Guest guest Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Dear Sreenadhji, Thank you for giving the details of the ancient schools of Indian jyotisha. Earlier I wrote that there was a possibility that Mayasura could have got his knowledge from a Surya rishi and a couple of persons including AKK ridiculed the idea and nobody came in favour of the Surya rishi. That is why I was omitting the name of the Surya rishi. I am one with you in that Surya rishi could have been the teacher of Mayasura. The astronomical research with devotion to Lord Surya probably worked in case of Samanta Chandrasekhar. In fact Surya rishi (or rajarshi) was one of the descendents of Manu. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 prafulla_mendki writes: Mahabharata v.231.18/19/20/21 also mentions human years(not Divya years).According to these vesres, Krut,Treta ,Dwapar and Kali are 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 human years resp. v.231.18 clearly mentions " Ratryahani Jivaloukike " which means human days and nights.(which refers to days and night made by Sun as given in v.231.15) Also purans are not written at one time. They contain mixure of old and new verses. Some verses are written when Kaliyug was about to end (i.e.before 1902BC.) Prafulla Prafulla , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > 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 ั€ะภ" ะ•ั€ะภ" ะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะภ" ะฟั€à¸\ °à¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " ะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะภ" ะฟั€ะภ" ะ' > > > > ั€ะภ" ะบั€ะภ" โ†" `ั€ะภ" โ " �ั€ะภ" ะพั€\ ะตะ`ั€ะภ" โ•†" ั€ะตะ�ั€ะภ" ะภ" ั€ะภ" à\ ¸°à¸˜à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " ะภ" ั€ะตะ� > > > > ั€ะภ" โ•ฃั€ะภ" โ " �ั€ะภ" ะ'ั€ะภ" โ••ั\ €ะภ" ะฟั€ะภ" ะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะภ" ะภ" ั€ะà¸\ " โ•ข ั€ะภ" ะช ั€ะภ" ะพั€ะภ" โ•�ั€ะภ" ะธั€ะภ" โ•à¸à¸\ ±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " โ•�ั€ะภ" ะ " > > > > > โ " ฌ โ " ฌ โ " ฌ โ " ฌ ั€ะภ" ะ•ั€ะภ" ะฌั€ะภ" ะบั€ะภ" โ•� > > > > ั€ะภ" ะธั€ะภ" โ•�ั€ะภ" โ••ั€ะตะ�à¸\ ±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " ะภ" ั€ะภ" โ " �ั€ะภ" ะฅั€ะภ" โ•�ั€\ ะภ" ะ " ั€ะภ" โ••ั€ะภ" ะภ" ั€ะตะ†" ั€ะภ" ะธัâ‚\ ¬à¸°à¸ " โ•� > > > > ั€ะภ" ะà¸à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " โ•à¸à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " โ " �ั€ะภ" โ•†" à\ ¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " ะฟั€ะภ" ะธั€ะตะ�ั€ะ\ ภ" ะภ" ั€ะภ" โ " � ั€ะภ" ะฟั€ะตะ`ั€ะภ" ะงั€ะภ" ะฅั€ะà\ ¸•à¸°ï¿½à¸±â‚¬à¸°à¸ " โ•†" ั€ะภ" ะฟั€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 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Nowhere (whether before or after 1902CE) it is mentioned that the Kaliyuga was extended to 432,000 years. We are unnecessarily prolonging the discussions. Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Thu, 5/14/09, prafulla Vaman Mendki <prafulla_mendki wrote: prafulla Vaman Mendki <prafulla_mendki Re:Originality of Suryasiddhanta Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 8:18 PM prafulla_mendki@ .co. in writes:Mahabharata v.231.18/19/ 20/21 also mentions human years(not Divya years).According to these vesres, Krut,Treta ,Dwapar and Kali are 4800,3600,2400 and 1200 human years resp.v.231.18 clearly mentions "Ratryahani Jivaloukike" which means human days and nights.(which refers to days and night made by Sun as given in v.231.15)Also purans are not written at one time. They contain mixure of old and new verses. Some verses are written when Kaliyug was about to end (i.e.before 1902BC.)PrafullaPrafullaancient_indian_ astrology@ . com, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote:>> 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_bhattacharjy a @>> > > > 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 h 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.