Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar system

[Guest guest]

Sunil Da,

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Annual+Rains

 

-VJ

============================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

WAVES-Vedic

Cc: ; vedic astrology ;

vedic_research_institute

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

 

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana

(2.7), Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the

Chapter " Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas "

by Burra Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay,

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers  made their observations

from the surface of the earth and they were  hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the

heavenly bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of

the eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly

possible I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as 

Geocentric. Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the

observations. Aryabhatta for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25

deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain  (23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N)

for his observations and not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become

synonymous with the observation from the surface of the earth and I do not have

any better word to replace it.  The last word on the location of the Meru is

yet  to be told. Brahmagupta, to my knowledge insisted that the Meru was Kailash

parvat ,probably because it is in

line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should

be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the

day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra

and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third)

view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not

teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another

group, where  one member  " X "  could not properly understand what  another member

" Y " wrote. Then " X " wrote to " Y " as follows :.

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is not

the fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your own

admissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

The Cat was out of the bag as " X " had  unwittingly disclosed that he is not a

Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of " Y " .

Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that

the Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models,

as applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient

Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

Best wishes.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains

 

-VJ

============ ========= ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

WAVES-Vedic

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7),

Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter

" Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas " by Burra

Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7), Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter "Heliocentric" in the Rig" in the book "The celestial Key to the Vedas" by Burra Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sunil Da,

 

You are right in asserting that " the last word on the location of the Meru is

yet to be told " , and I know Vedic Astrology will continue to be distorted till

the end of current Kaliyuga. Truth is valued only in Satyuga. I added all

references to Meru in ancient literature in Wikipedia and it was deleted by an

Indian without any discussion, calling me an obscurantist. Meru cannot even be

discussed. Even in this astrological forum, I have provided clear proofs of

location of Meru from ancient literature as well as from practical astrology,

but you insist on some premises which are not Vedic. For instance, your

insistence on " naked eye astronomers " does not apply to ancient Rishis who gave

us the original shaastras and Jyotisha. their original works clearly refer to

Reveletions and not to empirical observation. It does not fit in the framework

of modern western reader whom you want to placate by re-interpreting our

scriptures according to their tastes.

 

You are wrong in asserting that " Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru

for the observations. " Why you forget my earlier mails ? Read Suryasiddhanta,

yaamala Tantras and Narapatijayacharya. Narapatijayacharya is a much later work

(~1000 AD) : it says Meru is said to be at the middle of Earth but is not seen

there. The author of Narapatijayacharya had no idea of central Africa and he

searched in the lands he knew : India and its vicinity. But in the same book he

says that India is east of Meru. Since India is not at the equator, India is

north of Meru as well, because Meru is at the middle (equator) according to same

book. Hence, according to Narapatijayacharya, India is north-east of Meru and

Meru is south-west of India. Suryasiddhanta removes the doubt by stating that

Meru was at Bhoogola-madhya in the jewel-rich land of the Jamboonada. Such a

land south-west of India is only Africa. Africa is a later word. Jamboodvipa was

much bigger, and

comprised of entire Eurasia and Africa which actually forms a sigle island. Its

equatorial portion is Africa, where many countries and rivers still carry the

name Jamboo (eg Zambezi from Jamboonadi , Mu + zambique in which Mu is an Arabic

prefix later added , Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo from Zambbo, Gabon from Zambon, etc

). Meru still lies at the foothill of that mountain which has been renamed as Mt

Kenya, although Kinyangiri lies in Tanzania. Kinyangiri is a Sanskrit word used

for an Tanzia place wher no India has evr visited in pre=modern times , then who

named such places in Sanskrit ? I have read some anthropologists of England

wondering at Sanskrit place names in central Africa, but linguists and

historians are deliberately neglect these facts because they have to prove Aryan

Invasion Theory from Europe.

 

Had nobody gone to the Meru, texts like Narapatijayacharya or Suryasiddhanta or

Yaamala Tantra not contained references to it.

 

The work of real aryabhatta is lost. Aryabhatiya is a spurious work, which was

vehemently opposed by traditional believers in Vedic-puranic tradition, such as

Brahmagupta and Bhaskar who followed Brahmagupta. The errors of Aryabhatiya,

however, can be explained only to that person who knows the methods of ancient

astronomy. You are comppetent enough to judge these things. Aryabhatiya gave a

wrong order of graha-spashtikarana, which signifies its erroneous theoretical

conception. Its mandavrittas has huge mismatches with Earth's diameter, which

proves that Aryabhatiya is not a genuine work but was plagiarised from the work

of real Aryabhatta whose Suryasiddhantic commentary was lost. Soon after

Aryabhatiya, Panchsiddhantika was written by Varah Mihira which eulogised

Suryasiddhanta as the best and a DIVINE work. A work attaining the status of a

divine work must be very old, but the author of Aryabhatiya did not know that

Suryasiddhanta existed !!

Although his Aryabhatiya is a crude and wrong plagiarised copy of

Suryasiddhanta. Author of Aryabhatiya lived at Khagola village near Patana and

taught at a Vihara. He had no access to complete Suryasiddhanta. He knew nothing

about real position of Meru. Meru was mentioned in MBH, Puranas and Jain texts

as the centre of planetary orbits.

 

In astrology, Mt Meru must be considered as a Pole for plotting meridians from

it (the very word Meridian is to be deduced from Meru) for making the Medini

chart of the world. These charts are perfectly true ASTROLOGICALLY. All my

forecasts are based on Merucentric charts, which have been verified from NASA,

IMD and others. But you refuse to consider these things. You know the basics of

astrology and are capable of judging the truth or falsity of my Merucentric

charts, but you are ignoring it. You will perhaps be angry if I add that

Merucentric astrology cannot be properly comprehended without brahmacharya and

associated practices.

 

Meru as a North Pole is a necessity in astrology, which was confused with Meru

as geographical north pole or at least to the north of India and confused with

Kailash too. These are Kaliyugi concepts. As long as you will consider

Suryasiddhanta to be a Kaliyugi text, you will not accept truth : whose only

proof is astrological which you refuse to review.

 

But if you continue your journey into ancient wisdom , one day you will alight

on real Meru.

 

-VJ

==================================== ==

 

 

 

 

________________________________

" sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Cc: ;

vedic_research_institute

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:22:37 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers made their observations

from the surface of the earth and they were hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the

heavenly bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of

the eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly

possible I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as

Geocentric. Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the

observations. Aryabhatta for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25

deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain (23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N)

for his observations and not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become

synonymous with the observation from the surface of the earth and I do not have

any better word to replace it. The last word on the location of the Meru is yet

to be told. Brahmagupta, to my knowledge insisted that the Meru was Kailash

parvat ,probably because it is in

line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should

be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the

day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra

and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third)

view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not

teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another

group, where one member " X " could not properly understand what another member

" Y " wrote. Then " X " wrote to " Y " as follows :.

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is not

the fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your own

admissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

The Cat was out of the bag as " X " had unwittingly disclose d that he is not a

Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of " Y " .

Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that the

Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models, as

applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient

Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

Best wishes.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains

 

-VJ

============ ========= ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

WAVES-Vedic

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7),

Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter

" Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas " by Burra

Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay,

 

It should not be that you will be happy only if I unreservedly agree with each

and everything you say. I have yet to make any in-depth study of the Siddhantic

texts. Really speaking I have yet to devote the time it deserves. In life it is

not possible to know each and everything. Do you think each and everybody has

unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya as the Meru? Yet I did not discard it. I

will like to read the original references that you have quoted, when time

permits. Till that time I take it as your considered opinion. It is not easy to

discard Brahmagupta or the Puranas and the Vedic mention of the Sun moving from

Aries to Aries in one day. This requires deep study and you should discourage me

from taking a quick decision on it.  In fact if I quickly agree to you what you

say without much of the required study on that subject I shall be insulting that

subject. I do not deny the Saurapaksha interpretations but I do not consider

myself

competent to talk about tha yett.

 

For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. But the aim is to arrive at the truth. Today

there are people who are accusing us that we do not observe the Makar Sankranti

on the winter solstice day. They have not studied the subject in depth.  When in

the early Vedic days there were the  solstices in Krittika and Visakha did the

ancient people observe the Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice day? Think

about it.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:53 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

You are right in asserting that " the last word on the location of the Meru is

yet to be told " , and I know Vedic Astrology will continue to be distorted till

the end of current Kaliyuga. Truth is valued only in Satyuga. I added all

references to Meru in ancient literature in Wikipedia and it was deleted by an

Indian without any discussion, calling me an obscurantist. Meru cannot even be

discussed. Even in this astrological forum, I have provided clear proofs of

location of Meru from ancient literature as well as from practical astrology,

but you insist on some premises which are not Vedic. For instance, your

insistence on " naked eye astronomers " does not apply to ancient Rishis who gave

us the original shaastras and Jyotisha. their original works clearly refer to

Reveletions and not to empirical observation. It does not fit in the framework

of modern western reader whom you want to placate by re-interpreting our

scriptures according to their tastes.

 

You are wrong in asserting that " Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru

for the observations. " Why you forget my earlier mails ? Read Suryasiddhanta,

yaamala Tantras and Narapatijayacharya. Narapatijayacharya is a much later work

(~1000 AD) : it says Meru is said to be at the middle of Earth but is not seen

there. The author of Narapatijayacharya had no idea of central Africa and he

searched in the lands he knew : India and its vicinity. But in the same book he

says that India is east of Meru. Since India is not at the equator, India is

north of Meru as well, because Meru is at the middle (equator) according to same

book. Hence, according to Narapatijayacharya, India is north-east of Meru and

Meru is south-west of India. Suryasiddhanta removes the doubt by stating that

Meru was at Bhoogola-madhya in the jewel-rich land of the Jamboonada. Such a

land south-west of India is only Africa. Africa is a later word. Jamboodvipa was

much bigger, and

comprised of entire Eurasia and Africa which actually forms a sigle island. Its

equatorial portion is Africa, where many countries and rivers still carry the

name Jamboo (eg Zambezi from Jamboonadi , Mu + zambique in which Mu is an Arabic

prefix later added , Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo from Zambbo, Gabon from Zambon, etc

). Meru still lies at the foothill of that mountain which has been renamed as Mt

Kenya, although Kinyangiri lies in Tanzania. Kinyangiri is a Sanskrit word used

for an Tanzia place wher no India has evr visited in pre=modern times , then who

named such places in Sanskrit ? I have read some anthropologists of England

wondering at Sanskrit place names in central Africa, but linguists and

historians are deliberately neglect these facts because they have to prove Aryan

Invasion Theory from Europe.

 

Had nobody gone to the Meru, texts like Narapatijayacharya or Suryasiddhanta or

Yaamala Tantra not contained references to it.

 

The work of real aryabhatta is lost. Aryabhatiya is a spurious work, which was

vehemently opposed by traditional believers in Vedic-puranic tradition, such as

Brahmagupta and Bhaskar who followed Brahmagupta. The errors of Aryabhatiya,

however, can be explained only to that person who knows the methods of ancient

astronomy. You are comppetent enough to judge these things. Aryabhatiya gave a

wrong order of graha-spashtikarana , which signifies its erroneous theoretical

conception. Its mandavrittas has huge mismatches with Earth's diameter, which

proves that Aryabhatiya is not a genuine work but was plagiarised from the work

of real Aryabhatta whose Suryasiddhantic commentary was lost. Soon after

Aryabhatiya, Panchsiddhantika was written by Varah Mihira which eulogised

Suryasiddhanta as the best and a DIVINE work. A work attaining the status of a

divine work must be very old, but the author of Aryabhatiya did not know that

Suryasiddhanta existed !!

Although his Aryabhatiya is a crude and wrong plagiarised copy of

Suryasiddhanta. Author of Aryabhatiya lived at Khagola village near Patana and

taught at a Vihara. He had no access to complete Suryasiddhanta. He knew nothing

about real position of Meru. Meru was mentioned in MBH, Puranas and Jain texts

as the centre of planetary orbits.

 

In astrology, Mt Meru must be considered as a Pole for plotting meridians from

it (the very word Meridian is to be deduced from Meru) for making the Medini

chart of the world. These charts are perfectly true ASTROLOGICALLY. All my

forecasts are based on Merucentric charts, which have been verified from NASA,

IMD and others. But you refuse to consider these things. You know the basics of

astrology and are capable of judging the truth or falsity of my Merucentric

charts, but you are ignoring it. You will perhaps be angry if I add that

Merucentric astrology cannot be properly comprehended without brahmacharya and

associated practices.

 

Meru as a North Pole is a necessity in astrology, which was confused with Meru

as geographical north pole or at least to the north of India and confused with

Kailash too. These are Kaliyugi concepts. As long as you will consider

Suryasiddhanta to be a Kaliyugi text, you will not accept truth : whose only

proof is astrological which you refuse to review.

 

But if you continue your journey into ancient wisdom , one day you will alight

on real Meru.

 

-VJ

============ ========= ========= ====== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

" sunil_bhattacharjya @ " <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

vedic astrology

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic_research_ institute@

. com

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:22:37 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear Vinay,

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers made their observations from

the surface of the earth and they were hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the heavenly

bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of the

eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly possible

I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as Geocentric.

Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the observations. Aryabhatta

for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25 deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain

(23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N) for his observations and

not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become synonymous with the observation

from the surface of the earth and I do not have any better word to replace it.

The last word on the location of the Meru is yet to be told. Brahmagupta, to my

knowledge insisted that the Meru was Kailash parvat ,probably because it is in

line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should

be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the

day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra

and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third)

view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not

teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another

group, where one member " X " could not properly understand what another member

" Y " wrote. Then " X " wrote to " Y " as follows :.

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is not

the fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your own

admissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

The Cat was out of the bag as " X " had unwittingly disclose d that he is not a

Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of " Y " .

Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that the

Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models, as

applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient

Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

Best wishes.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains

 

-VJ

============ ========= ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

WAVES-Vedic

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7),

Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter

" Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas " by Burra

Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinay,

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers made their observations from the surface of the earth and they were hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the heavenly bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of the eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly possible I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as Geocentric. Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the observations. Aryabhatta for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25 deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain (23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N) for his observations and not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become synonymous with the observation from the surface of the earth and I do not have any better word to replace it. The last word on the location of the Meru is yet to be told. Brahmagupta, to my knowledge insisted that

the Meru was Kailash parvat ,probably because it is in line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third) view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another group, where one member "X" could not properly understand what another member "Y" wrote. Then "X" wrote to "Y" as follows :.

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is notthe fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your ownadmissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

The Cat was out of the bag as "X" had unwittingly disclosed that he is not a Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of "Y". Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that the Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models, as applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

Best wishes.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar systemvedic astrology Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

 

Sunil Da,Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric. Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times. MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth, while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of reference.Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ? According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement. For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc

cannot explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric model explains things better.since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ("Aashthaat" ). But Earth's centre revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well. Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved round the Meru or round the Sun.If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be non-physical,

because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe. Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and entities.Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense. Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature. One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an

apparent image of the real Sun.The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains-VJ============ ========= ========= ==____________ _________ _________ __Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>WAVES-VedicCc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology; vedic_research_ instituteFriday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar systemDear friends, The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric modelThe geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the earth.The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7), Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter "Heliocentric" in the Rig" in the book "The celestial Key to the Vedas" by Burra Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Ji,

 

If the ancient seers believed in geo centricity, then all stars and planets must have a uniform orbital period of 24 hours as all stars and planets reach back the same point in every 24 hours as per naked eye observation.

 

How come the ancient seers correctly ascertained that Saturn has a period of 30 years, Jupiter - 12 years and even the Sapta Rishis which is outside the solar system having some 2700 years if they were so naive ?

 

Regards

 

Bejoy

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar systemWAVES-Vedic Cc: , vedic astrology , vedic_research_institute Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 11:09 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7), Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter "Heliocentric" in the Rig" in the book "The celestial Key to the Vedas" by Burra Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Bejoyji,

 

Look at the night sky and you will know if all the stars and planets reach back the same place everyday. Once you start observing the movement of the stars and planets for quite some time you will be able to have the idea of their relative movement of the Saturn and Jupiter.

 

For the Saptarshi movement it is better you read the paper of Vahia. This paper was in the Internet. You may check if it is still there. The 2700 years is a convention to name the centuries after the 27 Nakshatras from the start of the Saptarshi era.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. BHattacharjya

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Bejoy <bejoy_cs wrote:

Bejoy <bejoy_csRe: Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar system Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 8:16 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sunil Ji,

 

If the ancient seers believed in geo centricity, then all stars and planets must have a uniform orbital period of 24 hours as all stars and planets reach back the same point in every 24 hours as per naked eye observation.

 

How come the ancient seers correctly ascertained that Saturn has a period of 30 years, Jupiter - 12 years and even the Sapta Rishis which is outside the solar system having some 2700 years if they were so naive ?

 

Regards

 

Bejoy

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar systemWAVES-VedicCc: ancient_indian_ astrology, vedic astrology, vedic_research_ instituteThursday, July 2, 2009, 11:09 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7), Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter "Heliocentric" in the Rig" in the book "The celestial Key to the Vedas" by Burra Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunilji,

 

I have read Vahia and also the relevant portions of Sapta Rishi movement from the Vishu Purana.

 

I must say the Puranic theme is Dhruva centric.

 

When modern science talk about declination and right ascension, thats also a geo centric coordinate system but one never accuse modern scientists that they are having a geo centric world view. Infact one do appreciate that its only to make things easier to comprehend as observers are based on the earth. But unfortunately, modern scientists do not have the same sense of appreciation for ancient knowledge.

 

Regards

 

Bejoy--- On Sat, 7/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar system Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 2:34 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Bejoyji,

 

Look at the night sky and you will know if all the stars and planets reach back the same place everyday. Once you start observing the movement of the stars and planets for quite some time you will be able to have the idea of their relative movement of the Saturn and Jupiter.

 

For the Saptarshi movement it is better you read the paper of Vahia. This paper was in the Internet. You may check if it is still there. The 2700 years is a convention to name the centuries after the 27 Nakshatras from the start of the Saptarshi era.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sunil K. BHattacharjya

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Bejoy <bejoy_cs > wrote:

Bejoy <bejoy_cs >Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar systemancient_indian_ astrologyFriday, July 3, 2009, 8:16 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sunil Ji,

 

If the ancient seers believed in geo centricity, then all stars and planets must have a uniform orbital period of 24 hours as all stars and planets reach back the same point in every 24 hours as per naked eye observation.

 

How come the ancient seers correctly ascertained that Saturn has a period of 30 years, Jupiter - 12 years and even the Sapta Rishis which is outside the solar system having some 2700 years if they were so naive ?

 

Regards

 

Bejoy

 

--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar systemWAVES-VedicCc: ancient_indian_ astrology, vedic astrology, vedic_research_ instituteThursday, July 2, 2009, 11:09 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7), Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter "Heliocentric" in the Rig" in the book "The celestial Key to the Vedas" by Burra Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sunil Da,

 

<<< " Do you think each and everybody has unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya

as the Meru? " >>>

 

Truth is not decided by counting of votes, especially of those who do not even

read relevant texts but are desirous of giving their votes. i know

Suryasiddhanta will never be accepted by the majority, because the majority will

never learn an occult subject which is not disclosed to the majority. When you

come to India, I will request you to find an expert of Suryasiddhanta who can

elucidate the Graha-spashtikarana equations of any ancient Indian siddhanta.

Then you will find out that it is really an occult subject.

 

<<< " For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. " >>>

 

My background is not astrological but scientific, although later I also took a

degree in English literature (and topped in the university). I had broken all

previous records in Delhi in middle board exams of CBSE in science subjects and

continued to excel. I was a studied Chemistry , History, English, etc in

different colleges. Where my METHODOLOGY is unscientific ? On the contrary, some

internet " experts " are not following the standard scientific methodology in

this particular case : they should compare the horoscopes made from

Suryasiddhanta with those made from physical astrology. Practical test of

Suryasiddhanta is being avoided by almost all " internet " expterts. some of them

dismiss Suryasiddhanta on the basis of spurious arguments, refusing to test it

astrologically. Is such a subjective method " scierntific " ??

 

Should I define scientific method, esp in the case of an occult field whose

secrets have n ever been fully puvlished ? Test the results.

 

-VJ

========================= ==

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009 7:14:34 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

It should not be that you will be happy only if I unreservedly agree with each

and everything you say. I have yet to make any in-depth study of the Siddhantic

texts. Really speaking I have yet to devote the time it deserves. In life it is

not possible to know each and everything. Do you think each and everybody has

unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya as the Meru? Yet I did not discard it. I

will like to read the original references that you have quoted, when time

permits. Till that time I take it as your considered opinion. It is not easy to

discard Brahmagupta or the Puranas and the Vedic mention of the Sun moving from

Aries to Aries in one day. This requires deep study and you should discourage me

from taking a quick decision on it. In fact if I quickly agree to you what you

say without much of the required study on that subject I shall be insulting that

subject. I do not deny the Saurapaksha interpretations but I do not consider

myself

competent to talk about tha yett.

 

For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. But the aim is to arrive at the truth. Today

there are people who are accusing us that we do not observe the Makar Sankranti

on the winter solstice day. They have not studied the subject in depth. When in

the early Vedic days there were the solstices in Krittika and Visakha did the

ancient people observe the Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice day? Think

about it.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:53 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You are right in asserting that " the last word on the location of the Meru is

yet to be told " , and I know Vedic Astrology will continue to be distorted till

the end of current Kaliyuga. Truth is valued only in Satyuga. I added all

references to Meru in ancient literature in Wikipedia and it was deleted by an

Indian without any discussion, calling me an obscurantist. Meru cannot even be

discussed. Even in this astrological forum, I have provided clear proofs of

location of Meru from ancient literature as well as from practical astrology,

but you insist on some premises which are not Vedic. For instance, your

insistence on " naked eye astronomers " does not apply to ancient Rishis who gave

us the original shaastras and Jyotisha. their original works clearly refer to

Reveletions and not to empirical observation. It does not fit in the framework

of modern western reader whom you want to placate by re-interpreting our

scriptures according to their tastes.

 

You are wrong in asserting that " Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru

for the observations. " Why you forget my earlier mails ? Read Suryasiddhanta,

yaamala Tantras and Narapatijayacharya. Narapatijayacharya is a much later work

(~1000 AD) : it says Meru is said to be at the middle of Earth but is not seen

there. The author of Narapatijayacharya had no idea of central Africa and he

searched in the lands he knew : India and its vicinity. But in the same book he

says that India is east of Meru. Since India is not at the equator, India is

north of Meru as well, because Meru is at the middle (equator) according to same

book. Hence, according to Narapatijayacharya, India is north-east of Meru and

Meru is south-west of India. Suryasiddhanta removes the doubt by stating that

Meru was at Bhoogola-madhya in the jewel-rich land of the Jamboonada. Such a

land south-west of India is only Africa. Africa is a later word. Jamboodvipa was

much bigger, and

comprised of entire Eurasia and Africa which actually forms a sigle island. Its

equatorial portion is Africa, where many countries and rivers still carry the

name Jamboo (eg Zambezi from Jamboonadi , Mu + zambique in which Mu is an Arabic

prefix later added , Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo from Zambbo, Gabon from Zambon, etc

). Meru still lies at the foothill of that mountain which has been renamed as Mt

Kenya, although Kinyangiri lies in Tanzania. Kinyangiri is a Sanskrit word used

for an Tanzia place wher no India has evr visited in pre=modern times , then who

named such places in Sanskrit ? I have read some anthropologists of England

wondering at Sanskrit place names in central Africa, but linguists and

historians are deliberately neglect these facts because they have to prove Aryan

Invasion Theory from Europe.

 

Had nobody gone to the Meru, texts like Narapatijayacharya or Suryasiddhanta or

Yaamala Tantra not contained references to it.

 

The work of real aryabhatta is lost. Aryabhatiya is a spurious work, which was

vehemently opposed by traditional believers in Vedic-puranic tradition, such as

Brahmagupta and Bhaskar who followed Brahmagupta. The errors of Aryabhatiya,

however, can be explained only to that person who knows the methods of ancient

astronomy. You are comppetent enough to judge these things. Aryabhatiya gave a

wrong order of graha-spashtikarana , which signifies its erroneous theoretical

conception. Its mandavrittas has huge mismatches with Earth's diameter, which

proves that Aryabhatiya is not a genuine work but was plagiarised from the work

of real Aryabhatta whose Suryasiddhantic commentary was lost. Soon after

Aryabhatiya, Panchsiddhantika was written by Varah Mihira which eulogised

Suryasiddhanta as the best and a DIVINE work. A work attaining the status of a

divine work must be very old, but the author of Aryabhatiya did not know that

Suryasiddhanta existed !!

Although his Aryabhatiya is a crude and wrong plagiarised copy of

Suryasiddhanta. Author of Aryabhatiya lived at Khagola village near Patana and

taught at a Vihara. He had no access to complete Suryasiddhanta. He knew nothing

about real position of Meru. Meru was mentioned in MBH, Puranas and Jain texts

as the centre of planetary orbits.

 

In astrology, Mt Meru must be considered as a Pole for plotting meridians from

it (the very word Meridian is to be deduced from Meru) for making the Medini

chart of the world. These charts are perfectly true ASTROLOGICALLY. All my

forecasts are based on Merucentric charts, which have been verified from NASA,

IMD and others. But you refuse to consider these things. You know the basics of

astrology and are capable of judging the truth or falsity of my Merucentric

charts, but you are ignoring it. You will perhaps be angry if I add that

Merucentric astrology cannot be properly comprehended without brahmacharya and

associated practices.

 

Meru as a North Pole is a necessity in astrology, which was confused with Meru

as geographical north pole or at least to the north of India and confused with

Kailash too. These are Kaliyugi concepts. As long as you will consider

Suryasiddhanta to be a Kaliyugi text, you will not accept truth : whose only

proof is astrological which you refuse to review.

 

But if you continue your journey into ancient wisdom , one day you will alight

on real Meru.

 

-VJ

============ ========= ========= ====== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

vedic astrology

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic_research_ institute@

. com

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:22:37 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear Vinay,

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers made their observations from

the surface of the earth and they were hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the heavenly

bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of the

eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly possible

I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as Geocentric.

Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the observations. Aryabhatta

for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25 deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain

(23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N) for his observations and

not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become synonymous with the observation

from the surface of the earth and I do not have any better word to replace it.

The last word on the location of the Meru is yet to be told. Brahmagupta, to my

knowledge insisted that the Meru was Kailash parvat ,probably because it is in

line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should

be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the

day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra

and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third)

view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not

teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another

group, where one member " X " could not properly understand what another member

" Y " wrote. Then " X " wrote to " Y " as follows :.

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is not

the fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your own

admissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

The Cat was out of the bag as " X " had unwittingly disclose d that he is not a

Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of " Y " .

Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that the

Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models, as

applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient

Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

Best wishes.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains

 

-VJ

============ ========= ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

WAVES-Vedic

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7),

Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter

" Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas " by Burra

Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear  Vinay,

 

1)

 

I am not talking about majority. What I meant by everybody is that " is there no

exception? "

 

2)

You may even be a bigger scientist than me and I am not contesting that . What I

was telling is that our methodologies are different. I thought that it could be

due to my scientific background. Thanks for telling me about your scientific

background also.

 

As regards testing also one must know the subject because the test results have

to be interpreted. If one does not understand the Saurapaksha system, as it is

an esoteric subject. how can you expect one to test and interpret the results.

 

I would definitely like to learn the esoteric aspeccts of the Suryasiddhanta and

thank you for the offer.

 

Best wishes,.

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Monday, July 6, 2009, 6:36 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

 

 

<<< " Do you think each and everybody has unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya

as the Meru? " >>>

 

 

 

Truth is not decided by counting of votes, especially of those who do not even

read relevant texts but are desirous of giving their votes. i know

Suryasiddhanta will never be accepted by the majority, because the majority will

never learn an occult subject which is not disclosed to the majority. When you

come to India, I will request you to find an expert of Suryasiddhanta who can

elucidate the Graha-spashtikarana equations of any ancient Indian siddhanta.

Then you will find out that it is really an occult subject.

 

 

 

<<< " For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. " >>>

 

 

 

My background is not astrological but scientific, although later I also took a

degree in English literature (and topped in the university). I had broken all

previous records in Delhi in middle board exams of CBSE in science subjects and

continued to excel. I was a studied Chemistry , History, English, etc in

different colleges. Where my METHODOLOGY is unscientific ? On the contrary, some

internet " experts " are not following the standard scientific methodology in

this particular case : they should compare the horoscopes made from

Suryasiddhanta with those made from physical astrology. Practical test of

Suryasiddhanta is being avoided by almost all " internet " expterts. some of them

dismiss Suryasiddhanta on the basis of spurious arguments, refusing to test it

astrologically. Is such a subjective method " scierntific " ??

 

 

 

Should I define scientific method, esp in the case of an occult field whose

secrets have n ever been fully puvlished ? Test the results.

 

 

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ==

 

 

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>

 

vedic astrology

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 7:14:34 PM

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

 

 

It should not be that you will be happy only if I unreservedly agree with each

and everything you say. I have yet to make any in-depth study of the Siddhantic

texts. Really speaking I have yet to devote the time it deserves. In life it is

not possible to know each and everything. Do you think each and everybody has

unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya as the Meru? Yet I did not discard it. I

will like to read the original references that you have quoted, when time

permits. Till that time I take it as your considered opinion. It is not easy to

discard Brahmagupta or the Puranas and the Vedic mention of the Sun moving from

Aries to Aries in one day. This requires deep study and you should discourage me

from taking a quick decision on it. In fact if I quickly agree to you what you

say without much of the required study on that subject I shall be insulting that

subject. I do not deny the Saurapaksha interpretations but I do not consider

myself

 

competent to talk about tha yett.

 

 

 

For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. But the aim is to arrive at the truth. Today

there are people who are accusing us that we do not observe the Makar Sankranti

on the winter solstice day. They have not studied the subject in depth. When in

the early Vedic days there were the solstices in Krittika and Visakha did the

ancient people observe the Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice day? Think

about it.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

SKB

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

vedic astrology

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:53 AM

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

 

 

You are right in asserting that " the last word on the location of the Meru is

yet to be told " , and I know Vedic Astrology will continue to be distorted till

the end of current Kaliyuga. Truth is valued only in Satyuga. I added all

references to Meru in ancient literature in Wikipedia and it was deleted by an

Indian without any discussion, calling me an obscurantist. Meru cannot even be

discussed. Even in this astrological forum, I have provided clear proofs of

location of Meru from ancient literature as well as from practical astrology,

but you insist on some premises which are not Vedic. For instance, your

insistence on " naked eye astronomers " does not apply to ancient Rishis who gave

us the original shaastras and Jyotisha. their original works clearly refer to

Reveletions and not to empirical observation. It does not fit in the framework

of modern western reader whom you want to placate by re-interpreting our

scriptures according to their tastes.

 

 

 

You are wrong in asserting that " Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru

for the observations. " Why you forget my earlier mails ? Read Suryasiddhanta,

yaamala Tantras and Narapatijayacharya. Narapatijayacharya is a much later work

(~1000 AD) : it says Meru is said to be at the middle of Earth but is not seen

there. The author of Narapatijayacharya had no idea of central Africa and he

searched in the lands he knew : India and its vicinity. But in the same book he

says that India is east of Meru. Since India is not at the equator, India is

north of Meru as well, because Meru is at the middle (equator) according to same

book. Hence, according to Narapatijayacharya, India is north-east of Meru and

Meru is south-west of India. Suryasiddhanta removes the doubt by stating that

Meru was at Bhoogola-madhya in the jewel-rich land of the Jamboonada. Such a

land south-west of India is only Africa. Africa is a later word. Jamboodvipa was

much bigger, and

 

comprised of entire Eurasia and Africa which actually forms a sigle island. Its

equatorial portion is Africa, where many countries and rivers still carry the

name Jamboo (eg Zambezi from Jamboonadi , Mu + zambique in which Mu is an Arabic

prefix later added , Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo from Zambbo, Gabon from Zambon, etc

). Meru still lies at the foothill of that mountain which has been renamed as Mt

Kenya, although Kinyangiri lies in Tanzania. Kinyangiri is a Sanskrit word used

for an Tanzia place wher no India has evr visited in pre=modern times , then who

named such places in Sanskrit ? I have read some anthropologists of England

wondering at Sanskrit place names in central Africa, but linguists and

historians are deliberately neglect these facts because they have to prove Aryan

Invasion Theory from Europe.

 

 

 

Had nobody gone to the Meru, texts like Narapatijayacharya or Suryasiddhanta or

Yaamala Tantra not contained references to it.

 

 

 

The work of real aryabhatta is lost. Aryabhatiya is a spurious work, which was

vehemently opposed by traditional believers in Vedic-puranic tradition, such as

Brahmagupta and Bhaskar who followed Brahmagupta. The errors of Aryabhatiya,

however, can be explained only to that person who knows the methods of ancient

astronomy. You are comppetent enough to judge these things. Aryabhatiya gave a

wrong order of graha-spashtikarana , which signifies its erroneous theoretical

conception. Its mandavrittas has huge mismatches with Earth's diameter, which

proves that Aryabhatiya is not a genuine work but was plagiarised from the work

of real Aryabhatta whose Suryasiddhantic commentary was lost. Soon after

Aryabhatiya, Panchsiddhantika was written by Varah Mihira which eulogised

Suryasiddhanta as the best and a DIVINE work. A work attaining the status of a

divine work must be very old, but the author of Aryabhatiya did not know that

Suryasiddhanta existed !!

 

Although his Aryabhatiya is a crude and wrong plagiarised copy of

Suryasiddhanta. Author of Aryabhatiya lived at Khagola village near Patana and

taught at a Vihara. He had no access to complete Suryasiddhanta. He knew nothing

about real position of Meru. Meru was mentioned in MBH, Puranas and Jain texts

as the centre of planetary orbits.

 

 

 

In astrology, Mt Meru must be considered as a Pole for plotting meridians from

it (the very word Meridian is to be deduced from Meru) for making the Medini

chart of the world. These charts are perfectly true ASTROLOGICALLY. All my

forecasts are based on Merucentric charts, which have been verified from NASA,

IMD and others. But you refuse to consider these things. You know the basics of

astrology and are capable of judging the truth or falsity of my Merucentric

charts, but you are ignoring it. You will perhaps be angry if I add that

Merucentric astrology cannot be properly comprehended without brahmacharya and

associated practices.

 

 

 

Meru as a North Pole is a necessity in astrology, which was confused with Meru

as geographical north pole or at least to the north of India and confused with

Kailash too. These are Kaliyugi concepts. As long as you will consider

Suryasiddhanta to be a Kaliyugi text, you will not accept truth : whose only

proof is astrological which you refuse to review.

 

 

 

But if you continue your journey into ancient wisdom , one day you will alight

on real Meru.

 

 

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ========= ====== ==

 

 

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

vedic astrology

 

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic_research_ institute@

. com

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:22:37 PM

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

 

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers made their observations from

the surface of the earth and they were hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the heavenly

bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of the

eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly possible

I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as Geocentric.

Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the observations. Aryabhatta

for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25 deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain

(23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N) for his observations and

not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become synonymous with the observation

from the surface of the earth and I do not have any better word to replace it.

The last word on the location of the Meru is yet to be told. Brahmagupta, to my

knowledge insisted that the Meru was Kailash parvat ,probably because it is in

 

line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should

be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the

day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra

and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third)

view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

 

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not

teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another

group, where one member " X " could not properly understand what another member

" Y " wrote. Then " X " wrote to " Y " as follows :.

 

 

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is not

 

the fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your own

 

admissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

 

 

The Cat was out of the bag as " X " had unwittingly disclose d that he is not a

Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of " Y " .

Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that the

Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models, as

applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient

Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

 

 

Best wishes.

 

 

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

 

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

vedic astrology

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

 

 

Sunil Da,

 

 

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

 

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

 

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

 

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

 

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

 

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

 

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

 

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

 

 

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains

 

 

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ========= ==

 

 

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

WAVES-Vedic

 

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

 

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

Dear friends,

 

 

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

 

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

 

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7),

Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter

" Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas " by Burra

Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sunil Da,

 

<<< " As regards testing also one must know the subject because the test

results have to be interpreted. If one does not understand the

Saurapaksha system, as it is an esoteric subject. how can you expect

one to test and interpret the results. " >>>

 

There is no need to study Saurapaksha at all for testing it astrologically, and

there is no need to study physical astronomy to test it astrologically.

 

 

You know fundamentals of predictive astrology which are very simple, and there

is no need of any expertize either in siddhanta or in Phalita for testing SS

astrologically. I had given you THIS_LINK which you did not open.

 

Once you see the astrological validity of SS, you will gain a right mindset for

going deeper into SS. Presently, you have too much of physical astronomy which

has no place at all in siddhantic astrology.

 

-VJ

==================== ==

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic astrology

Monday, July 6, 2009 7:41:30 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Vinay,

 

1)

 

I am not talking about majority. What I meant by everybody is that " is there no

exception? "

 

2)

You may even be a bigger scientist than me and I am not contesting that . What I

was telling is that our methodologies are different. I thought that it could be

due to my scientific background. Thanks for telling me about your scientific

background also.

 

As regards testing also one must know the subject because the test results have

to be interpreted. If one does not understand the Saurapaksha system, as it is

an esoteric subject. how can you expect one to test and interpret the results.

 

I would definitely like to learn the esoteric aspeccts of the Suryasiddhanta and

thank you for the offer.

 

Best wishes,.

 

SKB

 

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

vedic astrology

Monday, July 6, 2009, 6:36 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

<<< " Do you think each and everybody has unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya

as the Meru? " >>>

 

Truth is not decided by counting of votes, especially of those who do not even

read relevant texts but are desirous of giving their votes. i know

Suryasiddhanta will never be accepted by the majority, because the majority will

never learn an occult subject which is not disclosed to the majority. When you

come to India, I will request you to find an expert of Suryasiddhanta who can

elucidate the Graha-spashtikarana equations of any ancient Indian siddhanta.

Then you will find out that it is really an occult subject.

 

<<< " For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. " >>>

 

My background is not astrological but scientific, although later I also took a

degree in English literature (and topped in the university). I had broken all

previous records in Delhi in middle board exams of CBSE in science subjects and

continued to excel. I was a studied Chemistry , History, English, etc in

different colleges. Where my METHODOLOGY is unscientific ? On the contrary, some

internet " experts " are not following the standard scientific methodology in

this particular case : they should compare the horoscopes made from

Suryasiddhanta with those made from physical astrology. Practical test of

Suryasiddhanta is being avoided by almost all " internet " expterts. some of them

dismiss Suryasiddhanta on the basis of spurious arguments, refusing to test it

astrologically. Is such a subjective method " scierntific " ??

 

Should I define scientific method, esp in the case of an occult field whose

secrets have n ever been fully puvlished ? Test the results.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ==== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

vedic astrology

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 7:14:34 PM

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear Vinay,

 

It should not be that you will be happy only if I unreservedly agree with each

and everything you say. I have yet to make any in-depth study of the Siddhantic

texts. Really speaking I have yet to devote the time it deserves. In life it is

not possible to know each and everything. Do you think each and everybody has

unreservedly accepted the Meru in Kenya as the Meru? Yet I did not discard it. I

will like to read the original references that you have quoted, when time

permits. Till that time I take it as your considered opinion. It is not easy to

discard Brahmagupta or the Puranas and the Vedic mention of the Sun moving from

Aries to Aries in one day. This requires deep study and you should discourage me

from taking a quick decision on it. In fact if I quickly agree to you what you

say without much of the required study on that subject I shall be insulting that

subject. I do not deny the Saurapaksha interpretations but I do not consider

myself

 

competent to talk about tha yett.

 

For having done scientific research for close to forty years I follow a

different methodology than you do. But the aim is to arrive at the truth. Today

there are people who are accusing us that we do not observe the Makar Sankranti

on the winter solstice day. They have not studied the subject in depth. When in

the early Vedic days there were the solstices in Krittika and Visakha did the

ancient people observe the Makar Sankranti on the Winter Solstice day? Think

about it.

 

Best wishes,

 

SKB

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

vedic astrology

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 4:53 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

You are right in asserting that " the last word on the location of the Meru is

yet to be told " , and I know Vedic Astrology will continue to be distorted till

the end of current Kaliyuga. Truth is valued only in Satyuga. I added all

references to Meru in ancient literature in Wikipedia and it was deleted by an

Indian without any discussion, calling me an obscurantist. Meru cannot even be

discussed. Even in this astrological forum, I have provided clear proofs of

location of Meru from ancient literature as well as from practical astrology,

but you insist on some premises which are not Vedic. For instance, your

insistence on " naked eye astronomers " does not apply to ancient Rishis who gave

us the original shaastras and Jyotisha. their original works clearly refer to

Reveletions and not to empirical observation. It does not fit in the framework

of modern western reader whom you want to placate by re-interpreting our

scriptures according to their tastes.

 

You are wrong in asserting that " Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru

for the observations. " Why you forget my earlier mails ? Read Suryasiddhanta,

yaamala Tantras and Narapatijayacharya. Narapatijayacharya is a much later work

(~1000 AD) : it says Meru is said to be at the middle of Earth but is not seen

there. The author of Narapatijayacharya had no idea of central Africa and he

searched in the lands he knew : India and its vicinity. But in the same book he

says that India is east of Meru. Since India is not at the equator, India is

north of Meru as well, because Meru is at the middle (equator) according to same

book. Hence, according to Narapatijayacharya, India is north-east of Meru and

Meru is south-west of India. Suryasiddhanta removes the doubt by stating that

Meru was at Bhoogola-madhya in the jewel-rich land of the Jamboonada. Such a

land south-west of India is only Africa. Africa is a later word. Jamboodvipa was

much bigger, and

 

comprised of entire Eurasia and Africa which actually forms a sigle island. Its

equatorial portion is Africa, where many countries and rivers still carry the

name Jamboo (eg Zambezi from Jamboonadi , Mu + zambique in which Mu is an Arabic

prefix later added , Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo from Zambbo, Gabon from Zambon, etc

). Meru still lies at the foothill of that mountain which has been renamed as Mt

Kenya, although Kinyangiri lies in Tanzania. Kinyangiri is a Sanskrit word used

for an Tanzia place wher no India has evr visited in pre=modern times , then who

named such places in Sanskrit ? I have read some anthropologists of England

wondering at Sanskrit place names in central Africa, but linguists and

historians are deliberately neglect these facts because they have to prove Aryan

Invasion Theory from Europe.

 

Had nobody gone to the Meru, texts like Narapatijayacharya or Suryasiddhanta or

Yaamala Tantra not contained references to it.

 

The work of real aryabhatta is lost. Aryabhatiya is a spurious work, which was

vehemently opposed by traditional believers in Vedic-puranic tradition, such as

Brahmagupta and Bhaskar who followed Brahmagupta. The errors of Aryabhatiya,

however, can be explained only to that person who knows the methods of ancient

astronomy. You are comppetent enough to judge these things. Aryabhatiya gave a

wrong order of graha-spashtikarana , which signifies its erroneous theoretical

conception. Its mandavrittas has huge mismatches with Earth's diameter, which

proves that Aryabhatiya is not a genuine work but was plagiarised from the work

of real Aryabhatta whose Suryasiddhantic commentary was lost. Soon after

Aryabhatiya, Panchsiddhantika was written by Varah Mihira which eulogised

Suryasiddhanta as the best and a DIVINE work. A work attaining the status of a

divine work must be very old, but the author of Aryabhatiya did not know that

Suryasiddhanta existed !!

 

Although his Aryabhatiya is a crude and wrong plagiarised copy of

Suryasiddhanta. Author of Aryabhatiya lived at Khagola village near Patana and

taught at a Vihara. He had no access to complete Suryasiddhanta. He knew nothing

about real position of Meru. Meru was mentioned in MBH, Puranas and Jain texts

as the centre of planetary orbits.

 

In astrology, Mt Meru must be considered as a Pole for plotting meridians from

it (the very word Meridian is to be deduced from Meru) for making the Medini

chart of the world. These charts are perfectly true ASTROLOGICALLY. All my

forecasts are based on Merucentric charts, which have been verified from NASA,

IMD and others. But you refuse to consider these things. You know the basics of

astrology and are capable of judging the truth or falsity of my Merucentric

charts, but you are ignoring it. You will perhaps be angry if I add that

Merucentric astrology cannot be properly comprehended without brahmacharya and

associated practices.

 

Meru as a North Pole is a necessity in astrology, which was confused with Meru

as geographical north pole or at least to the north of India and confused with

Kailash too. These are Kaliyugi concepts. As long as you will consider

Suryasiddhanta to be a Kaliyugi text, you will not accept truth : whose only

proof is astrological which you refuse to review.

 

But if you continue your journey into ancient wisdom , one day you will alight

on real Meru.

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ========= ====== ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

" sunil_bhattacharjy a @ " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

vedic astrology

 

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic_research_ institute@

. com

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 4:22:37 PM

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear Vinay,

 

In the ancient times when the naked eye astronomers made their observations from

the surface of the earth and they were hardly 6,400 KM nearer to the heavenly

bodies than if the observations could have been made from the centre of the

eearth. As any observation from the centre of the earth is not humanly possible

I am calling the observations from the surface of the earth as Geocentric.

Further to my knowledge nobody went to the Meru for the observations. Aryabhatta

for example visited only Kusumpura (Patna) (latitude 25 deg. 37 min. N), Ujjain

(23 deg. 9 min. N) and Sri Lanka (latitude ~7 deg. N) for his observations and

not to the Meru. The word Geocentric has become synonymous with the observation

from the surface of the earth and I do not have any better word to replace it.

The last word on the location of the Meru is yet to be told. Brahmagupta, to my

knowledge insisted that the Meru was Kailash parvat ,probably because it is in

 

line with the Purana. But from the Veda I understand that the North pole should

be the Meru as in one day the Sun returned from Aries to Aries, ie.at the

day-break the Sun was in the Aries, at the night-fall the Sun was in the Libra

and the next morning the Sun was back in Aries. Then there is another (third)

view that the Meru is in Kenya on the equator.

 

I wrote my last mail as some people try to show that the Hindu Shastras do not

teach the correct things. I was shocked to see In one of the mails in another

group, where one member " X " could not properly understand what another member

" Y " wrote. Then " X " wrote to " Y " as follows :.

 

<<Your shastras say that the sun is revolving around the earth. And that is not

 

the fact. As such, your shastras are not telling you the facts, as per your own

 

admissions. So what is this discussion about?>>

 

The Cat was out of the bag as " X " had unwittingly disclose d that he is not a

Hindu as otherwise he would not have called the Vedas as the shastras of " Y " .

Anyway I thought that it is better to clarify the actual situation that the

Vedic literature teaches both the Geocentric and the Heliocentric models, as

applicable in different situations. Hope my mail could show that nthe ancient

Vedic seers knew that the earth revolves round the Sun.

 

Best wishes.

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

--- On Fri, 7/3/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote:

 

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ >

 

Re: [vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

vedic astrology

 

Friday, July 3, 2009, 12:06 AM

 

Sunil Da,

 

Ancient Indian Theory was neither Heliocentric nor Geocentric, but Merucentric.

Ancient Hindu and Jain texts clearly emphasize this point countless of times.

MBh also mentions it explicitly. Mt Meru is a place at the surface of Earth,

while Geocentric model puts Earth's centre at the coordinate origin of frame of

reference.

 

Physically, Sun is too big to allow Earth to be a centre. But suppose for a

moment the centre of all universes lies at Meru, as ancient texts assert. Can

the Sun have any power to move the centre of all universes by even an inch ?

 

According to Einstein's theory, all systems are relative and there is no

Absolute frame of reference. We can choose any model which suit our requirement.

For the purposes of physical astronomy, Heliocentric model is best suited

because it explain s the physical laws beautifully. But this cannot explain

astrology. for instance, sizes or forces of Sun, Mercury, Rahu, etc cannot

explain their relative astrological effects on Earth. For astrology, Merucentric

model explains things better.

 

since Meru is on the Earth's surface, Earth can be said to be FIXED. That is

what atharvaveda clearlt says about the Earth ( " Aashthaat " ). But Earth's centre

revolves round Meru once per day, hence Earth can be said to be moving as well.

Aryabhatta said so. But Aryabhatta did not elaborate whether Earth revolved

round the Meru or round the Sun.

 

If Meru is really the centre of the universe, then modern methods of scientists

cannot observe it, because without an external object which is not a part of the

physical universe, we cannot determine the ABSOLUTE positions and motions of

various points including the Centre of the Universe. Only the determination of

relative motions of various parts of universe is possible. But without an

external reference point, we cannot know the Centre. That external point must be

non-physical, because all physical objects are parts of the physical universe.

Such a non-physical object cannot be sensorily perceived, nor recored by

instruments, because even instruments cannot record non-physical phenomena and

entities.

 

Observation of non-physical things need 6th sense.

 

Sun has two meanings. There are references to two Suns in ancient literature.

One is physical Sun. Other is non-physical Surya Deva. Moreover, according to

Einstein's theory, the observed Sun is an apparent and not the real position of

the physical Sun. The real physical Sun lies at the asymptotic end of z-axis

perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at the end of the pseudosherical field of

solar gravity, and this real physical Sun is at an distance of INFINITY

according to Einstein, but rays from it come to us along the inner surface of

gvaritational pseudosphere and we see the apparent Sun in the line of sight at

the centre of the ecliptic plane, which is just an apparent image of the real

Sun.

 

The Vedic Sun is the source of all universes, including the physical: it is the

meaning of Surya. In this sense, Vedic Theory is heliocentric. But this surya is

suryadeva, and not the physical Sun which is a mere ball of fire. this ball of

fire is not the centre of even itself, it moves round the barycentre and not

round its own physical centre. Astrology has no use of this physical

heliocentricism. For proofs, please read :

 

http://jyotirvidya. wetpaint. com/page/ Annual+Rains

 

-VJ

 

============ ========= ========= ==

 

____________ _________ _________ __

 

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @>

 

WAVES-Vedic

 

Cc: ancient_indian_ astrology; vedic astrology@ .

com; vedic_research_ institute

 

Friday, July 3, 2009 9:39:02 AM

 

[vedic astrology] Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the Solar

system

 

Dear friends,

 

The ancient seers of India knew that the earth revolved round the Sun. This is

the Heliocentric model. But to the human observation the Sun and the planets

appear to be moving round the earth. This is the geocentric model

 

The geocentric model in the Vedic literature is mainly for the purpose of

calendar and astrology. In this model the earth is at the centre and all the

nine grahas including the Sun (a star), five planets of the Solar system, the

Moon (a satelite of the earth) and the two nodes of the Moon revolve round the

earth.

 

The Heliocentric model of the Solar system, where the earth revolves round the

Sun, was also given in the Vedic literature, such as in Aitareya Brahmana (2.7),

Vishnu purana (2.8) and Satapatha Brahmana (8.7.3.10). Further the Chapter

" Heliocentric " in the Rig " in the book " The celestial Key to the Vedas " by Burra

Gautam Siddharth discusses the Heliocentric theory in the Rig Veda..

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya