :|| 2.188.24|| > sahatrasm ekam varshanam tat: kaliyugam smrutam| > tasya varshshatam sandhi: sandhyansha: cha tat: param|| > sandhi sandhyanshyo: tulayam pramanam updharaya|| 2.188.25|| > prafulla > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki > Cc: , > Tuesday, 5 May, 2009, 11:15 AM > > Dear Prafulla, >  > I am referring to the textavailable from the " Sacred texts " site. Why don't you give the five verses that you are referring to? >  > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:17 PM > Dear Sunil > I am refering to Gitapress Khanda 2(Vanparva and Viratparva) in which > Markandeya Samasyaparva is present.188.22 is on page 1482.Are you refering to Gitapress or some other Edition? > Prafulla >  > > > --- On Thu, 30/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki > Thursday, 30 April, 2009, 7:46 AM > Dear Prafulla, >  > Mahabharata Book - 2 is Sabha-Parva and that does not have the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. Only the Book - 3 is Vana-Parva or Aranya-Parva and that has the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. In the Markandeya-Samasya Parva there is no verse like you have quoted. >  > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > sunil_bhattacharjya > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58 AM > Dear Sunil > I am refering to MBH2( not 3) 188.22 to 188.26( Gitapress) pages 1482 & 1483 > Chatvaryahu: sahastrani varshanam tat krutam yugam > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandhyansha:  ch tathavidha: .... > Prafulla > > > --- On Wed, 29/4/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " prafulla Vaman Mendki " prafulla_mendki > Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 5:05 AM > > Dear friend, >  > The verse (MBH 3.188.22) is as follows: >  >     अनà¥à¤¯à¥Šà¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤‚ परिमà¥à¤·à¥à¤£à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¥Š हिंसयनà¥à¤¤à¤¶ च मानवाः >     अजपा नासà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤•à¤¾à¤ƒ सतेना à¤à¤µà¤¿à¤·à¥à¤¯à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¿ यà¥à¤—कà¥à¤·à¤¯à¥‡ >  > This verse does not say what you mentioned. Can you please quote the Sanskrit verse you arer referring to? > > Best wishes, >  > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki wrote: > > > prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 6:26 AM > > > prafulla_mendki writes: > > Suryasiddhanta was written after start of Kaliyug. > As per 188.22 in MarkandeyaSamasya parva in Mahabharata, > Krut,Treta,Dwapar and Kaliyug were 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 > years only. > The idea of Dev varsha and Manav varsha came after Mahabharata > i.e. after start of Kaliyug . > Prafulla > > WAVES-Vedic , Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya@ > > Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Cc: > > Saturday, April 25, 2009, 3:42 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > >  > > Vinayji does not know himself as to how many verses were really there in the Suryasiddhanta and tries to find fault with me even though I said that  I read the figure of 100,000 in a book long ago though I do not recollect all the details. If Vinayji thinks I am wrong let him give the number of verses in the original Suryasiddhanta straightway without wasting any time. > >  > > Secondly he says as follows: > >  > > Quote > >  > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > just > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits are fools. > >  > > Unquote > >  > > Vinayji's yuga calculation will show that Lord Rama was born al least a million years ago. Any takers of that? Vinayji has not read that the Saptarshi cycle of 2700 Divya varsha is equal to 3030 Manush varsha. Hence he is making unnecessary noise here. Let him say what the Bhagavata purana and Vishnu purana say about the yugas. He has not read these as his views indicate. > >  > > Regards, > >  > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Wed, 4/22/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:44 AM > > > > Namaste, > > > > Sunil ji claimed original Suryasiddhanta had 100000 verses. Why he does not cite the source of this wonderful information instead of ridiculing me on fictious grounds ?? Sunil ji makes wild claims and then forgets to substantiate them. Bhatta Utpala quoted many verses of Suryasiddhanta which are not present in extant version. Bhaskar-II quoted a formula from Suryasiddhanta in Siddhaanta Shiromani which differs from the same formula in extant version of Suryasiddhanta, which Burgess misinterpreted, although Bhaskar had clearly mentioned in his own commentary on Siddhaanta Shiromani (Vaasanaa-bhaashya, not translated as yet) that he quoted this formula of Suryasiddhanta from Shruti (ie, from oral Vedic tradition, and not from any manuscript of Suryasiddhanta) . If Varaha Mihira had seen manuscript of Suryasiddhanta, Bhaskara-II must have seen the same, more so because Bhatta Utpala who preceded Bhaskara by just a century quoted verses from > Suryasiddhanta. > > Yet Bhaskar-II clearly says Suryasiddhanta has some items which are part of Shruti and not being committed to writing !!! Thus, there were two versions of Suryasiddhanta : written and oral. Written version has not survived in full, as is clear from Utpala's verses, but the written verse contains almopst everything required for panchanga making for astrological purposes, while the items cited from Shruti have serious differences with extant Suryasiddhanta and tally with modern physical astronomy with a high degree of precision (wrt precession). Thus, there were two versions of Suryasiddhanta, which the greatest mediaeval exponent of Suryasiddhanta Kamlakara Bhatta termed as Drikpaksha and Saurapaksha . Ketakar ji, proponent of famous of Ketaki system of panchanga making, follolwed this bifurcation , although Ketakar ji supported Drikpaksha (like Pandit Samanta Chandrasekha) while Kamlakara supported Saurapaksha for astrological purposes. > > > > Sunil ji makes a wrong statement : " Makaranda developed the tables the way Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. " The latter followed Drikpaksha while the former followed Saurapaksha. The only difference of Makaranda Tables from socalled " modern " Suryasiddhanta is the incorporation of beeja samskaara in Makaranda Tables, whose magnitudes were explained in siddhantic terms in Makaranda-vivarana by Diwakar Bhatta but Western commentators could not understant these differences which were inflated in tantra method to huge proportions, because the accumulated beeja of ~2 billion years in siddhanta method is distributed over ~5000 years in tantra method beginning from Kaliyuga and over few centuries beginning from some recent zero date. Varah Mihira followed karana method but the verse mentioning his zero date is missing is Panchsiddhantika, hence it is not possible to compute anything on the basis of Panchsiddhantika due to missing verses. > > > > Sunil Ji is merely repeating Western propaganda by stating : " Varahamihira was probably the last person to have seen the original Suryasiddhanta as well as the Aryasiddhanta of the very first Aryabhatta. " Varahamihira' s Suryasiddhanta has been called as " old " and extant version as " new " by Western commentators, in spite of the fact that he is following karana method and not siddhanta method while describing Suryasiddhanta. Makarandaachaarya also followed tantra method (different from Tantras of philosophy) instead of siddhanta method. Extant version of Suryasiddhanta is the siddhanta method. That is why those who do not know how to make panchangas from three methods imagine Varahamihira' s version to be different from that of siddhanta method. > > > > I am sorry to disclose these facts to a person who is trying to gain facts from me by paying me handsome dakshinaa in the form of sarcastic remarks and non-obscene abuses. Even when he is incapable of refuting me, he uses words which give an impression that my statements are unreliable. For instance, he says : " Vinayji claims to have supplied data for 382 - 1082 CE . " Why he does not falsify my supposed claims ?? I provided DATA, which are facts and not views. It is unfortunate Sunil ji is unable to differentiate facts from views. He may oppose my views, but he should not oppose facts. I devoted months over the period 3200 BC, as well as over other period. That is why I said Suryadiddhantic planets do not tally with physical planets for ANY period. Sunil ji has no time for making computations, and falsifies my years of research with his unsubstantiated remarks about my integrity and truthfulness. As for his own respect for truth, it is clear from > > following remark. > > > > Sunil ji is again taking a recourse to deliberate distortions of my statements with a view to poke fun at me. I said : " Pragjyotishpur was the easternmost city of ancient India where first Sunrise (Prak - jyotish) occurred. " To this, Sunil ji replied : " 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. " By replacing " India " with " earth " in my statement, whom he intends to befool ?? > > > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > just > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits are fools. > > > > While mentioning that Lord Surya gave present version of Suryasiddhanta to Maya at the end of present Satyuga, the text also says that it was given to maharshis in every yuga (ie, in every satyuga). Hence, according to Suryasiddhanta it was present at the beginning of Creation ! Whether Suryasiddhanta makes a false or true claim is another matter, but Sunil ji has no right to call me names ( " pseudo-scholar " ) just because I quote the texts accurately, instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims like him. I do not use foul words for him, as he does for me, but I must counter his wrong statements. He should read a lot before posting his statements here. Internet fora are not for misinformation by ignorants. He should study Makarandaprakaasha (published by Chowkhamba) wrt Suryasiddhanta, which will take months, before commenting wildly. > > > > -VJ > > ============ = ============ ========= == > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > > indiaarchaeology > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; @ . com; 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 --- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji, I have the Bhagavat Purana in two volumes from the Gita Press. It gives the span of the Mahayuga and also gives the numerals to calculate the four yugas. Applying the applicable mathematical rules the span of the Kali yuga comes out to be 4800 years. As per this calculation Lord Biuddha was born in the Kali yuga. According to the figures arrived at by Prafulla from the Mahabharata Lord Buddha was not born in Kali yuga and you too seem to have accepted it without questioning. If two books from the same Press give two different yuga spans it is natural that eyebrows will be raised. You are blessed as you have not noticed this discrepancy. I am away from India and due to weight restrictions it is not possible to bring all books with me. I would have been happy if Prafulla would have also checked the verses in the critical edition of the Mahabharata brought out by the Bhandarkar Oriental Reasearch Institute (BORI), the copies of which should be available in some libraries in Kalyan and Mumbai. Further I could not accept Prafulla's statement that the Kali yuga was selectively extended and he had not given any reference on it from the Mahabharata. In a way he is negating the span of the Kali yuga given by his verses. Is it not a discrepancy? Since you are quite upset about the questioning of the verses I think you may also check up in the BORI version and tell us what you find there. In so doing you will not waste your time. But if you do not have interest in yuga systems just ignore these mails on the yugas. The does not have any restrictions on the number of mails that can be posted in the group at any time. So these mails on the yugas are not coming in the way of the number of mails you are interested in. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 10:21 PM Those who are eternally into the fixing of dates in antiquity, etc , Irequest them not to bring in "Gita press" in their muddle.There are no time wasters in Gita press, all are authentic writers, thewriters there are very spiritual, and the contents of their writings arethe best in India. They have been able to store and relay theinformation which one could never find at any other single place.Before anyone takes the name of "Gita Press" as having given them wronginformation, let them quote the name of the Text printed by Gita Press,and the Page number, and the exact words mentioned therein.Those who say Gita Press is wrong, prove it theroteically with proof,quoting what is mentioned exactly which is wrong, why is it wrong andwhat must be the right insertion?Most of these members have all the time of the world to discuss anddiscuss reaching nowhere and to escape their extra erroneous chatter,they bring in names of supreme institutions like "Gita Press" to defendtheir nonsense utterances.Dont do so, because the Gita Press are not time wasters like you. Theyare real people, Godly, Wise, and Knowledgable.Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Dear All, To start with I would like to clarify that I don't hve any insight or authority on this subject. However, I would like to share a conclusion drawn by a researcher ( I don't reember the name) on Surya Siddhanta is that the numbers used for calculations were deliberately multiplied by 100 to avoid decimals in the calculations and yet keep the accuracy intact. That author also felt that Divya Year is same as our normal year and hence the length of a chaturyuga is 4,32,000 years. Please note that these are not my inferences as I have not studied this subject in detail. I thought I will just share what I read. Regards, Krishna ________________________________ vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16 Monday, 11 May, 2009 12:22:58 PM Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta To All, esp. Sunil Ji and Prafull ji, Sunil Ji is trying hard to prove that the Vedic-Puranic- Siddhaantic yuga concept of 4320,000 years is a misinterpretation or deliberate lie of Vinay Jha. He wrongly says that divya year was equal to normal solar year. When I sent him citations from Suryasiddhanta, he poked fun at me for quoting the English translation of Burgess. Then, I sent his website addresses for procuring Bengali and names of publishers of Sanskrit versions, after which he ignored the evidence of Suryasiddhanta and diverted the topic to Mahabharata. Mr Prafulla Mendki has joined him, by quoting verses of MBh out of context. Prafulla Ji quoted rightly, the Gita Press version of MBh contains same verses with exactly same verse number and chapter number as Prafull Ji cited (MBh 2.188.22-28, Markandeya Samasyaparva) . This chapter 188 does not make it clear whether divya year is meant or normal year. But as I earlier sent the reference to Sunil Ji which he ignored, exactly same verse (2.188.22) occurs in MBh again in Moksha-dharma- parva 5.231.20 without a single word differing. But verses 2.188.23-25 have been summarized succinctly in 5.231.21, without any difference in meaning. But these verses should be read in proper context of preceding verses : verses 5.231.17-19 make it clear that the year is divya, equal to 360 normal years. This does not allow me to attach file in the files sections, hence I am sending the scanned copy of this page of Gita Press edition which is in Hindi to personal email ID of Sunil Ji. If he ignores this proof as he has done so far, I will upload this scanned page to some website and request members to see how Sunil Ji is playing with facts and calling me names for stating the truth. Please also see the only online version of complete MBh at http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ , esp its 5.231 chapter at http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ mahabharata_ 12b058.php whose relevant portions are as : <<<<< " Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty Muhurtas make up one day and night. Thirty days and nights are called a month, and twelve months are called a year. Persons conversant with mathematical science say that a year is made up of two ayanas (dependent on sun's motion), viz., the northern and the southern. The sun makes the day and the night for the world of man. The night is for the sleep of all living creatures, and the day is for the doing of action. A month of human beings is equal to a day and night of the Pitris. That division (as regards the Pitris) consists in this: the lighted fortnight (of men) is their day which is for the doing of acts; and the dark fortnight is their night for sleep. A year (of human beings) is equal to a day and night of the gods. The division (as regards the gods) consists in this: the half year for which the sun travels from the vernal to the autumnal equinox is the day of the deities, and the half year for which the sun travels from the latter to the former is their night. Computing by the days and nights of human beings about which I have told thee, I shall speak of the day and night of Brahman and his years also. I shall, in their order, tell thee the number of years, that are (thus) for different purposes computed differently in respect of the Krita, the Treta, the Dwapara, and the Kali yugas. Four thousand years (of the deities) is the duration of the first or Krita age. The morning of that epoch consists of four hundred years and its evening is of four hundred years. (The total duration, therefore, of the Krita yuga is four thousand and eight hundred years of the deities). As regards the other yugas, the duration of each gradually decreases by a quarter in respect of both the substantive period with the conjoining portion and the conjoining portion itself. (Thus the duration of the Treta is three thousand years and its morning extends for three hundred years and its evening for three hundred). The duration of the Dwapara also is two thousand years, and its morning extends for two hundred years and its evening also for two hundred. The duration of the Kali yuga is one thousand years, and its morning extends for one hundred years, and its evening for one hundred. " >>>>> I had sent this reference to Sunil Ji, which he ignored. Sunil ji will get the scanned copy of Gita Press version within a few minutes through email. But I know he will ignore the evidence of MBh as he did of Suryasiddhanta, and will try to find some other text where no differentiation is made between divya and human years due to brevity, and use such " proofs " for advancing his wrong theory of 12000 human years for a Mahayuga. -Vinay Jha ============ ====== ==== , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > You made the statement: > ┬ > Quote > ┬ > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > ┬ > Unquote > ┬ > Do I have to ask you for the Mahabharata reference for this statement┬ or have I to accept your word for it? I think it would have been better┬ if you would have substantiated that statement. > ┬ > Suni K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:23 PM > Dear Sunil > The answer toyour quetion is: > If┬ Kaliyug was not extended ,then it would have ended in 1902BC and there would have been only eight Avatars. > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > We can not change whatever happened in history because it is past. > But we can redefine Yug system in future again if all agree. > Prafulla > > > --- On Thu, 7/5/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > Cc: " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ..., ancient_indian_ astrology > Thursday, 7 May, 2009, 4:32 PM > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > So you mean to say that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE (3102-1200 = 1902) and the ninth Avatara of Lord Buddha┬ has occurred in┬ the Satya yuga. So in the last Mahayuga there were only eight Avataras.┬ > ┬ > S.K.Bhattacharjya > ┬ > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:40 AM > Dear Sunil > Chatvari ahu: sahastrani varshanam tat ktrutam yugam┬ | > tasya tavat shati sanshya sandyansha: cha tathavidha:┬ || 2.188.22|| > trini varshasahastrani tretayugam iha uchyate| > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandyansha: cha tat: param|| 2.188.23|| > tatha varshasahastre dve dwaparam parimanat: | > tasya api dwi shati sandhya sandhyansha: cha tathavidha :|| 2.188.24|| > sahatrasm ekam varshanam tat: kaliyugam smrutam| > tasya varshshatam sandhi: sandhyansha: cha tat: param|| > sandhi sandhyanshyo: tulayam pramanam updharaya|| 2.188.25|| > prafulla > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > Cc: , ancient_indian_ astrology > Tuesday, 5 May, 2009, 11:15 AM > > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > I am referring to the textavailable from the " Sacred texts " site. Why don't you give the five verses that you are referring to? > ┬ > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:17 PM > Dear Sunil > I am refering to Gitapress Khanda 2(Vanparva and Viratparva) in which > Markandeya Samasyaparva is present.188. 22 is on page 1482.Are you refering to Gitapress or some other Edition? > Prafulla > ┬ > > > --- On Thu, 30/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > Thursday, 30 April, 2009, 7:46 AM > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > Mahabharata Book - 2 is Sabha-Parva and that does not have the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. Only the Book - 3 is Vana-Parva or Aranya-Parva and that has the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. In the Markandeya-Samasya Parva there is no verse like you have quoted. > ┬ > S.K.Bhattacharjya┬ > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > sunil_bhattacharjya > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58 AM > Dear Sunil > I am refering to MBH2( not 3) 188.22 to 188.26( Gitapress) pages 1482 & 1483 > Chatvaryahu: sahastrani varshanam tat krutam yugam > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandhyansha: ┬ ch tathavidha: .... > Prafulla > > > --- On Wed, 29/4/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " prafulla Vaman Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 5:05 AM > > Dear friend, > ┬ > The verse (MBH 3.188.22) is as follows: > ┬ > ┬ ┬ ┬ ┬ рдЕрдиреÐрдпреКрдиреÐрдпрдВ рдкрд░рдâ”рдореБрд╖реÐрдгрдиреÐрддреК рд╣рдâ”рдВрд╕рдпрдиреÐрддрд╢ рдЪ рдорд╛рдирд╡рд╛рдГ > ┬ ┬ ┬ ┬ рдЕрдЬрдкрд╛ рдирд╛рд╕реÐрддрдâ”рдХрд╛рдГ рд╕рддреЗрдирд╛ рднрд╡рдâ”рд╖реÐрдпрдиреÐрддрд┠рдпреБрдЧрдХреÐрд╖рдпреЗ > ┬ > This verse does not say what you mentioned. Can you please quote the Sanskrit verse you arer referring to? > > Best wishes, > ┬ > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 6:26 AM > > > prafulla_mendki@ ... writes: > > Suryasiddhanta was written after start of Kaliyug. > As per 188.22 in MarkandeyaSamasya parva in Mahabharata, > Krut,Treta,Dwapar and Kaliyug were 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 > years only. > The idea of Dev varsha and Manav varsha came after Mahabharata > i.e. after start of Kaliyug . > Prafulla > > WAVES-Vedic, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ > > Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology > > Saturday, April 25, 2009, 3:42 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > ┬ > > Vinayji does not know himself as to how many verses were really there in the Suryasiddhanta and tries to find fault with me even though I said that┬ ┬ I read the figure of 100,000 in a book long ago though I do not recollect all the details. If Vinayji thinks I am wrong let him┬ give the number of verses in the original Suryasiddhanta straightway without wasting any time. > > ┬ > > Secondly he says as follows: > > ┬ > > Quote > > ┬ > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > just > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits are fools. > > ┬ > > Unquote > > ┬ > > Vinayji's yuga calculation will show that Lord Rama was born al least a million years ago. Any takers of that? Vinayji has not read that the Saptarshi cycle of 2700 Divya varsha is equal to 3030 Manush varsha. Hence he is making unnecessary noise here. Let him say what the Bhagavata purana and Vishnu purana say about the yugas. He has not read these as his views indicate. > > ┬ > > Regards, > > ┬ > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Wed, 4/22/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:44 AM > > > > Namaste, > > > > Sunil ji claimed original Suryasiddhanta had 100000 verses. Why he does not cite the source of this wonderful information instead of ridiculing me on fictious grounds ?? Sunil ji makes wild claims and then forgets to substantiate them. Bhatta Utpala quoted many verses of Suryasiddhanta which are not present in extant version. Bhaskar-II quoted a formula from Suryasiddhanta in Siddhaanta Shiromani which differs from the same formula in extant version of Suryasiddhanta, which Burgess misinterpreted, although Bhaskar had clearly mentioned in his own commentary on Siddhaanta Shiromani (Vaasanaa-bhaashya, not translated as yet) that he quoted this formula of Suryasiddhanta from Shruti (ie, from oral Vedic tradition, and not from any manuscript of Suryasiddhanta) . If Varaha Mihira had seen manuscript of Suryasiddhanta, Bhaskara-II must have seen the same, more so because Bhatta Utpala who preceded Bhaskara by just a century quoted verses from > Suryasiddhanta. > > Yet Bhaskar-II clearly says Suryasiddhanta has some items which are part of Shruti and not being committed to writing !!! Thus, there were two versions of Suryasiddhanta : written and oral. Written version has not survived in full, as is clear from Utpala's verses, but the written verse contains almopst everything required for panchanga making for astrological purposes, while the items cited from Shruti have serious differences with extant Suryasiddhanta and tally with modern physical astronomy with a high degree of precision (wrt precession). Thus, there were two versions of Suryasiddhanta, which the greatest mediaeval exponent of Suryasiddhanta Kamlakara Bhatta termed as Drikpaksha and Saurapaksha . Ketakar ji, proponent of famous of Ketaki system of panchanga making, follolwed this bifurcation , although Ketakar ji supported Drikpaksha (like Pandit Samanta Chandrasekha) while Kamlakara supported Saurapaksha for astrological purposes. > > > > Sunil ji makes a wrong statement : " Makaranda developed the tables the way Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. " The latter followed Drikpaksha while the former followed Saurapaksha. The only difference of Makaranda Tables from socalled " modern " Suryasiddhanta is the incorporation of beeja samskaara in Makaranda Tables, whose magnitudes were explained in siddhantic terms in Makaranda-vivarana by Diwakar Bhatta but Western commentators could not understant these differences which were inflated in tantra method to huge proportions, because the accumulated beeja of ~2 billion years in siddhanta method is distributed over ~5000 years in tantra method beginning from Kaliyuga and over few centuries beginning from some recent zero date. Varah Mihira followed karana method but the verse mentioning his zero date is missing is Panchsiddhantika, hence it is not possible to compute anything on the basis of Panchsiddhantika due to missing verses. > > > > Sunil Ji is merely repeating Western propaganda by stating : " Varahamihira was probably the last person to have seen the original Suryasiddhanta as well as the Aryasiddhanta of the very first Aryabhatta. " Varahamihira' s Suryasiddhanta has been called as " old " and extant version as " new " by Western commentators, in spite of the fact that he is following karana method and not siddhanta method while describing Suryasiddhanta. Makarandaachaarya also followed tantra method (different from Tantras of philosophy) instead of siddhanta method. Extant version of Suryasiddhanta is the siddhanta method. That is why those who do not know how to make panchangas from three methods imagine Varahamihira' s version to be different from that of siddhanta method. > > > > I am sorry to disclose these facts to a person who is trying to gain facts from me by paying me handsome dakshinaa in the form of sarcastic remarks and non-obscene abuses. Even when he is incapable of refuting me, he uses words which give an impression that my statements are unreliable. For instance, he says : " Vinayji claims to have supplied data for 382 - 1082 CE . " Why he does not falsify my supposed claims ?? I provided DATA, which are facts and not views. It is unfortunate Sunil ji is unable to differentiate facts from views. He may oppose my views, but he should not oppose facts. I devoted months over the period 3200 BC, as well as over other period. That is why I said Suryadiddhantic planets do not tally with physical planets for ANY period. Sunil ji has no time for making computations, and falsifies my years of research with his unsubstantiated remarks about my integrity and truthfulness. As for his own respect for truth, it is clear from > > following remark. > > > > Sunil ji is again taking a recourse to deliberate distortions of my statements with a view to poke fun at me. I said : " Pragjyotishpur was the easternmost city of ancient India where first Sunrise (Prak - jyotish) occurred. " To this, Sunil ji replied : " 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. " By replacing " India " with " earth " in my statement, whom he intends to befool ?? > > > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > just > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits are fools. > > > > While mentioning that Lord Surya gave present version of Suryasiddhanta to Maya at the end of present Satyuga, the text also says that it was given to maharshis in every yuga (ie, in every satyuga). Hence, according to Suryasiddhanta it was present at the beginning of Creation ! Whether Suryasiddhanta makes a false or true claim is another matter, but Sunil ji has no right to call me names ( " pseudo-scholar " ) just because I quote the texts accurately, instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims like him. I do not use foul words for him, as he does for me, but I must counter his wrong statements. He should read a lot before posting his statements here. Internet fora are not for misinformation by ignorants. He should study Makarandaprakaasha (published by Chowkhamba) wrt Suryasiddhanta, which will take months, before commenting wildly. > > > > -VJ > > ============ = ============ ========= == > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > > indiaarchaeology > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; @ . com; 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 --- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji, 1) Astrological interest and not astronomical Indian Jyotishshastra includes Hindu astronomy and astrology. In ancient times the people did not take their scopes so differently as today's astrologers take. Any way this compartmentalisation has taken place but I personally feel that the astrologer is better off with some knowledge of Hindu astronomy as well. To my knowledge there is no Hindu astronomy group separately and the modern astronomers do not see things the way the Hindu astronoer does. For example you may be aware that Vedavyasa said that at the time of the Mahabharata war the Saturn was in Visakha and also that Saturn was tormenting Rohini. So these astronomers took the position as Rohini. One who knows Hindu astronomy will not make this mistake. It is human nature to have confidence in what one learns and this way everybody considers himself as expert, call it self-styled experts if you like.. There is nothing wrong in this as long as one asks questions to know the truth provided one is open-minded ie. ready to shed the ego to accept the truth that comes to light due to the deliberations. The modern astronomers have all along questioned the Saptarshi movement until the scientists of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research showed in 2006 that the Saptarshi movement is apparent movement of the Saptarshis due to the precession of the earth. This Saptarshi movement was devised with a convention and the centuries were named after the 27 Nakshatras. So after all the Hindu Jyotishis were right. At least I, call me a self-styled expert if you like, questioned the modern astronomers on this. Do you call Sreenadhji and Sunil nairji also self-styled experts as they know a lot and wrote a lot on Hindu astronomy in these fora? 2) Bhagavat purana is right or wrong? Yes it is right. According to Padma purana Bhagavata purana is the highest among the puranas. When there is diference I always give first preference to Bhagavata purana. Now tell me in one word whether you agree to this or not. 3) Who is qualified enough? I do not know who is qualified enough. It is a relative matter. How do you come to the conclusion as to who is qualified enough? If you think I am not qualified enough then you can ignore me or blast me with facts. But first think yourself if you are qualified enough to judge my knowledge. 4) Do not twist what I mentioned Please do not accuse unnecessarily. I have not twisted anything. The topic is about the verses and if you are not concerned about the verses then better not poke your nose in the discussions on the verses. My main question to Prafulla was that if the verses are correct then Kali yuga has ended in 1902 BCE and Prafulla does not agree that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE. How can he eat the cake and have it too. What is your opinion? If you can give a satisfactory answer then I will accept what is in that verse of the Mahabharata. 5) Books from the same press So now you time to go into details. As I wrote earlier that I could not bring my books with me. I have my books in Mumbai. After my return shortly I shall be able to look at the page number etc. and tell you. If you cannot wait then of course I shall have to try elsewhere and request some friends to help me in this. AKK is battling for decades to prove that Hindus learnt astronomy and astrology from the Babylonia and Greeks. Several people were fighting him but without tooth. He used to ask three questions namely (A) Is Rashi mentioned in Veda? (B) Did the dharma-shastras permit practice of astrology ? and © Did not Varahamihira copy from the Greek work? To my knowledge nobody challenged his three questions with facts and figures. Then he went on to say that astrology including the Rashis were taken from the Greek sources and so one cannot call it Vedic astrology. He also said that practising astrology was against the tenets of the Hindu dharma. Thirdly he tried to prove that Maya was a mleccha and hence a non-indian and Vatrahmihira was a charlatan as he copied from Greek sources. (A) Rashis I was the first to tell him that Rashi by definition means a group (of nakshatras) and that the shape of the formation of the nakshatras were used to name the Rashis. Rashis have to be sidereal and the Tropical rashis are fake imitations. I also told him that Brahma Rashi is mentioned in the Mahabharata with Abhijit Nakshatra in it. Later on in the Bhagavata it became the Makar rashi without the Abhijit nakshatra. I told him that Rashi is mentioned in the Veda when it says that the Sun went to meet the Vrshabha and that there are more references to Rashi in Veda. I also told him that rashi is mentioned in the Bhagavata purana, which is considered to be the fifth veda according to the Chandogya and other upanishads. Hence the astrology is as old as the Vedas and there is nothing wrong if Hindu astrology is called Vedic Astrology. Recently Sreenadhji pointed out that the Vedanga jyotisha also mentioned Meena Rashi, which escaped my notice earlier. (B) Astrology in the Dharmashastras I told him that Manu Smriti says that the kings should take advice from astrologers and this definitely is a sanction for the use of astrology by the earliest Hindu Dharmashastra. AKK said that Manu did not permit astrologers to attend Devakaryas and Pitrikaryas (and he meant that it is a mean profession). I pointed out to him that the profession of astrology is not mean as even the Physicians were not allowed to attend these ceremonies and I explained to him that only non-professionals are supposed to attend these ceremonies and they are to be fed and given dakshina (as an act of charity). © Mayasura and Varahmihira I told him that Mayasura was not necessarily a Greek and that asura is not necessarily a bad person. Lord Krishna was also referred to as asura in places. Referring to the Mahabharata I told him that the inhabitants of pragjyotishpur (the earliest seat of astrology) were also referred to as Yavanas and Asuras. As regards the date of Varahamihira I told him that he was wrong as Varahamihira gave his date in terms of Sakendrakala, which is different from the Sakantakala mentioned by Brahmagupta. Sakantakala is the era, which started from the end of the Saka rule whereas the Shakendrakala mentioned by Varahamihira is the beginning of the rule of the Sakas. (Varahamihira was born about 700 years before the date given to him by the western scholars). So varahamihira could not have copied from Sphuridhvaja's work. To many it may appear that we are all fighting endlessly with AKK. It is not so. We have proved that his anti-astrology outbursts do not hold water. However like a Dementia-affected person he goes on playing his old anti-astrology CDs from time to time in different fora. As the new members are being inducted to the fora from time to time and they have have no idea of how we have replied to AKK's accusations it becomes necessary to remind AKK that he had forgotten what had been told to him earlier. Now I think the old fighters (not by age) like Sunil Nairji, Sreenadhji. Goelji and me can gradually retire from the fight and I think the new breed of budding scholars like Ashutosh Seth may be able to face the anti-astrology brigade more wisely, as I saw a mail from Ashutoshji yesterday calling our arguments foolish. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta Monday, May 11, 2009, 6:54 AM Dear Sunil ji, Astrological interest and not astronomical I have no objections to these discussions , or arguments or what have you, neither any interest in the same. I just know that I am an astrologer, am not interested in advanced astronomy or hstorical evaluations which does not make any sense to me. I would just be interested in basic astronomy, and not more than that. I also do not think that there are many qualified here to calculate the dates of the Yugas. I also feel that that those cricketers who could not make it to the team are now teaching school students how to play cricket. There are many groups on astronomy and I am not a member of these. I know there are many self-styled experts there who could not showcase their knowledge convincingly on these astronomy Groups so they are now strolling on Jyotish groups for them to be noticed. Bhagawat Purana published by the Gita Press is right or wrong ? Please say that in one word " Yes " or " No " . and then go on to prove that it is wrong. Who is qualified enough ? You have mentioned that the Bhagwat Purana has mentioned the numerals to calculate the Yugas . And you say that you have applied the mathematical rules to arrive at the Birth of Lord Buddha. How do we know that who is qualified or not, to apply the right mathematical rules in the way it should be ? By taking name of Indira Gandhi, I will not get entry into politics and neither by keeping a photo of me standing close to Shah rukh khan in my Barber shop, would convince the customers that he is my great friend. Do not twist what I mentioned . I have not questioned any verses anywhere. I have objection to you people using the good name of Gita press for making claims and refuting them . And writing that Gita Press is wrong. 2 Books from the same Press Which 2 Books from the same press give two Yuga spans ? Please give us the name of the Book, the Page number and the content where you find the difference. I have not accepted Prafullas Claims Dear Sunilji, I see you and few others arguing in almost every group and getting nowhere in your arguments. So I have already stopped reading mails connected to these exchanges. I just happenned to glance this one. If You had read my mail properly, you would have in fact understood that I was siding with you. (Do re-read it again). Checking the BORI Version I am not interested and have no gains of winning an argument or qualms of loosing one. This is not my fight. Please do not ask me to fight for you. I have already had my fights with AKK and his whole team of real members and other ids which maybe unreal. They do not have any work and fortunately I have, so cannot continue arguing with them. I also do not have this habit of talking behind a persons back, and like to argue with a person when he is in front of me, and where he too has the strength to hit me on the same platform. Since I have been removed from those many platforms where he and his team reside, I have no way to take them again , and writing about them here again and again , is not my type of character. You people used the good offices of the Gita press which is unacceptable without proofs. My contention is only with that and not what You say or Prafulla says. mails This is not my group, I am just an ordinary member here who is allowed to write. So theres no question of me having any objection to poetry, history, geography whatever comes here. Neither to your mails. As I said that if Gita press is wrong, prove it. Or else do not take the name of its good offices. This was meant for Prafulla, but if even you say so then I ask you too to prove this. (Nothing personal, and you are not fighting any battle alone with the Anti Astrology Team, we all are doing this in our own ways). best wishes and kind regards, Bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Dear Bhaskarji, > > I have the Bhagavat Purana in two volumes from the Gita Press. It gives the span of the Mahayuga and also gives the numerals to calculate the four yugas. Applying the applicable mathematical rules the span of the Kali yuga comes out to be 4800 years. As per this calculation Lord Biuddha was born in the Kali yuga. > > According to the figures arrived at by Prafulla from the Mahabharata Lord Buddha was not born in Kali yuga and you too seem to have accepted it without questioning. If two books from the same Press give two different yuga spans it is natural that eyebrows will be raised. You are blessed as you have not noticed this discrepancy. > > I am away from India and due to weight restrictions it is not possible to bring all books with me. I would have been happy if Prafulla would have also checked the verses in the critical edition of the Mahabharata brought out by the Bhandarkar Oriental Reasearch Institute (BORI), the copies of which should be available in some libraries in Kalyan and Mumbai. Further I could not accept Prafulla's statement that the Kali yuga was selectively extended and he had not given any reference on it from the Mahabharata. In a way he is negating the span of the Kali yuga given by his verses. Is it not a discrepancy? > > Since you are quite upset about the questioning of the verses I think you may also check up in the BORI version and tell us what you find there. In so doing you will not waste your time. But if you do not have interest in yuga systems just ignore these mails on the yugas. The does not have any restrictions on the number of mails that can be posted in the group at any time. So these mails on the yugas are not coming in the way of the number of mails you are interested in. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > ancient_indian_ astrology > Sunday, May 10, 2009, 10:21 PM > > > > Those who are eternally into the fixing of dates in antiquity, etc , I > request them not to bring in " Gita press " in their muddle. > > There are no time wasters in Gita press, all are authentic writers, the > writers there are very spiritual, and the contents of their writings are > the best in India. They have been able to store and relay the > information which one could never find at any other single place. > > Before anyone takes the name of " Gita Press " as having given them wrong > information, let them quote the name of the Text printed by Gita Press, > and the Page number, and the exact words mentioned therein. > > Those who say Gita Press is wrong, prove it theroteically with proof, > quoting what is mentioned exactly which is wrong, why is it wrong and > what must be the right insertion? > > Most of these members have all the time of the world to discuss and > discuss reaching nowhere and to escape their extra erroneous chatter, > they bring in names of supreme institutions like " Gita Press " to defend > their nonsense utterances. > > Dont do so, because the Gita Press are not time wasters like you. They > are real people, Godly, Wise, and Knowledgable. > > Bhaskar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Krishnamurthy Seetharama ji, Suryasiddhanta, Aryabhatiya, Brahma Sphuta Siddhanta, etc can be freely downloaded from the website of Brown university (USA). Please do not lend credence to false propaganda of a pseudo-indologist who hates to read original texts but is spreading a rumour that numbers were multiplied by 1000 (you say 100) in ancient texts. He is possessed with two Biblical ghosts and is not ready to allow human history more than 2 * 6000 years. It is surprising to see the audacity of such a person (SKB) who does not care to read original texts and say what they want, thinking no one will punish him on the internet. ! -VJ ================ ======= ________________________________ Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:31:28 AM Re: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta Dear All, To start with I would like to clarify that I don't hve any insight or authority on this subject. However, I would like to share a conclusion drawn by a researcher ( I don't reember the name) on Surya Siddhanta is that the numbers used for calculations were deliberately multiplied by 100 to avoid decimals in the calculations and yet keep the accuracy intact. That author also felt that Divya Year is same as our normal year and hence the length of a chaturyuga is 4,32,000 years. Please note that these are not my inferences as I have not studied this subject in detail. I thought I will just share what I read. Regards, Krishna ____________ _________ _________ __ vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > Monday, 11 May, 2009 12:22:58 PM Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta To All, esp. Sunil Ji and Prafull ji, Sunil Ji is trying hard to prove that the Vedic-Puranic- Siddhaantic yuga concept of 4320,000 years is a misinterpretation or deliberate lie of Vinay Jha. He wrongly says that divya year was equal to normal solar year. When I sent him citations from Suryasiddhanta, he poked fun at me for quoting the English translation of Burgess. Then, I sent his website addresses for procuring Bengali and names of publishers of Sanskrit versions, after which he ignored the evidence of Suryasiddhanta and diverted the topic to Mahabharata. Mr Prafulla Mendki has joined him, by quoting verses of MBh out of context. Prafulla Ji quoted rightly, the Gita Press version of MBh contains same verses with exactly same verse number and chapter number as Prafull Ji cited (MBh 2.188.22-28, Markandeya Samasyaparva) . This chapter 188 does not make it clear whether divya year is meant or normal year. But as I earlier sent the reference to Sunil Ji which he ignored, exactly same verse (2.188.22) occurs in MBh again in Moksha-dharma- parva 5.231.20 without a single word differing. But verses 2.188.23-25 have been summarized succinctly in 5.231.21, without any difference in meaning. But these verses should be read in proper context of preceding verses : verses 5.231.17-19 make it clear that the year is divya, equal to 360 normal years. This does not allow me to attach file in the files sections, hence I am sending the scanned copy of this page of Gita Press edition which is in Hindi to personal email ID of Sunil Ji. If he ignores this proof as he has done so far, I will upload this scanned page to some website and request members to see how Sunil Ji is playing with facts and calling me names for stating the truth. Please also see the only online version of complete MBh at http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ , esp its 5.231 chapter at http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ mahabharata_ 12b058.php whose relevant portions are as : <<<<< " Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty Muhurtas make up one day and night. Thirty days and nights are called a month, and twelve months are called a year. Persons conversant with mathematical science say that a year is made up of two ayanas (dependent on sun's motion), viz., the northern and the southern. The sun makes the day and the night for the world of man. The night is for the sleep of all living creatures, and the day is for the doing of action. A month of human beings is equal to a day and night of the Pitris. That division (as regards the Pitris) consists in this: the lighted fortnight (of men) is their day which is for the doing of acts; and the dark fortnight is their night for sleep. A year (of human beings) is equal to a day and night of the gods. The division (as regards the gods) consists in this: the half year for which the sun travels from the vernal to the autumnal equinox is the day of the deities, and the half year for which the sun travels from the latter to the former is their night. Computing by the days and nights of human beings about which I have told thee, I shall speak of the day and night of Brahman and his years also. I shall, in their order, tell thee the number of years, that are (thus) for different purposes computed differently in respect of the Krita, the Treta, the Dwapara, and the Kali yugas. Four thousand years (of the deities) is the duration of the first or Krita age. The morning of that epoch consists of four hundred years and its evening is of four hundred years. (The total duration, therefore, of the Krita yuga is four thousand and eight hundred years of the deities). As regards the other yugas, the duration of each gradually decreases by a quarter in respect of both the substantive period with the conjoining portion and the conjoining portion itself. (Thus the duration of the Treta is three thousand years and its morning extends for three hundred years and its evening for three hundred). The duration of the Dwapara also is two thousand years, and its morning extends for two hundred years and its evening also for two hundred. The duration of the Kali yuga is one thousand years, and its morning extends for one hundred years, and its evening for one hundred. " >>>>> I had sent this reference to Sunil Ji, which he ignored. Sunil ji will get the scanned copy of Gita Press version within a few minutes through email. But I know he will ignore the evidence of MBh as he did of Suryasiddhanta, and will try to find some other text where no differentiation is made between divya and human years due to brevity, and use such " proofs " for advancing his wrong theory of 12000 human years for a Mahayuga. -Vinay Jha ============ ====== ==== , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > You made the statement: > ┬ > Quote > ┬ > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > ┬ > Unquote > ┬ > Do I have to ask you for the Mahabharata reference for this statement┬ or have I to accept your word for it? I think it would have been better┬ if you would have substantiated that statement. > ┬ > Suni K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:23 PM > Dear Sunil > The answer toyour quetion is: > If┬ Kaliyug was not extended ,then it would have ended in 1902BC and there would have been only eight Avatars. > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > We can not change whatever happened in history because it is past. > But we can redefine Yug system in future again if all agree. > Prafulla > > > --- On Thu, 7/5/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > Cc: " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ..., ancient_indian_ astrology > Thursday, 7 May, 2009, 4:32 PM > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > So you mean to say that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE (3102-1200 = 1902) and the ninth Avatara of Lord Buddha┬ has occurred in┬ the Satya yuga. So in the last Mahayuga there were only eight Avataras.┬ > ┬ > S.K.Bhattacharjya > ┬ > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > sunil_bhattacharjya > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:40 AM > Dear Sunil > Chatvari ahu: sahastrani varshanam tat ktrutam yugam┬ | > tasya tavat shati sanshya sandyansha: cha tathavidha:┬ || 2.188..22|| > trini varshasahastrani tretayugam iha uchyate| > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandyansha: cha tat: param|| 2.188.23|| > tatha varshasahastre dve dwaparam parimanat: | > tasya api dwi shati sandhya sandhyansha: cha tathavidha :|| 2.188.24|| > sahatrasm ekam varshanam tat: kaliyugam smrutam| > tasya varshshatam sandhi: sandhyansha: cha tat: param|| > sandhi sandhyanshyo: tulayam pramanam updharaya|| 2.188.25|| > prafulla > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya . > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > Cc: , ancient_indian_ astrology > Tuesday, 5 May, 2009, 11:15 AM > > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > I am referring to the textavailable from the " Sacred texts " site. Why don't you give the five verses that you are referring to? > ┬ > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:17 PM > Dear Sunil > I am refering to Gitapress Khanda 2(Vanparva and Viratparva) in which > Markandeya Samasyaparva is present.188. 22 is on page 1482.Are you refering to Gitapress or some other Edition? > Prafulla > ┬ > > > --- On Thu, 30/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > Thursday, 30 April, 2009, 7:46 AM > Dear Prafulla, > ┬ > Mahabharata Book - 2 is Sabha-Parva and that does not have the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. Only the Book - 3 is Vana-Parva or Aranya-Parva and that has the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. In the Markandeya-Samasya Parva there is no verse like you have quoted. > ┬ > S.K.Bhattacharjya┬ > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > sunil_bhattacharjya > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58 AM > Dear Sunil > I am refering to MBH2( not 3) 188.22 to 188.26( Gitapress) pages 1482 & 1483 > Chatvaryahu: sahastrani varshanam tat krutam yugam > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandhyansha: ┬ ch tathavidha: .... > Prafulla > > > --- On Wed, 29/4/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " prafulla Vaman Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 5:05 AM > > Dear friend, > ┬ > The verse (MBH 3.188.22) is as follows: > ┬ > ┬ ┬ ┬ ┬ рдЕрдиреÐрдпреКрдиреÐрдпрдВ рдкрд░рдâ”рдореБрд╖реÐрдгрдиреÐрддреК рд╣рдâ”рдВрд╕рдпрдиреÐрддрд╢ рдЪ рдорд╛рдирд╡рд╛рдГ > ┬ ┬ ┬ ┬ рдЕрдЬрдкрд╛ рдирд╛рд╕реÐрддрдâ”рдХрд╛рдГ рд╕рддреЗрдирд╛ рднрд╡рдâ”рд╖реÐрдпрдиреÐрддрд┠рдпреБрдЧрдХреÐрд╖рдпреЗ > ┬ > This verse does not say what you mentioned. Can you please quote the Sanskrit verse you arer referring to? > > Best wishes, > ┬ > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki@ .... wrote: > > > prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 6:26 AM > > > prafulla_mendki@ ... writes: > > Suryasiddhanta was written after start of Kaliyug. > As per 188.22 in MarkandeyaSamasya parva in Mahabharata, > Krut,Treta,Dwapar and Kaliyug were 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 > years only. > The idea of Dev varsha and Manav varsha came after Mahabharata > i.e. after start of Kaliyug . > Prafulla > > WAVES-Vedic, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ > > Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology > > Saturday, April 25, 2009, 3:42 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > ┬ > > Vinayji does not know himself as to how many verses were really there in the Suryasiddhanta and tries to find fault with me even though I said that┬ ┬ I read the figure of 100,000 in a book long ago though I do not recollect all the details. If Vinayji thinks I am wrong let him┬ give the number of verses in the original Suryasiddhanta straightway without wasting any time. > > ┬ > > Secondly he says as follows: > > ┬ > > Quote > > ┬ > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > just > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits are fools. > > ┬ > > Unquote > > ┬ > > Vinayji's yuga calculation will show that Lord Rama was born al least a million years ago. Any takers of that? Vinayji has not read that the Saptarshi cycle of 2700 Divya varsha is equal to 3030 Manush varsha. Hence he is making unnecessary noise here. Let him say what the Bhagavata purana and Vishnu purana say about the yugas. He has not read these as his views indicate. > > ┬ > > Regards, > > ┬ > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya > > > > --- On Wed, 4/22/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:44 AM > > > > Namaste, > > > > Sunil ji claimed original Suryasiddhanta had 100000 verses. Why he does not cite the source of this wonderful information instead of ridiculing me on fictious grounds ?? Sunil ji makes wild claims and then forgets to substantiate them.. Bhatta Utpala quoted many verses of Suryasiddhanta which are not present in extant version. Bhaskar-II quoted a formula from Suryasiddhanta in Siddhaanta Shiromani which differs from the same formula in extant version of Suryasiddhanta, which Burgess misinterpreted, although Bhaskar had clearly mentioned in his own commentary on Siddhaanta Shiromani (Vaasanaa-bhaashya, not translated as yet) that he quoted this formula of Suryasiddhanta from Shruti (ie, from oral Vedic tradition, and not from any manuscript of Suryasiddhanta) . If Varaha Mihira had seen manuscript of Suryasiddhanta, Bhaskara-II must have seen the same, more so because Bhatta Utpala who preceded Bhaskara by just a century quoted verses from > Suryasiddhanta. > > Yet Bhaskar-II clearly says Suryasiddhanta has some items which are part of Shruti and not being committed to writing !!! Thus, there were two versions of Suryasiddhanta : written and oral. Written version has not survived in full, as is clear from Utpala's verses, but the written verse contains almopst everything required for panchanga making for astrological purposes, while the items cited from Shruti have serious differences with extant Suryasiddhanta and tally with modern physical astronomy with a high degree of precision (wrt precession). Thus, there were two versions of Suryasiddhanta, which the greatest mediaeval exponent of Suryasiddhanta Kamlakara Bhatta termed as Drikpaksha and Saurapaksha . Ketakar ji, proponent of famous of Ketaki system of panchanga making, follolwed this bifurcation , although Ketakar ji supported Drikpaksha (like Pandit Samanta Chandrasekha) while Kamlakara supported Saurapaksha for astrological purposes. > > > > Sunil ji makes a wrong statement : " Makaranda developed the tables the way Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. " The latter followed Drikpaksha while the former followed Saurapaksha. The only difference of Makaranda Tables from socalled " modern " Suryasiddhanta is the incorporation of beeja samskaara in Makaranda Tables, whose magnitudes were explained in siddhantic terms in Makaranda-vivarana by Diwakar Bhatta but Western commentators could not understant these differences which were inflated in tantra method to huge proportions, because the accumulated beeja of ~2 billion years in siddhanta method is distributed over ~5000 years in tantra method beginning from Kaliyuga and over few centuries beginning from some recent zero date. Varah Mihira followed karana method but the verse mentioning his zero date is missing is Panchsiddhantika, hence it is not possible to compute anything on the basis of Panchsiddhantika due to missing verses. > > > > Sunil Ji is merely repeating Western propaganda by stating : " Varahamihira was probably the last person to have seen the original Suryasiddhanta as well as the Aryasiddhanta of the very first Aryabhatta. " Varahamihira' s Suryasiddhanta has been called as " old " and extant version as " new " by Western commentators, in spite of the fact that he is following karana method and not siddhanta method while describing Suryasiddhanta. Makarandaachaarya also followed tantra method (different from Tantras of philosophy) instead of siddhanta method. Extant version of Suryasiddhanta is the siddhanta method. That is why those who do not know how to make panchangas from three methods imagine Varahamihira' s version to be different from that of siddhanta method. > > > > I am sorry to disclose these facts to a person who is trying to gain facts from me by paying me handsome dakshinaa in the form of sarcastic remarks and non-obscene abuses. Even when he is incapable of refuting me, he uses words which give an impression that my statements are unreliable. For instance, he says : " Vinayji claims to have supplied data for 382 - 1082 CE . " Why he does not falsify my supposed claims ?? I provided DATA, which are facts and not views. It is unfortunate Sunil ji is unable to differentiate facts from views. He may oppose my views, but he should not oppose facts. I devoted months over the period 3200 BC, as well as over other period. That is why I said Suryadiddhantic planets do not tally with physical planets for ANY period. Sunil ji has no time for making computations, and falsifies my years of research with his unsubstantiated remarks about my integrity and truthfulness. As for his own respect for truth, it is clear from > > following remark. > > > > Sunil ji is again taking a recourse to deliberate distortions of my statements with a view to poke fun at me. I said : " Pragjyotishpur was the easternmost city of ancient India where first Sunrise (Prak - jyotish) occurred. " To this, Sunil ji replied : " 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. " By replacing " India " with " earth " in my statement, whom he intends to befool ?? > > > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, which is equal to 4320000 normal years.. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > just > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits are fools. > > > > While mentioning that Lord Surya gave present version of Suryasiddhanta to Maya at the end of present Satyuga, the text also says that it was given to maharshis in every yuga (ie, in every satyuga). Hence, according to Suryasiddhanta it was present at the beginning of Creation ! Whether Suryasiddhanta makes a false or true claim is another matter, but Sunil ji has no right to call me names ( " pseudo-scholar " ) just because I quote the texts accurately, instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims like him. I do not use foul words for him, as he does for me, but I must counter his wrong statements. He should read a lot before posting his statements here. Internet fora are not for misinformation by ignorants. He should study Makarandaprakaasha (published by Chowkhamba) wrt Suryasiddhanta, which will take months, before commenting wildly. > > > > -VJ > > ============ = ============ ========= == > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > > indiaarchaeology > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; @ . com; 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 --- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 respected suniji & bhaskarji, i m not opposing yours arguments as arguments (Sastarath) increase our knowledge but i m opposing AKK like people, who did not have knowledge of Indian Astrology, but want to argument on base of so called western researches. i m sorry if i hurt u (chhama badin ko chaiye....) ashutosh seth ________________________________ " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, 12 May, 2009 10:30:33 AM Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta Bollywood news, movie reviews, film trailers and more! Go to http://in.movies./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Vinayji, 1) I have no problem if you think that Lord Rama was born Million years ago according to the Yuga calculations you follow. You can live with your date of Lord Rama. But I shall go by the Pauranic Vamshavali from Kashyap to Manu and by the descriptions of the two Vamshas ie. Surya Vamsha and the Chandra Vamsha (mentioned in the purana). These details convince me that Lord Rama was born around 9,300 years ago and not Million years ago as you think. This is further confirmed by the work of Dr. Vartak.  2) Good that you clarified that according to you Burgess gave wrong translation only in some places and his translation is largely correct .. 3) You imagioned that I have not read the Suryasiddhanta and advised me to read the Suryasiddhanta published by several others and at the same time you said that you will not allow me to see your book from your website. How do you know that I have not read Suryasiddhanta? If you do not want me to see your book that is okay with me but do not give false excuses that you consider me to be a drunkard and that is why you do not want to give me your book. You seem to be obsessed with wine and you so frequently mention about wine. In the AIA group you said that Tantra is anti-Vedic and you meant that people following the Tantric practices have to drink wine and do other undesirable practices. In reply to that I said that Kularnava Tantra says that it is based on Veda. I also mentioned that the folowers of Tantra are not necessarily drunkards. I said that in case of wine Tantra recommends several alternatives. To a non-drinker it has given the substitutes. The drinkers can take alipan or can take upto 2 tolas. Talking about how much wine Tantra recommends does not make me a drinker. Think about it.  -Sunil K. Bhattacharjya   > --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:05 AM > > Sunil Ji, > > Here are pointwise answers to wrong points raised by you : > > <<< > 1)Yes, the concept of 4320,000 years for the Mahayuga is wrong as Lord Rama was born only about 9300 years ago in the Treta yuga. > >>> > Earlier you said the concept of 4320000 years for the Mahayuga was my > invention, now you say this concept is wrong but do not specify whether > I introduced this supposedly wrong concept or it existed before I was > born. Lord Rama born about 9300 years ago is your invention, having no > evidence of any sort. It is based on your fictious assumption of 12000 > human years in a mahayuga. > > <<< > 2)When you criticise Burgess's translation as inaccurate then is it not > shameful to quote from the same translation of Burgess. Instead of > gracefully accepting your lapse you are telling me that I am poking fun > at you. Did you expect me to praise you for your double standard? > >>> > Burgess made many serious mistakes in translating some portions, but it > does not mean he is 100% wrong everywhere. In an English forum, I am > forced to cite the only available English translator of Suryasiddhanta, > and when I find some wrong portions in such translations, I have to > point out the errors. It is a valid stand, which you call " shameful " , > " lapse " , " double standard " ! I also sent you names of Sanskrit, Hindi > and Bengali translators of Suryasiddhanta, which you omit to mention > and divert the discussion from length of divya varsha in Suryasiddhanta > to a discussion on my " shameful " character , yet charging me of playing > " diversionary tactics " ! > > <<< > 3)You need not give me any unsolicited details as to where to get which > book when you yourself said that you are removing your book from your > website so that I should not be able to see that. Should I send you > back your email to refresh your memory? Another example of your > double-standard. Is that the nobility of a Brahmachari? > >>> > Only 300 copies of my books were printed, and not a single copy was > sold. It was given to chosen persons, none of whom had praised the > virtues of wine before me. I cannot give my book to such a person at > any cost, unless he vows never to drink again. Manusmriti says one > should not even talk to a person who drinks wine. Communication through > email is not tantamount to talking. Please do not take it personally, > it is my anability to break my principles. I knew sending reference to > websites which offer ancient texts freely will offend and provok you , > because these ancient siddhantic texts invariably speak of 4320000 > solar years for a mahayuga. For instance, in the first verse of > Dashageetikaa of Aryabhatiya, Sun's bhagana number per (maha)yuga is 4320000 and Earth's rotations are given to be 1582237500(15822378 28in Suryasiddhanta, this minor difference being due to Sunrise system of > day count in Aryabhatiya in contrast to midnight system ofSuryasiddhanta) . Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta( BSS) repeats the mathematics of Mahabharata (MBh-v-231) in its first chapter verses 4-7, in which 4320000 normal > solar years of humans are said to make one mahayuga (see verses 5-6) > and 1000 such mahayugas are said to make one Kalpa (BSS, ch-i, verse > 10). Hence, Suryasiddhanta, Aryabhatiya and Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta > all clearly say one mahayuga to be equal to 4320000 years and not > 43200000 days as you wrongly tried to prove by misquoting texts. Should > I cite your previous mails to remind you of your own stand ? When I > requested you to see original texts and offered you website addresses > where these texts are freely available, why you became infuriated ? Is > truth so abominable to you that you cannot restraint your violent > nature and start abusing my supposedly " shameless " character ? You > stand is refuted by all these ancient texts : Suryasiddhanta, > Aryabhatiya and Brahma-sphuta- siddhaanta, Mahabharata, NaradaPurana, Vishnu Dharmottara Purana, etc, all of which unanimously say > that one mahayuga is of 4320000 years or 1582237828 days which is equal > to 12000 divine years. > > <<< > 4)Prafulla may be right but he has to give me the reference where it is > said that the span of the Kaliyuga has been selectively extended, as > claimed by him. > >>> > The span of the Kaliyuga having been selectively extended is an > invention of Prafulla ji, there is no proof anywhere. But it means he > knows the siddhanta texts which clearly declare a mahayuga to be of > 12000 divya and 4320000 human years, which he imagines to be a later > extension of original 12000 years for a mahayuga which he infers from > an out-f-context reading of MBh-ii-188, forgetting to consult MBh-v-231 > where same verse is repeated in fuller context. > > <<< > 5)The verse in the Mahabharata says about Daiva Varsha, and that is the > same as the polar year where the daylight is there for six months long > and the night is also six months long. Daiva here means the year of the > Devas. In Mahabharata the span is given in terns of Solar years. > >>> > It is welcome that you at least accept the existence of Daiva varsha in > Mahabharata( MBh), but here again you are deliberately distorting the > verses of MBh. MBh does not say its daiva varsha is meant for the > (imaginary) residents of Poles, but says what I earlier communicated. I > know you will not accept truth, because you have no faith neither in > Suryasiddhanta( SS) nor in MBh, but I am here quoting verses of MBh > which falsify your stand : > > MBh-khanda 5-chapter 231-verse15 says " ahoraatre vibhajate Suryau > maanushalaukike " , which means days and nights of manushya loka is > made/divided by Surya. verse 17 says " Daive raatryahanee varsham > pravibhaagastayoh punah , ahastatrodagayanam raatrih syad > dakshinaayanam " : in which " Daive raatryahanee varsham " means " varsha > is equal to day+night of gods " . Here varsha is varsha of > maanushalaukike which is to be taken from preceding two verses. Rest of > verse 17 means " this daiva day+night is divided thus : uttara (ayana) > is divine day and dakshinaayana is divine night " . MBh clearly says that > the maanushalaukika year is solar year : see verse 15 above which says > that Sun divides/makes day and night in maanushalaukika (but not in > devaloka). > > <<< > 6) What the verses say is that as revealed by Brahma he is going to > tell about the span of the yugas. (We all know that Brahma'sday is one > Kalpa and that is equal to 1000 Mahayugas and His night is also of the > same length and these are not included in those few verses.) > >>> > No Sir, you are deliberately misquoting this verse (MBh,v,231,18) which says : > > " ye te raatryahanee poorvam keertite Jeevalaukike , > tayoh samkhyaaya varshaagram Braahme vakshyaamyahahkshap e " . > > It means : > " These days and nights of Jeevaloka which have been told in preceding verses (verses 15-17) > On the basis of those year numbers I (Vyaasa Ji) am now telling days and nights of brahmaa (in following verses) " > > In those 'following " verses, Vyaasa ji describes 12000 years in a > mahayuga divided into four yugas, but verse 18 clearly says these > durations of year are according to the ratios described in preceding > verses, esp verse 17 which says one human year is equal to one divine year. Hence, > chronology of Brahmaa Ji cannot be as per maanava varsha but as per > divine varsha, if Vyaasa Ji took Brahmaa to be a divinity. > > Apply this sentence to yourself : " Please read my mail carefully and > reply to the point if you want to and not play some diversionary > tactics. " > > Now I have lost all hopes that you will ever listen to either fact or > reason. You have to distort ancient texts according to your imaginary > conceptions. But why you charged me wrongly of inventing a concept of > 4320000 years for a mahayuga, when it is clearly said in all relevant > ancient texts ? If you have to disown and refute these ancient texts, > no one can prevent you, but do it honestly, instead of taking recourse > to deceitful tactics. > > -VJ > ============ ========= ========= = ==== > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology > Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:50:07 PM > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > Vinayji, > > 1) > Yes, the concept of 4320,000 years for the Mahayuga is wrong as Lord Rama was born only about 9300 years ago in the Treta yuga. > 2) > When you criticise Burgess's translation as inaccurate then is it not shameful to quote from the same translation of Bur5gess. Instead of gracefully accepting your lapse you are telling me that I am poking fun at you. Did you expect me to praise you for your double standard? > 3) > You need not give me any unsolicited details as to where to get which book when you yourself said that you are removing your book from your website so that I should not be able to see that. Should I send you back your email to refresh your memory? Another example of your double-standard. Is that the nobility of a Brahmachari? > 4) > Prafulla may be right but he has to give me the reference where it is said that the span of the Kaliyuga has been selectively extended, as claimed by him. > 5) > The verse in the Mahabharata says about Daiva Varsha, and that is the same as the polar year where the daylight is there for six months long and the night is also six months long. Daiva here means the year of the Devas. In Mahabharata the span is given in terns of Solar years. > 6) > What the verses say is that as revealed by Brahma he is going to tell about the span of the. yugas. (We all know that Brahma'sday is one Kalpa and that is equal to 1000 Mahayugas and His night is also of the same length and these are not included in those few verses.) > > Please read my mail carefully and reply to the point if you want to and not play some diversionary tactics. > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > Sunday, May 10, 2009, 11:52 PM > > To All, esp. Sunil Ji and Prafull ji, > > Sunil Ji is trying hard to prove that the Vedic-Puranic- Siddhaantic yuga > > concept of 4320,000 years is a misinterpretation or deliberate lie of > > Vinay Jha. He wrongly says that divya year was equal to normal solar > > year. When I sent him citations from Suryasiddhanta, he poked fun at me > > for quoting the English translation of Burgess. Then, I sent his website > > addresses for procuring Bengali and names of publishers of Sanskrit > > versions, after which he ignored the evidence of Suryasiddhanta and > > diverted the topic to Mahabharata. Mr Prafulla Mendki has joined him, by > > quoting verses of MBh out of context. > > Prafulla Ji quoted rightly, the Gita Press version of MBh contains same > > verses with exactly same verse number and chapter number as Prafull Ji > > cited (MBh 2.188.22-28, Markandeya Samasyaparva) . This chapter > > 188 does not make it clear whether divya year is meant or normal year. > > But as I earlier sent the reference to Sunil Ji which he ignored, > > exactly same verse (2.188.22) occurs in MBh again in > > Moksha-dharma- parva 5.231.20 without a single word differing. But > > verses 2.188.23-25 have been summarized succinctly in 5.231.21, without > > any difference in meaning. But these verses should be read in proper > > context of preceding verses : verses 5.231.17-19 make it clear that the > > year is divya, equal to 360 normal years. This does not > > allow me to attach file in the files sections, hence I am sending the > > scanned copy of this page of Gita Press edition which is in Hindi to > > personal email ID of Sunil Ji. If he ignores this proof as he has done > > so far, I will upload this scanned page to some website and request > > members to see how Sunil Ji is playing with facts and calling me names > > for stating the truth. > > Please also see the only online version of complete MBh at > > http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ , esp its 5.231 > > chapter at > > http://www.mahabhar ataonline. com/translation/ mahabharata_ 12b058.php > > whose relevant portions are as : > > <<<<< " Five and ten winks of the eye make what is called a Kashtha. > > Thirty Kashthas would make what is called a Kala. Thirty Kalas, with the > > tenth part of a Kala added, make what is known as a Muhurta. Thirty > > Muhurtas make up one day and night. Thirty days and nights are called a > > month, and twelve months are called a year. Persons conversant with > > mathematical science say that a year is made up of two ayanas (dependent > > on sun's motion), viz., the northern and the southern. The sun makes the > > day and the night for the world of man. The night is for the sleep of > > all living creatures, and the day is for the doing of action. A month of > > human beings is equal to a day and night of the Pitris. That division > > (as regards the Pitris) consists in this: the lighted fortnight (of men) > > is their day which is for the doing of acts; and the dark fortnight is > > their night for sleep. A year (of human beings) is equal to a day and > > night of the gods. The division (as regards the gods) consists in this: > > the half year for which the sun travels from the vernal to the autumnal > > equinox is the day of the deities, and the half year for which the sun > > travels from the latter to the former is their night. Computing by the > > days and nights of human beings about which I have told thee, I shall > > speak of the day and night of Brahman and his years also. I shall, in > > their order, tell thee the number of years, that are (thus) for > > different purposes computed differently in respect of the Krita, the > > Treta, the Dwapara, and the Kali yugas. Four thousand years (of the > > deities) is the duration of the first or Krita age. The morning of that > > epoch consists of four hundred years and its evening is of four hundred > > years. (The total duration, therefore, of the Krita yuga is four > > thousand and eight hundred years of the deities). As regards the other > > yugas, the duration of each gradually decreases by a quarter in respect > > of both the substantive period with the conjoining portion and the > > conjoining portion itself. (Thus the duration of the Treta is three > > thousand years and its morning extends for three hundred years and its > > evening for three hundred). The duration of the Dwapara also is two > > thousand years, and its morning extends for two hundred years and its > > evening also for two hundred. The duration of the Kali yuga is one > > thousand years, and its morning extends for one hundred years, and its > > evening for one hundred. " >>>>> > > I had sent this reference to Sunil Ji, which he ignored. Sunil ji will > > get the scanned copy of Gita Press version within a few minutes through > > email. But I know he will ignore the evidence of MBh as he did of > > Suryasiddhanta, and will try to find some other text where no > > differentiation is made between divya and human years due to brevity, > > and use such " proofs " for advancing his wrong theory of 12000 human > > years for a Mahayuga. > > -Vinay Jha > > ============ ====== ==== > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > โ " ฌ > > > You made the statement: > > > โ " ฌ > > > Quote > > > โ " ฌ > > > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > > > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > > > โ " ฌ > > > Unquote > > > โ " ฌ > > > Do I have to ask you for the Mahabharata reference for this > > statementโ " ฌ or have I to accept your word for it? I think it would > > have been betterโ " ฌ if you would have substantiated that statement. > > > โ " ฌ > > > Suni K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 11:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > The answer toyour quetion is: > > > Ifโ " ฌ Kaliyug was not extended ,then it would have ended in 1902BC > > and there would have been only eight Avatars. > > > But it was extended to 4,32,000 years. > > > Threfore kaliyug has not ended. > > > We can not change whatever happened in history because it is past. > > > But we can redefine Yug system in future again if all agree. > > > Prafulla > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 7/5/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > > Cc: " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ..., > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Thursday, 7 May, 2009, 4:32 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > โ " ฌ > > > So you mean to say that the Kali yuga was over in 1902 BCE (3102-1200 > > = 1902) and the ninth Avatara of Lord Buddhaโ " ฌ has occurred inโ " ฌ > > the Satya yuga. So in the last Mahayuga there were only eight > > Avataras.โ " ฌ > > > โ " ฌ > > > S.K.Bhattacharjya > > > โ " ฌ > > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:40 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > Chatvari ahu: sahastrani varshanam tat ktrutam yugamโ " ฌ | > > > tasya tavat shati sanshya sandyansha: cha tathavidha:โ " ฌ || > > 2.188.22|| > > > trini varshasahastrani tretayugam iha uchyate| > > > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandyansha: cha tat: param|| 2.188.23|| > > > tatha varshasahastre dve dwaparam parimanat: | > > > tasya api dwi shati sandhya sandhyansha: cha tathavidha :|| 2.188.24|| > > > sahatrasm ekam varshanam tat: kaliyugam smrutam| > > > tasya varshshatam sandhi: sandhyansha: cha tat: param|| > > > sandhi sandhyanshyo: tulayam pramanam updharaya|| 2.188.25|| > > > prafulla > > > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Cc: , > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Tuesday, 5 May, 2009, 11:15 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > โ " ฌ > > > I am referring to the textavailable from the " Sacred texts " site. Why > > don't you give the five verses that you are referring to? > > > โ " ฌ > > > SunilK. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 10:17 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > I am refering to Gitapress Khanda 2(Vanparva and Viratparva) in which > > > Markandeya Samasyaparva is present.188. 22 is on page 1482.Are you > > refering to Gitapress or some other Edition? > > > Prafulla > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 30/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > " Prafulla Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Thursday, 30 April, 2009, 7:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla, > > > โ " ฌ > > > Mahabharata Book - 2 is Sabha-Parva and that does not have the > > Markandeya-Samasya Parva. Only the Book - 3 is Vana-Parva or > > Aranya-Parva and that has the Markandeya-Samasya Parva. In the > > Markandeya-Samasya Parva there is no verse like you have quoted. > > > โ " ฌ > > > S.K.Bhattacharjyaโ " ฌ > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Prafulla Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sunil > > > I am refering to MBH2( not 3) 188.22 to 188.26( Gitapress) pages 1482 > > & 1483 > > > Chatvaryahu: sahastrani varshanam tat krutam yugam > > > tasya tavat shati sandhya sandhyansha: โ " ฌ ch tathavidha: .... > > > Prafulla > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 29/4/09, sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Re: Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > " prafulla Vaman Mendki " prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, 5:05 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear friend, > > > โ " ฌ > > > The verse (MBH 3.188.22) is as follows: > > > โ " ฌ > > > โ " ฌ โ " ฌ โ " ฌ โ " ฌ ั€ะดะ•ั€ะดะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะดะฟั€à¸\ °à¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸”ะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะดะฟั€ะดะ' > > ั€ะดะบั€ะดโ–`ั€ะดโ " �ั€ะดะพั€\ ะตะ`ั€ะดโ•–ั€ะตะ�ั€ะดะณั€ะดà\ ¸°à¸˜à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸”ะดั€ะตะ� > > ั€ะดโ•ฃั€ะดโ " �ั€ะดะ'ั€ะดโ••ั\ €ะดะฟั€ะดะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะดะดั€ะà¸\ ”โ•ข ั€ะดะช ั€ะดะพั€ะดโ•�ั€ะดะธั€ะดโ•à¸à¸\ ±â‚¬à¸°à¸”โ•�ั€ะดะ " > > > โ " ฌ โ " ฌ โ " ฌ โ " ฌ ั€ะดะ•ั€ะดะฌั€ะดะบั€ะดโ•� > > ั€ะดะธั€ะดโ•�ั€ะดโ••ั€ะตะ�à¸\ ±â‚¬à¸°à¸”ะดั€ะดโ " �ั€ะดะฅั€ะดโ•�ั€\ ะดะ " ั€ะดโ••ั€ะดะดั€ะตะ—ั€ะดะธัâ‚\ ¬à¸°à¸”โ•� > > ั€ะดะà¸à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸”โ•à¸à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸”โ " �ั€ะดโ•–à\ ¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸”ะฟั€ะดะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะ\ ดะดั€ะดโ " � ั€ะดะฟั€ะตะ`ั€ะดะงั€ะดะฅั€ะà\ ¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸”โ•–ั€ะดะฟั€ะตะ— > > > โ " ฌ > > > This verse does not say what you mentioned. Can you please quote the > > Sanskrit verse you arer referring to? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > โ " ฌ > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > > --- On Tue, 4/28/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... wrote: > > > > > > > > > prafulla Vaman Mendki prafulla_mendki@ ... > > > Fw: Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " sunil_bhattacharjya > > > Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 6:26 AM > > > > > > > > > prafulla_mendki@ ... writes: > > > > > > Suryasiddhanta was written after start of Kaliyug. > > > As per 188.22 in MarkandeyaSamasya parva in Mahabharata, > > > Krut,Treta,Dwapar and Kaliyug were 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 > > > years only. > > > The idea of Dev varsha and Manav varsha came after Mahabharata > > > i.e. after start of Kaliyug . > > > Prafulla > > > > > > WAVES-Vedic, Sunil Bhattacharjya > > sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya @ > > > > Re: Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > Saturday, April 25, 2009, 3:42 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Vinayji does not know himself as to how many verses were really > > there in the Suryasiddhanta and tries to find fault with me even though > > I said thatโ " ฌ โ " ฌ I read the figure of 100,000 in a book long ago > > though I do not recollect all the details. If Vinayji thinks I am wrong > > let himโ " ฌ give the number of verses in the original Suryasiddhanta > > straightway without wasting any time. > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Secondly he says as follows: > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Quote > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of > > Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end > > of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse > > 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In > > succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, > > which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd > > notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient > > India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it > > will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional > > Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary > > revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato > > Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every > > student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit > > universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > > > just > > > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits > > are fools. > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Unquote > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Vinayji's yuga calculation will show that Lord Rama was born al > > least a million years ago. Any takers of that? Vinayji has not read that > > the Saptarshi cycle of 2700 Divya varsha is equal to 3030 Manush varsha. > > Hence he is making unnecessary noise here. Let him say what the > > Bhagavata purana and Vishnu purana say about the yugas. He has not read > > these as his views indicate. > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Regards, > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 4/22/09, vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > vinayjhaa16 <vinayjhaa16@ > > > > > Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > > > > > > Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:44 AM > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > Sunil ji claimed original Suryasiddhanta had 100000 verses. Why he > > does not cite the source of this wonderful information instead of > > ridiculing me on fictious grounds ?? Sunil ji makes wild claims and then > > forgets to substantiate them. Bhatta Utpala quoted many verses of > > Suryasiddhanta which are not present in extant version. Bhaskar-II > > quoted a formula from Suryasiddhanta in Siddhaanta Shiromani which > > differs from the same formula in extant version of Suryasiddhanta, which > > Burgess misinterpreted, although Bhaskar had clearly mentioned in his > > own commentary on Siddhaanta Shiromani (Vaasanaa-bhaashya, not > > translated as yet) that he quoted this formula of Suryasiddhanta from > > Shruti (ie, from oral Vedic tradition, and not from any manuscript of > > Suryasiddhanta) . If Varaha Mihira had seen manuscript of > > Suryasiddhanta, Bhaskara-II must have seen the same, more so because > > Bhatta Utpala who preceded Bhaskara by just a century quoted verses from > > > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > Yet Bhaskar-II clearly says Suryasiddhanta has some items which are > > part of Shruti and not being committed to writing !!! Thus, there were > > two versions of Suryasiddhanta : written and oral. Written version has > > not survived in full, as is clear from Utpala's verses, but the written > > verse contains almopst everything required for panchanga making for > > astrological purposes, while the items cited from Shruti have serious > > differences with extant Suryasiddhanta and tally with modern physical > > astronomy with a high degree of precision (wrt precession). Thus, there > > were two versions of Suryasiddhanta, which the greatest mediaeval > > exponent of Suryasiddhanta Kamlakara Bhatta termed as Drikpaksha and > > Saurapaksha . Ketakar ji, proponent of famous of Ketaki system of > > panchanga making, follolwed this bifurcation , although Ketakar ji > > supported Drikpaksha (like Pandit Samanta Chandrasekha) while Kamlakara > > supported Saurapaksha for astrological purposes. > > > > > > > > Sunil ji makes a wrong statement : " Makaranda developed the tables > > the way Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. " The latter followed > > Drikpaksha while the former followed Saurapaksha. The only difference of > > Makaranda Tables from socalled " modern " Suryasiddhanta is the > > incorporation of beeja samskaara in Makaranda Tables, whose magnitudes > > were explained in siddhantic terms in Makaranda-vivarana by Diwakar > > Bhatta but Western commentators could not understant these differences > > which were inflated in tantra method to huge proportions, because the > > accumulated beeja of ~2 billion years in siddhanta method is distributed > > over ~5000 years in tantra method beginning from Kaliyuga and over few > > centuries beginning from some recent zero date. Varah Mihira followed > > karana method but the verse mentioning his zero date is missing is > > Panchsiddhantika, hence it is not possible to compute anything on the > > basis of Panchsiddhantika due to missing verses. > > > > > > > > Sunil Ji is merely repeating Western propaganda by stating : > > " Varahamihira was probably the last person to have seen the original > > Suryasiddhanta as well as the Aryasiddhanta of the very first > > Aryabhatta. " Varahamihira' s Suryasiddhanta has been called as " old " and > > extant version as " new " by Western commentators, in spite of the fact > > that he is following karana method and not siddhanta method while > > describing Suryasiddhanta. Makarandaachaarya also followed tantra method > > (different from Tantras of philosophy) instead of siddhanta method. > > Extant version of Suryasiddhanta is the siddhanta method. That is why > > those who do not know how to make panchangas from three methods imagine > > Varahamihira' s version to be different from that of siddhanta method. > > > > > > > > I am sorry to disclose these facts to a person who is trying to gain > > facts from me by paying me handsome dakshinaa in the form of sarcastic > > remarks and non-obscene abuses. Even when he is incapable of refuting > > me, he uses words which give an impression that my statements are > > unreliable. For instance, he says : " Vinayji claims to have supplied > > data for 382 - 1082 CE . " Why he does not falsify my supposed claims ?? > > I provided DATA, which are facts and not views. It is unfortunate Sunil > > ji is unable to differentiate facts from views. He may oppose my views, > > but he should not oppose facts. I devoted months over the period 3200 > > BC, as well as over other period. That is why I said Suryadiddhantic > > planets do not tally with physical planets for ANY period. Sunil ji has > > no time for making computations, and falsifies my years of research with > > his unsubstantiated remarks about my integrity and truthfulness. As for > > his own respect for truth, it is clear from > > > > following remark. > > > > > > > > Sunil ji is again taking a recourse to deliberate distortions of my > > statements with a view to poke fun at me. I said : " Pragjyotishpur was > > the easternmost city of ancient India where first Sunrise (Prak - > > jyotish) occurred. " To this, Sunil ji replied : " 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. " By replacing " India " with " earth " in my statement, whom he > > intends to befool ?? > > > > > > > > The date 2163101 BCE for Suryasiddhanta is mentioned in the text of > > Suryasiddhanta itself, which says it was given by Lord Surya at the end > > of Satayuga. This text says one divya day is of one normal year (verse > > 13 in Ch-1) and next verse says 360 divya days make one divya year. In > > succeeding verses, one Mahayuga is said to be of 12000 divya years, > > which is equal to 4320000 normal years. If we accept Sunil ji's absurd > > notion of divya year being same as solar year, all siddhantas of ancient > > India will have planetary motions being speeded up by 360 times, and it > > will be impossible to make any panchanga at all from any traditional > > Indian method, because Indians used to give number of planetary > > revolutions in terms of revolutions per mahayuga. " Ankaanaam Vaamato > > Gati " may be a great discovery for Sunil ji, but it is taught to every > > student of Jyotisha at primary level by those experts of Sanskrit > > universities who are called " pseudo-scholars " by Sunil ji > > > just > > > > because Sunil ji has not read original texts and thinks all pandits > > are fools. > > > > > > > > While mentioning that Lord Surya gave present version of > > Suryasiddhanta to Maya at the end of present Satyuga, the text also says > > that it was given to maharshis in every yuga (ie, in every satyuga). > > Hence, according to Suryasiddhanta it was present at the beginning of > > Creation ! Whether Suryasiddhanta makes a false or true claim is another > > matter, but Sunil ji has no right to call me names ( " pseudo-scholar " ) > > just because I quote the texts accurately, instead of making wild and > > unsubstantiated claims like him. I do not use foul words for him, as he > > does for me, but I must counter his wrong statements. He should read a > > lot before posting his statements here. Internet fora are not for > > misinformation by ignorants. He should study Makarandaprakaasha > > (published by Chowkhamba) wrt Suryasiddhanta, which will take months, > > before commenting wildly. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > ============ = ============ ========= == > > > > , Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > Will Vinayji tell usโ " ฌ his opinionโ " ฌ about the > > Makaranda-Tables, which are based on โ " ฌ the Suryasiddhanta, in the > > light of what he said here. Makaranda develop[ed the tables the way > > Panditโ " ฌ Samanta Chandrasekhar had done.โ " ฌ While Makaranda corrected > > the data for all the grahasโ " ฌ probably he did notโ " ฌ succeed in > > correcting the data for Mars. Mihira (Varahamihira)โ " ฌ was probably > > the last person to have seen the original Suryasiddhanta as well as > > theโ " ฌ Aryasiddhanta of the very first Aryabhatta. > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > Vinayji claims to have supplied data for 382 - 1082 CE . Why did > > he not try the dates around 3200 BCE, the time around whichโ " ฌ 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 BCEโ " ฌ instead of saying that he can supply data for other dates > > too if Sunilji wants. > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > 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 scholarsโ " ฌ stick toโ " ฌ > > some fantastic lengths for the yugas such as 1,296,000 years for the > > Dwapara yuga.โ " ฌ One who has read the Puranas know that the length of > > the Dwapara yuga isโ " ฌ 3600 years and not 1,296,000 years. It is > > because those pseudo-scholarsโ " ฌ do not know the importance of the > > need to use the rule " Ankaanaam Vaamato Gati " in the interpretation of > > the yuga data andโ " ฌ they also do not know that Divya varsha isโ " ฌ > > nothing but the Solarโ " ฌ 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? > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > Nobody knows exactly as to how many verses the original > > Suryasiddhanta contained. I too do not haveโ " ฌ any first-hand > > information on thatโ " ฌ asโ " ฌ I only read about it somewhere long time > > ago.โ " ฌ Willโ " ฌ Vinayji care toโ " ฌ tell the groupโ " ฌ the exact > > number of verses in the Suryasiddhanta as composed by Mayasuraโ " ฌ 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 heโ " ฌ may > > giveโ " ฌ if at all he can give the correct number of verses. > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > Regarding the naming of Pragjyotishpurโ " ฌ Vinayji thinks that > > the ancientโ " ฌ Indiansโ " ฌ thought the Kamrup district in Assam to be > > the end of the earth on the eastern side. Interesting? > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > Regards, > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > > > > โ " ฌ > > > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > > indiaarchaeology > > > > > Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; @ > > . com; 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 --- > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji, You have rightly pointed out that we should not go on repudiating AKK's mails endlessly. As you might have observed that we, the astrology-lovers, never attack first but we know how to defend the facts. We foil all their attempts to spoil the reputation of our great ancient Jyotishis. Many people thought that AKK is a scholar and invited him to give talks and he took full advantage of that to spread falsehood about Astrology. Initially I also told him that the Veda mentions about the 12 divisions of the Zodiac and the further 360 divisions but still he was adamant so I had to tell him a lot more. That was not to educate him but to counter his spread of false information on Astrology. Some people may think that I was showing off and I do not mind as I think that they may not be aware that my replies were necessary. Not only me, there are other scholars such as Sunil Nairji, Sreenadhji, Goelji and including you, who fought with AKK. But I think the time has come for us to stop and give the younger people a chance to counter such falsehoods. We will always be there to give guidance to them if and when they need any. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 6:56 AM Dear Ashutoshji, These people have enough knowledge, in fact more than necessary , but all misplaced, which is why they are a confused lot, and wish to confuse others. They are too rigid in their approach, slaughter their own ancestors with their evil utterances for them, so leave no scope for a sensible discussion with others who have their knowledge placed at the right places. Yes they dont have any knowledge of Indian astrology, which is very true. They unfortunately live on these same astrologers whom they despise, like the parasitic worms who eat the food of their own masters stomach on whose basis they are exisiting. We too are unfortunately always keeping them on the news and Headlines, trying to prove them that they are wrong and we are right. We keep them and their reputations alive by always discussing about them, talking about them , posting mails about them, behind their backs, and give them publicity for free. Spo they are kept famous because of our efforts, otherwise how many active members can they boast of , in their own Group ? Instead of ignoring them we are always talking about them and keeping them alive. But we dont understand that we are wasting our precious time on them in trying to convince and change them. How can one possibly change " Prem Chopra " or " Amrish Puri " and make them Heores ? Is it possible ? Instead why dont we spend our energy, knowledge and time on the newcomers who can be taught what we know, who can learn from our experiences which we share them, and thus create 10 Heroes , instead of trying to change Prem Chopra into becoming a Hero ? These people are best left alone and would die their natural death if no one listens to them or talks about them. But few of us who are into own agendas of keeping oneself alive use them as props, when actually we should be discussing something else. regards, Bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, ashutosh seth <sethashutosh@ ...> wrote: > > respected suniji & bhaskarji, > > i m not opposing yours arguments as arguments (Sastarath) increase our knowledge but i m opposing AKK like people, who did not have knowledge of Indian Astrology, but want to argument on base of so called western researches. > > > i m sorry if i hurt u (chhama badin ko chaiye....) > > ashutosh seth > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > " sunil_bhattacharjy a " sunil_bhattacharjya > ancient_indian_ astrology > Tuesday, 12 May, 2009 10:30:33 AM > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Originality of Suryasiddhanta > > > Bollywood news, movie reviews, film trailers and more! Go to http://in.movies. / > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.