[VRI] Ayanamsha---the true reference point!

[Guest guest]

Friends,

 

1)

Kaulji asserted as follows;

 

Quote

 

The original Surya Sidhanta is a work of pre-Varahamihira era, and probably of

around 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD. 

 

Unquote

 

How did he arrive at this date of Suryasiddhanta?

 

2)

 

Quote

 

Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth century AD.

 

Unquote

 

Has Kaulji not seen the mention in our ancient texts about winter solstice

occurring in different nakshatras (at different times)? Does he want to say that

a term like " ayanamsha " was not used or coined by the ancient Indian

astronomers to describe this shifting position of occurrence of the solstices

in different nakshatras , which they observed and recorded.

 

3)

 

Quote

 

all the Puranas, invariably, talk of a so called Tropical Rashichakra, in which

they also declare unequivocally that Makar Sankranti is another name of

Uttarayana and so on.  Surprisingly, some Puranas even club Ashivini nakshatra

with such a Mesha Rashi, exactly what Maya has done in his Surya Sidhanta, and

our “Vedic astrologers†cry in delirium that so and so purana has talked of

a sidereal zodiac!

 

Unquote

 

Kaulji admits that some puranas and even Suryasiddhanta club Ashwini nakshatra

with Mesha rashi. Yes, the Vamamna purana says that. Does this not really make

the Mesha Rashi sidereal and the Zodiac sidereal too and what is  surprising in

that? Then in a volte-face he says that all the puranas invariably talk of a so

called Tropical Rashichakra. Will Kaul;ji please give any reference as to which

purana talks about Tropical Rashichakra and thus thus substantiate his

contradictory claim?

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:

 

 

jyotirved <jyotirved

[VRI] Ayanamsha---the true reference point!

hinducalendar

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:45 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shri Prashant Pandey ji,

Namaskar!

There is a small correction in your post. 

You have said, " And because of Maya who proposed ayanamsha, started mess of

Sidereal zodiac here in India. Though he said that that ayanamsha to fix

starting point of zodiac was given to him by Surya Bhagwan(Sun God) but he

caught red handed in his fabricated lies because he gave some calculation to

locate planets which no way give correct positions of planets, So now you can

think that would Sun God have given wrong formula to calculate locations of

planets?? "

 

The original Surya Sidhanta is a work of pre-Varahamihira era, and probably of

around 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD.  Some fragments of that work are in

the Pancha-sidhantika.  There is no mention of any Ayanamsha in that original

SS.

The current Surya Sidhanta available in the market at present is probably a

later work with some corrections to the original Surya Sidhanta, though the

spirit of the original SS appears to have been maintained in tact.

Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth century AD.

 The word Ayanamsha was used for the first time by Munjala in his Laghu Manasa

in tenth century AD.  Not because he had any idea about precession, but he just

wanted to make the calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta “drik-tulyaâ€

i.e. tally with the actual results.

For example, he has said that an ayanamsha @ one arc-minute (sixty arc-seconds)

is to be add to the longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta from Shaka 444.  The

longitude of the sun, with minor beeja corrections, as per the Surya Sidhanta

given by Munjala for Chaitradi Shaka 854 i.e. March 10, 932 AD for Noon at

Ujjain i.e. 6h 56 mt 56s ET is 346° 12’.  The mean longitude as per the

current Surya Sidhanta, as can be derived from Ganesh Program in the files

section of HinduCalendar forum, for that epoch was 346° 8’.   The mean

longitude of sun as per modern astronomy, as per Ganesha program, for that date

and time was 352° 54’.  Calculating an Ayanamsha for Shaka 854 minus 444 @

one arc-minute per year, we get it as 410 arc-minutes i.e. 6° 50’.  This is

the exact ayanamsha given by Munjala himself  for that year.  And what is to

be noted is that this ayanamsha is to be added to the longitude of the sun, moon

etc. of the Laghumanasa.  It

comes to 346° 12’ plus 6° 50 = 353° 2’.  If we add  6° 50’ to the

mean longitude of the SS sun, it comes to 352° 58’, which is near to modern

astronomy!  Similarly, the Mean longitude of the Moon as per the SS for that

epoch, as per Ganesha program was, 348° 21’, whereas as per Laghumanasa it

was 348° 22’.  By adding ayanamsha of 6° 50’ to them we get 355° 12’

and 355° 13’ respectively. The mean longitude of the Moon as per Ganesha

program for that epoch, as per modern astronomy was 354° 51’, a difference of

hardly 22 arc-minutes, which means less than an hour for the moon!

What is clear from this discussion till now is that the Ayanamsha was the

difference between the calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta and the

“drik-tulya†i.e. the real phenomena, and the calculated longitudes were to

be brought at par with that of the real phenomena by ADDING the ayanmsha to the

calculated longitudes.  These days, “Vedic astrologers†are doing quite

contrary—i.e. they are subtracting the so called ayanamsha from the actual

longitudes to make them tally with the monstrous longitudes of the Surya

Sidhanta!

Coming back to Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha, the three shlokas 9 to 12 of

“trimshat krtya yuge bhanam…†in the Spashta-adhikara of the SS are an

interpolation of post Munjala era,  since they are quite out of context of the

main theory of that chapter!  They are wrong in the derived results as well, as

will be demonstrated in a separate post. 

AND AYANAMSHA, WHETHER THAT OF MUNJALA, OR OF SURYA SIDHANTA, HAS ABSOLUTELY

NOTHING TO DO WITH PRECESSION, for the simple reason that none of the

sidhanta-makers, right from Maya the mlechha to Bhaskara-II of the Sidhanta

Shiromani had any knowledge of precession! LET ME REPEAT IT FOR THE UMPTEENTH

TIME THAT NONE OF THE SIDHANTAKARS HAD ANY IDEA ABOUT PRECESSION and the so

called nirayana mess is nothing but justification of the absolutely wrong,

useless, worthless and misguiding calculations of the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the

mlechha, whether it is  in the name of Lahiri Ayanamsha or Chitra or Muladhara

etc. etc.  It has absolutely nothing to do with either so called Tropical

zodiac or so called sidereal zodiac, both of which are creations of jyotishis---

the former of Western jyotishis and the latter of “Vedic astrologersâ€.

It may be mentioned in the passing, that following in the footsteps of the Surya

Sidhanta, which states time and again that the six months of Uttarayana start

with Makar Sankrnati, and so on, all the Puranas, invariably, talk of a so

called Tropical Rashichakra, in which they also declare unequivocally that Makar

Sankranti is another name of Uttarayana and so on.  Surprisingly, some Puranas

even club Ashivini nakshatra with such a Mesha Rashi, exactly what Maya has done

in his Surya Sidhanta, and our “Vedic astrologers†cry in delirium that so

and so purana has talked of a sidereal zodiac!

Hats off to the “extra-ordinary†(parokshya!) knowledge of such “Vedic

 jyotishisâ€!

And the net result of all this sayana versus nirayana mess has been that we are

celebrating all our festivals on wrong days, thanks to “Vedic astrologersâ€,

as has been rightly pointed out by you.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

HinduCalendar, " Prashant Pandey " <praspandey@. ..>

wrote:

>  

> Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " Prashant

Pandey " <praspandey@> wrote:

>

> Dear Mr Revati,

>

> < It is indeed the GALACTIC CENTER being the reference for ayanamsha. >

>

> I am very happy that you are talking very scientifically, but i am amazed that

you are not taking all facts in your account.

>

> You just want to throw light only on the initial point of sidereal zodiac but

don't want to throw light that how Rashis came in existence; those came in

existence with the name of constellation which are made by stars which we can

see by naked eyes.

>

> If you talk about the galactic centre which we cant see by naked eyes then why

not you take stars which are not seen by naked eyes. So instead of making Lion

by stars in leo constellation make monkey with the stars which are just behind

those stars which are not visible by naked eyes. (Frankly speaking leonine

persons looks like monkey for me as they give only empty threats to their

opponents)

>

> < Transfering this in an ayanamsha value this would come very close to " Usha

Shashi " ayanamsha. The Galactic Center - the universal Center (we could call it

" Ketu " ) - then would come into middle of Moola Nakshatra. >

>

> Yes it should be called as Ketu because our universe is getting finished at

that point means Moksha is only and only at that point. Because of same

creativity we got the Lords of regions ie if we talk of zodiacs then we have

lordships of Zodiacs(without any scientific logic) or if we talk of NKS then we

have lordships of NKS ie of lunar mansions without any reason.

>

> Means without any scientific logic those are lords of regions but yes

philosophically we can entrust lordships to those sectioned regions ie to 30-30

degrees which we got after dividing those equally in 12 reasons ie in 30 degrees

of  360 degrees along ecliptic.

>

> < Surprisingly, our so-called " Vedic Astrology " becomes valid this way -

taking the Galactic Center as reference - in all parts all over the whole

universe. >

>

> Dear Mr Revatiji, you would be surprised to hear that there is no astrology in

VEDAs and even in VEDAS there is clear cut mention of seasons and yes later when

Hindu get influenced by Greeks then we followed Tropical zodiac and at same time

predictive techniques breached the Hindu Dharma. And because of Maya who

proposed ayanamsha, statrted mess of Sidereal zodiac here in India. Though he

said that that ayanamsha to fix starting point of zodiac was given to him by

Surya Bhagwan(Sun God) but he caught red handed in his fabricated lies because

he gave some calculation to locate planets which no way give correct positions

of planets, So now you can think that would Sun God have given wrong formula to

calculate locations of planets??

>

> In Vedas there is mention of only seasons in the name of astronomy and there

is no mention of illness named as predictive techniques.

>

> I am writing some harsh words because of same sidereal zodiac, Lahiri posed

one panchang according to which we celebrate festivals (You would not be aware

of this fact as you are not Hindu).

>

> < The reference point obviously used in ancient times was Revati Star,

denoting the end of Revati Nakshatra and the beginning of Ashvini Nakshatra. >

>

> You would be surprised to hear that many constellations are overlapping each

other and for your kind information Pi overlaps Ar so don't think that Revati

star was the best choice in ancient times.

>

> Regs,

> Prashant Pandey         

>

> Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com,

" revati_energetics@ " <revati_energetics@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Members,

> >

> > ayanamsha is a big theme for many people.

> >

> > I belong to those one having great reliance with Chitrapaksha - " Lahiri "

> > - due to their own experiences.

> >

> > But Chitra - or the 7th from it - is not the starting point.

> >

> > Once someone wrote in a group that for ancient astrologer s it would be

> > too complicated to look at Chitra and then start the first

> > Nakshatra/Rashi 180° from it. This is true.

> >

> > The reference point obviously used in ancient times was Revati Star,

> > denoting the end of Revati Nakshatra and the beginning of Ashvini

> > Nakshatra.

> >

> > Transfering this in an ayanamsha value this would come very close to

> > " Usha Shashi " ayanamsha.

> > The Galactic Center - the universal Center (we could call it " Ketu " ) -

> > then would come into middle of Moola Nakshatra.

> >

> > It is indeed the GALACTIC CENTER being the reference for ayanamsha.

> >

> > Aries - the believed initial point - is not giving the sattvic impulse

> > to creation. It is rajasic.

> >

> > DHANU / SAGITTARIUS is the SATTVIC CREATING IMPULSE for the zodiac and

> > the division by 27 and 12 of it.

> > Sagittarius is the Moolatrikona of Jupiter, and - most important - KETU.

> >

> > The creation of this material plane by the supreme intelligence - " God "

> > - was a sattvic act, the initial creating impulse (which always is

> > sattvic). Jupiter/Ketu Moolatrikonas depict this clearly in zodiac (not

> > the Moolatrikona of Mars).

> >

> > Ketu always refers to roots, origins of all kinds.

> > MOOLA (Nakshatra) means root (of the zodiac,of the 12 Rashis).

> >

> > The previous Nakshatra Jyestha translates into " the oldest " .

> >

> > So, the starting reference for the zodiac is Moola/Dhanu, not

> > Ashvini/Mesha.

> >

> > It is the starting *reference* - but not the exact degree of the

> > Galactic Center.

> >

> > Galactic Center lies in 3° of Dhanu, exactly, taking Chitrapaksha.

> >

> > So, Moola Nakshatra starts - becomes effective - 3° before Galactic

> > Center.

> >

> > We can derive from this that 3 degree is the orbis in which yutis become

> > really effective.

> > The field " Moola " becomes effective 3 degrees in front of its reference.

> >

> > So, a transiting planet becomes really effective being 3° before a

> > natal chart planet.

> >

> > Surprisingly, our so-called " Vedic Astrology " becomes valid this way -

> > taking the Galactic Center as reference - in all parts all over the

> > whole universe.

> >

> > Best Wishes,

> > Revati

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

To All ,

 

The current post of Mr AK Kaul is full of utterly wrong ideas being propagated

by colonialists for two centuries, and supported by brain-childs of Macaulay (no

insult intended for Mr Kaul personally) who do not study the originals and cite

ancient texts selectively merely to prove their biases. I am here providing

proofs of his wrong ideas.

 

Kaulian logic rests on the argument that precession was unknown to Indians (

" none of the sidhanta-makers, right from Maya the mlechha to Bhaskara-II of the

Sidhanta Shiromani had any knowledge of precession! " ).

 

I have supplied proofs of precession in both ancient Suryasiddhanta and

Siddhaanta-shiromani in many past messages, but Mr Kaul either missed them or

neglects the proofs.. Hence, I request him to read the following :

 

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha+vs+Precession

 

Bhaskar-ii cites both Suryasiuddhanta and Manjula in giving his formula for

precession. But Bhaskar-ii deliberately use a not so clear terminology, which

confuses modern commentators. Burgess quoted this passage but without even

trying to compute according to the method prescribed bt Bhaskara-ii, and so does

Mr Kaul & c. If Mr Kaul knows Sanskrit (no insult intended), he should read

Vaasanaa-bhaashya of Siddhaanta-shiromani (this bhaashya was written by

Bhaskar-ii himself, because he knew in advance that he will be misunderstood by

Kaliyugi fools). Bhaskara says Suryasiddhantic term for sampaata-chalana quoted

by him was not from the text but from " not available Aagama Suryasiddhanta " .

What is this " not available Aagama Suryasiddhanta " ?? It is the oral tradition

of Suryasiddhanta which is still preserved by means of guru shishya tradition of

brahmachaaris (in ancient India, many grihasthas were also regarded pure enough

to get this Aagama).

 

If Bhaskar-ii was wrong, why his formula gives accurate value of modern concept

of precession ?

 

Did Bhaskar not know about the Saurapakshiya Suryasiddhangta used by

Vrahamihira, Bhattotpala, & c ? Why he called his own book as " Shiromani " of all

siddhantas, in which he puts Suryasiddhanta at par with Vedas by callikng it

Aagama ??? Varahamihira also calls Suryasiddhanta " Saavitr " siddhanta, ie the

theory of Vedic Sun-god, which puts Suryasiddhanta at par with Veda. There were

many siddhantas in ancient India, but none of them derides Suryasiddhanta and

the Suryasiddhanta is the only extant complete siddhanta which was regarded

apaurusheya by all ancient scholars. Were all of them fools to be befooled by a

mlechchha, as Mr Kaul wants us to believe ? The answer lies in serious errors in

Mr Kaul's statements : he says ancients did not know anbout precession, and

cites those very texts for making this wrong statement which give the correct

formula for computing modern value of precession with amazing accuracy !!!

 

Is it not a deliberate dishonesty on the part of Burgess to quote those very

verses from Siddhangta-shiromani out-of-context for proving that ancients did

not know precession ??? And Mr Kaul is just copying the logic of Burgess, a

mlechchha commentator of Suryasiddhanta who distorted it due to his ignorance.

Mr Kaul follows this real mlechchha almost word to word, but abuses Maya-asura

who rectified himself through tapasyaa and was awarded the highest of all

Vedaangas by Sun-God. Maya was the founder of not only siddhanta, without which

jyotisha could not take off, but of many other disciplines like sculpture,

iconography, temple-making, town-planning, etc. Mr Kaul suggests that Hindus

learnt all these things from mlechchhas. Hence, if he wants us to discard

nirayana astrology, he should ask us to remove all temples, icons, towns, & c

too, and since Vedas are also composed by descendants of mlechchhas according to

brain-cjhilds of Macaulay, Hindus should

discard Vedas too, and follow the religion of Burgess who was a Chriatian prist

and was thoroughly biased against hinduism.

 

Mr Kaul says " Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth

century AD " , which is falsified by the proofs from Siddhanta-shiromani which

uses terms from oral Suryasiddhanta and Manjula in a proper way.

 

Bhaskar-ii worked on Drikpakshiya " shiromani " of siddhantas, but called

Suryasiddhanta " Aagama " , which means he regarded his own work shiromani only

among the siddhantas of mortals, not with respect to Suryasiddhanta which he

regarded to be DIVINE in origin .

 

All other points of Mr Kaul will automaticcly crumble once a reader reads the

proof of precession in ancient India in the link given above.

 

Mr Kaul, please do not go towards falsehood, and accept the Truth.

 

-VJ

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

 

 

________________________________

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

vedic_research_institute

Cc: vedic astrology ;

Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:20:52 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: [VRI] Ayanamsha---the true reference point!

 

 

Friends,

 

1)

Kaulji asserted as follows;

 

Quote

 

The original Surya Sidhanta is a work of pre-Varahamihira era, and probably of

around 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD.

 

Unquote

 

How did he arrive at this date of Suryasiddhanta?

 

2)

 

Quote

 

Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth century AD.

 

Unquote

 

Has Kaulji not seen the mention in our ancient texts about winter solstice

occurring in different nakshatras (at different times)? Does he want to say that

a term like " ayanamsha " was not used or coined by the ancient Indian astronomers

to describe this shifting position of occurrence of the solstices in different

nakshatras , which they observed and recorded.

 

3)

 

Quote

 

all the Puranas, invariably, talk of a so called Tropical Rashichakra, in which

they also declare unequivocally that Makar Sankranti is another name of

Uttarayana and so on. Surprisingly, some Puranas even club Ashivini nakshatra

with such a Mesha Rashi, exactly what Maya has done in his Surya Sidhanta, and

our “Vedic astrologers†cry in delirium that so and so purana has talked of

a sidereal zodiac!

 

Unquote

 

Kaulji admits that some puranas and even Suryasiddhanta club Ashwini nakshatra

with Mesha rashi. Yes, the Vamamna purana says that. Does this not really make

the Mesha Rashi sidereal and the Zodiac sidereal too and what is surprising in

that? Then in a volte-face he says that all the puranas invariably talk of a so

called Tropical Rashichakra. Will Kaul;ji please give any reference as to which

purana talks about Tropical Rashichakra and thus thus substantiate his

contradictory claim?

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com> wrote:

 

jyotirved <jyotirved (AT) sify (DOT) com>

[VRI] Ayanamsha--- the true reference point!

hinducalendar

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:45 AM

 

 

 

Shri Prashant Pandey ji,

Namaskar!

There is a small correction in your post.

You have said, " And because of Maya who proposed ayanamsha, started mess of

Sidereal zodiac here in India. Though he said that that ayanamsha to fix

starting point of zodiac was given to him by Surya Bhagwan(Sun God) but he

caught red handed in his fabricated lies because he gave some calculation to

locate planets which no way give correct positions of planets, So now you can

think that would Sun God have given wrong formula to calculate locations of

planets?? "

 

The original Surya Sidhanta is a work of pre-Varahamihira era, and probably of

around 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD. Some fragments of that work are in the

Pancha-sidhantika. There is no mention of any Ayanamsha in that original SS.

The current Surya Sidhanta available in the market at present is probably a

later work with some corrections to the original Surya Sidhanta, though the

spirit of the original SS appears to have been maintained in tact.

Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth century AD.

The word Ayanamsha was used for the first time by Munjala in his Laghu Manasa

in tenth century AD. Not because he had any idea about precession, but he just

wanted to make the calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta “drik-tulyaâ€

i.e. tally with the actual results.

For example, he has said that an ayanamsha @ one arc-minute (sixty arc-seconds)

is to be add to the longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta from Shaka 444. The

longitude of the sun, with minor beeja corrections, as per the Surya Sidhanta

given by Munjala for Chaitradi Shaka 854 i.e. March 10, 932 AD for Noon at

Ujjain i.e. 6h 56 mt 56s ET is 346° 12’. The mean longitude as per the

current Surya Sidhanta, as can be derived from Ganesh Program in the files

section of HinduCalendar forum, for that epoch was 346° 8’. The mean

longitude of sun as per modern astronomy, as per Ganesha program, for that date

and time was 352° 54’. Calculating an Ayanamsha for Shaka 854 minus 444 @

one arc-minute per year, we get it as 410 arc-minutes i.e. 6° 50’. This is

the exact ayanamsha given by Munjala himself for that year. And what is to be

noted is that this ayanamsha is to be added to the longitude of the sun, moon

etc. of the Laghumanasa. It

comes to 346° 12’ plus 6° 50 = 353° 2’. If we add 6° 50’ to the mean

longitude of the SS sun, it comes to 352° 58’, which is near to modern

astronomy! Similarly, the Mean longitude of the Moon as per the SS for that

epoch, as per Ganesha program was, 348° 21’, whereas as per Laghumanasa it

was 348° 22’. By adding ayanamsha of 6° 50’ to them we get 355° 12’

and 355° 13’ respectively. The mean longitude of the Moon as per Ganesha

program for that epoch, as per modern astronomy was 354° 51’, a difference of

hardly 22 arc-minutes, which means less than an hour for the moon!

What is clear from this discussion till now is that the Ayanamsha was the

difference between the calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta and the

“drik-tulya†i.e. the real phenomena, and the calculated longitudes were to

be brought at par with that of the real phenomena by ADDING the ayanmsha to the

calculated longitudes. These days, “Vedic astrologers†are doing quite

contrary—i.e. they are subtracting the so called ayanamsha from the actual

longitudes to make them tally with the monstrous longitudes of the Surya

Sidhanta!

Coming back to Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha, the three shlokas 9 to 12 of

“trimshat krtya yuge bhanam…†in the Spashta-adhikara of the SS are an

interpolation of post Munjala era, since they are quite out of context of the

main theory of that chapter! They are wrong in the derived results as well, as

will be demonstrated in a separate post.

AND AYANAMSHA, WHETHER THAT OF MUNJALA, OR OF SURYA SIDHANTA, HAS ABSOLUTELY

NOTHING TO DO WITH PRECESSION, for the simple reason that none of the

sidhanta-makers, right from Maya the mlechha to Bhaskara-II of the Sidhanta

Shiromani had any knowledge of precession! LET ME REPEAT IT FOR THE UMPTEENTH

TIME THAT NONE OF THE SIDHANTAKARS HAD ANY IDEA ABOUT PRECESSION and the so

called nirayana mess is nothing but justification of the absolutely wrong,

useless, worthless and misguiding calculations of the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the

mlechha, whether it is in the name of Lahiri Ayanamsha or Chitra or Muladhara

etc. etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with either so called Tropical zodiac

or so called sidereal zodiac, both of which are creations of jyotishis--- the

former of Western jyotishis and the latter of “Vedic astrologersâ€.

It may be mentioned in the passing, that following in the footsteps of the Surya

Sidhanta, which states time and again that the six months of Uttarayana start

with Makar Sankrnati, and so on, all the Puranas, invariably, talk of a so

called Tropical Rashichakra, in which they also declare unequivocally that Makar

Sankranti is another name of Uttarayana and so on. Surprisingly, some Puranas

even club Ashivini nakshatra with such a Mesha Rashi, exactly what Maya has done

in his Surya Sidhanta, and our “Vedic astrologers†cry in delirium that so

and so purana has talked of a sidereal zodiac!

Hats off to the “extra-ordinary†(parokshya!) knowledge of such “Vedic

jyotishisâ€!

And the net result of all this sayana versus nirayana mess has been that we are

celebrating all our festivals on wrong days, thanks to “Vedic astrologersâ€,

as has been rightly pointed out by you.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

HinduCalendar, " Prashant Pandey " <praspandey@ . ..>

wrote:

>

> Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, " Prashant

Pandey " <praspandey@ > wrote:

>

> Dear Mr Revati,

>

> < It is indeed the GALACTIC CENTER being the reference for ayanamsha. >

>

> I am very happy that you are talking very scientifically, but i am amazed that

you are not taking all facts in your account.

>

> You just want to throw light only on the initial point of sidereal zodiac but

don't want to throw light that how Rashis came in existence; those came in

existence with the name of constellation which are made by stars which we can

see by naked eyes.

>

> If you talk about the galactic centre which we cant see by naked eyes then why

not you take stars which are not seen by naked eyes. So instead of making Lion

by stars in leo constellation make monkey with the stars which are just behind

those stars which are not visible by naked eyes. (Frankly speaking leonine

persons looks like monkey for me as they give only empty threats to their

opponents)

>

> < Transfering this in an ayanamsha value this would come very close to " Usha

Shashi " ayanamsha. The Galactic Center - the universal Center (we could call it

" Ketu " ) - then would come into middle of Moola Nakshatra. >

>

> Yes it should be called as Ketu because our universe is getting finished at

that point means Moksha is only and only at that point. Because of same

creativity we got the Lords of regions ie if we talk of zodiacs then we have

lordships of Zodiacs(without any scientific logic) or if we talk of NKS then we

have lordships of NKS ie of lunar mansions without any reason.

>

> Means without any scientific logic those are lords of regions but yes

philosophically we can entrust lordships to those sectioned regions ie to 30-30

degrees which we got after dividing those equally in 12 reasons ie in 30 degrees

of 360 degrees along ecliptic.

>

> < Surprisingly, our so-called " Vedic Astrology " becomes valid this way -

taking the Galactic Center as reference - in all parts all over the whole

universe. >

>

> Dear Mr Revatiji, you would be surprised to hear that there is no astrology in

VEDAs and even in VEDAS there is clear cut mention of seasons and yes later when

Hindu get influenced by Greeks then we followed Tropical zodiac and at same time

predictive techniques breached the Hindu Dharma. And because of Maya who

proposed ayanamsha, statrted mess of Sidereal zodiac here in India. Though he

said that that ayanamsha to fix starting point of zodiac was given to him by

Surya Bhagwan(Sun God) but he caught red handed in his fabricated lies because

he gave some calculation to locate planets which no way give correct positions

of planets, So now you can think that would Sun God have given wrong formula to

calculate locations of planets??

>

> In Vedas there is mention of only seasons in the name of astronomy and there

is no mention of illness named as predictive techniques.

>

> I am writing some harsh words because of same sidereal zodiac, Lahiri posed

one panchang according to which we celebrate festivals (You would not be aware

of this fact as you are not Hindu).

>

> < The reference point obviously used in ancient times was Revati Star,

denoting the end of Revati Nakshatra and the beginning of Ashvini Nakshatra. >

>

> You would be surprised to hear that many constellations are overlapping each

other and for your kind information Pi overlaps Ar so don't think that Revati

star was the best choice in ancient times.

>

> Regs,

> Prashant Pandey

>

> Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com,

" revati_energetics@ " <revati_energetics@ > wrote:

> >

> > Dear Members,

> >

> > ayanamsha is a big theme for many people.

> >

> > I belong to those one having great reliance with Chitrapaksha - " Lahiri "

> > - due to their own experiences.

> >

> > But Chitra - or the 7th from it - is not the starting point.

> >

> > Once someone wrote in a group that for ancient astrologer s it would be

> > too complicated to look at Chitra and then start the first

> > Nakshatra/Rashi 180° from it. This is true.

> >

> > The reference point obviously used in ancient times was Revati Star,

> > denoting the end of Revati Nakshatra and the beginning of Ashvini

> > Nakshatra.

> >

> > Transfering this in an ayanamsha value this would come very close to

> > " Usha Shashi " ayanamsha.

> > The Galactic Center - the universal Center (we could call it " Ketu " ) -

> > then would come into middle of Moola Nakshatra.

> >

> > It is indeed the GALACTIC CENTER being the reference for ayanamsha.

> >

> > Aries - the believed initial point - is not giving the sattvic impulse

> > to creation. It is rajasic.

> >

> > DHANU / SAGITTARIUS is the SATTVIC CREATING IMPULSE for the zodiac and

> > the division by 27 and 12 of it.

> > Sagittarius is the Moolatrikona of Jupiter, and - most important - KETU.

> >

> > The creation of this material plane by the supreme intelligence - " God "

> > - was a sattvic act, the initial creating impulse (which always is

> > sattvic). Jupiter/Ketu Moolatrikonas depict this clearly in zodiac (not

> > the Moolatrikona of Mars).

> >

> > Ketu always refers to roots, origins of all kinds.

> > MOOLA (Nakshatra) means root (of the zodiac,of the 12 Rashis).

> >

> > The previous Nakshatra Jyestha translates into " the oldest " .

> >

> > So, the starting reference for the zodiac is Moola/Dhanu, not

> > Ashvini/Mesha.

> >

> > It is the starting *reference* - but not the exact degree of the

> > Galactic Center.

> >

> > Galactic Center lies in 3° of Dhanu, exactly, taking Chitrapaksha.

> >

> > So, Moola Nakshatra starts - becomes effective - 3° before Galactic

> > Center.

> >

> > We can derive from this that 3 degree is the orbis in which yutis become

> > really effective.

> > The field " Moola " becomes effective 3 degrees in front of its reference.

> >

> > So, a transiting planet becomes really effective being 3° before a

> > natal chart planet.

> >

> > Surprisingly, our so-called " Vedic Astrology " becomes valid this way -

> > taking the Galactic Center as reference - in all parts all over the

> > whole universe..

> >

> > Best Wishes,

> > Revati

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

Friends,

 

1)

Kaulji asserted as follows;

 

Quote

 

The original Surya Sidhanta is a work of pre-Varahamihira era, and probably of around 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD.

 

Unquote

 

How did he arrive at this date of Suryasiddhanta?

 

2)

 

Quote

Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth century AD.

 

Unquote

 

Has Kaulji not seen the mention in our ancient texts about winter solstice occurring in different nakshatras (at different times)? Does he want to say that a term like "ayanamsha" was not used or coined by the ancient Indian astronomers to describe this shifting position of occurrence of the solstices in different nakshatras , which they observed and recorded.

3)

 

Quote

 

all the Puranas, invariably, talk of a so called Tropical Rashichakra, in which they also declare unequivocally that Makar Sankranti is another name of Uttarayana and so on. Surprisingly, some Puranas even club Ashivini nakshatra with such a Mesha Rashi, exactly what Maya has done in his Surya Sidhanta, and our “Vedic astrologers†cry in delirium that so and so purana has talked of a sidereal zodiac!

 

Unquote

 

Kaulji admits that some puranas and even Suryasiddhanta club Ashwini nakshatra with Mesha rashi. Yes, the Vamamna purana says that. Does this not really make the Mesha Rashi sidereal and the Zodiac sidereal too and what is surprising in that? Then in a volte-face he says that all the puranas invariably talk of a so called Tropical Rashichakra. Will Kaul;ji please give any reference as to which purana talks about Tropical Rashichakra and thus thus substantiate his contradictory claim?

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:

jyotirved <jyotirved[VRI] Ayanamsha---the true reference point!hinducalendar Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 9:45 AM

 

 

Shri Prashant Pandey ji,

Namaskar!

There is a small correction in your post.

You have said, "And because of Maya who proposed ayanamsha, started mess of Sidereal zodiac here in India. Though he said that that ayanamsha to fix starting point of zodiac was given to him by Surya Bhagwan(Sun God) but he caught red handed in his fabricated lies because he gave some calculation to locate planets which no way give correct positions of planets, So now you can think that would Sun God have given wrong formula to calculate locations of planets??"

 

The original Surya Sidhanta is a work of pre-Varahamihira era, and probably of around 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD. Some fragments of that work are in the Pancha-sidhantika. There is no mention of any Ayanamsha in that original SS.

The current Surya Sidhanta available in the market at present is probably a later work with some corrections to the original Surya Sidhanta, though the spirit of the original SS appears to have been maintained in tact.

Nobody in India had any idea about precession till about fifteenth century AD.

The word Ayanamsha was used for the first time by Munjala in his Laghu Manasa in tenth century AD. Not because he had any idea about precession, but he just wanted to make the calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta “drik-tulya†i.e. tally with the actual results.

For example, he has said that an ayanamsha @ one arc-minute (sixty arc-seconds) is to be add to the longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta from Shaka 444. The longitude of the sun, with minor beeja corrections, as per the Surya Sidhanta given by Munjala for Chaitradi Shaka 854 i.e. March 10, 932 AD for Noon at Ujjain i.e. 6h 56 mt 56s ET is 346° 12’. The mean longitude as per the current Surya Sidhanta, as can be derived from Ganesh Program in the files section of HinduCalendar forum, for that epoch was 346° 8’. The mean longitude of sun as per modern astronomy, as per Ganesha program, for that date and time was 352° 54’. Calculating an Ayanamsha for Shaka 854 minus 444 @ one arc-minute per year, we get it as 410 arc-minutes i.e. 6° 50’. This is the exact ayanamsha given by Munjala himself for that year. And what is to be noted is that this ayanamsha is to be added to the longitude

of the sun, moon etc. of the Laghumanasa. It comes to 346° 12’ plus 6° 50 = 353° 2’. If we add 6° 50’ to the mean longitude of the SS sun, it comes to 352° 58’, which is near to modern astronomy! Similarly, the Mean longitude of the Moon as per the SS for that epoch, as per Ganesha program was, 348° 21’, whereas as per Laghumanasa it was 348° 22’. By adding ayanamsha of 6° 50’ to them we get 355° 12’ and 355° 13’ respectively. The mean longitude of the Moon as per Ganesha program for that epoch, as per modern astronomy was 354° 51’, a difference of hardly 22 arc-minutes, which means less than an hour for the moon!

What is clear from this discussion till now is that the Ayanamsha was the difference between the calculated longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta and the “drik-tulya†i.e. the real phenomena, and the calculated longitudes were to be brought at par with that of the real phenomena by ADDING the ayanmsha to the calculated longitudes. These days, “Vedic astrologers†are doing quite contrary—i.e. they are subtracting the so called ayanamsha from the actual longitudes to make them tally with the monstrous longitudes of the Surya Sidhanta!

Coming back to Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha, the three shlokas 9 to 12 of “trimshat krtya yuge bhanam…†in the Spashta-adhikara of the SS are an interpolation of post Munjala era, since they are quite out of context of the main theory of that chapter! They are wrong in the derived results as well, as will be demonstrated in a separate post. AND AYANAMSHA, WHETHER THAT OF MUNJALA, OR OF SURYA SIDHANTA, HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRECESSION, for the simple reason that none of the sidhanta-makers, right from Maya the mlechha to Bhaskara-II of the Sidhanta Shiromani had any knowledge of precession! LET ME REPEAT IT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME THAT NONE OF THE SIDHANTAKARS HAD ANY IDEA ABOUT PRECESSION and the so called nirayana mess is nothing but justification of the absolutely wrong, useless, worthless and misguiding calculations of the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha, whether it is in the name of Lahiri Ayanamsha or Chitra or Muladhara etc. etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with either so called Tropical zodiac or so called sidereal zodiac, both of which are creations of jyotishis--- the former of Western jyotishis and the latter of “Vedic astrologersâ€.

It may be mentioned in the passing, that following in the footsteps of the Surya Sidhanta, which states time and again that the six months of Uttarayana start with Makar Sankrnati, and so on, all the Puranas, invariably, talk of a so called Tropical Rashichakra, in which they also declare unequivocally that Makar Sankranti is another name of Uttarayana and so on. Surprisingly, some Puranas even club Ashivini nakshatra with such a Mesha Rashi, exactly what Maya has done in his Surya Sidhanta, and our “Vedic astrologers†cry in delirium that so and so purana has talked of a sidereal zodiac!

Hats off to the “extra-ordinary†(parokshya!) knowledge of such “Vedic jyotishisâ€!

And the net result of all this sayana versus nirayana mess has been that we are celebrating all our festivals on wrong days, thanks to “Vedic astrologersâ€, as has been rightly pointed out by you.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

HinduCalendar, "Prashant Pandey" <praspandey@. ..> wrote:

>

> Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "Prashant Pandey" <praspandey@> wrote:

> > Dear Mr Revati,

> > < It is indeed the GALACTIC CENTER being the reference for ayanamsha. >

> > I am very happy that you are talking very scientifically, but i am amazed that you are not taking all facts in your account.

> > You just want to throw light only on the initial point of sidereal zodiac but don't want to throw light that how Rashis came in existence; those came in existence with the name of constellation which are made by stars which we can see by naked eyes.

> > If you talk about the galactic centre which we cant see by naked eyes then why not you take stars which are not seen by naked eyes. So instead of making Lion by stars in leo constellation make monkey with the stars which are just behind those stars which are not visible by naked eyes. (Frankly speaking leonine persons looks like monkey for me as they give only empty threats to their opponents)

> > < Transfering this in an ayanamsha value this would come very close to "Usha Shashi" ayanamsha. The Galactic Center - the universal Center (we could call it "Ketu") - then would come into middle of Moola Nakshatra. >

> > Yes it should be called as Ketu because our universe is getting finished at that point means Moksha is only and only at that point. Because of same creativity we got the Lords of regions ie if we talk of zodiacs then we have lordships of Zodiacs(without any scientific logic) or if we talk of NKS then we have lordships of NKS ie of lunar mansions without any reason.

> > Means without any scientific logic those are lords of regions but yes philosophically we can entrust lordships to those sectioned regions ie to 30-30 degrees which we got after dividing those equally in 12 reasons ie in 30 degrees of 360 degrees along ecliptic.

> > < Surprisingly, our so-called "Vedic Astrology" becomes valid this way - taking the Galactic Center as reference - in all parts all over the whole universe. >

> > Dear Mr Revatiji, you would be surprised to hear that there is no astrology in VEDAs and even in VEDAS there is clear cut mention of seasons and yes later when Hindu get influenced by Greeks then we followed Tropical zodiac and at same time predictive techniques breached the Hindu Dharma. And because of Maya who proposed ayanamsha, statrted mess of Sidereal zodiac here in India. Though he said that that ayanamsha to fix starting point of zodiac was given to him by Surya Bhagwan(Sun God) but he caught red handed in his fabricated lies because he gave some calculation to locate planets which no way give correct positions of planets, So now you can think that would Sun God have given wrong formula to calculate locations of planets??

> > In Vedas there is mention of only seasons in the name of astronomy and there is no mention of illness named as predictive techniques.

> > I am writing some harsh words because of same sidereal zodiac, Lahiri posed one panchang according to which we celebrate festivals (You would not be aware of this fact as you are not Hindu).

> > < The reference point obviously used in ancient times was Revati Star, denoting the end of Revati Nakshatra and the beginning of Ashvini Nakshatra. >

> > You would be surprised to hear that many constellations are overlapping each other and for your kind information Pi overlaps Ar so don't think that Revati star was the best choice in ancient times.

> > Regs,

> Prashant Pandey > > Indian_Astrology_ Group_Daily_ Digest@grou ps.com, "revati_energetics@" <revati_energetics@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Members,

> > > > ayanamsha is a big theme for many people.

> > > > I belong to those one having great reliance with Chitrapaksha - "Lahiri"

> > - due to their own experiences.

> > > > But Chitra - or the 7th from it - is not the starting point.

> > > > Once someone wrote in a group that for ancient astrologer s it would be

> > too complicated to look at Chitra and then start the first

> > Nakshatra/Rashi 180° from it. This is true.

> > > > The reference point obviously used in ancient times was Revati Star,

> > denoting the end of Revati Nakshatra and the beginning of Ashvini

> > Nakshatra.

> > > > Transfering this in an ayanamsha value this would come very close to

> > "Usha Shashi" ayanamsha.

> > The Galactic Center - the universal Center (we could call it "Ketu") -

> > then would come into middle of Moola Nakshatra.

> > > > It is indeed the GALACTIC CENTER being the reference for ayanamsha.

> > > > Aries - the believed initial point - is not giving the sattvic impulse

> > to creation. It is rajasic.

> > > > DHANU / SAGITTARIUS is the SATTVIC CREATING IMPULSE for the zodiac and

> > the division by 27 and 12 of it.

> > Sagittarius is the Moolatrikona of Jupiter, and - most important - KETU.

> > > > The creation of this material plane by the supreme intelligence - "God"

> > - was a sattvic act, the initial creating impulse (which always is

> > sattvic). Jupiter/Ketu Moolatrikonas depict this clearly in zodiac (not

> > the Moolatrikona of Mars).

> > > > Ketu always refers to roots, origins of all kinds.

> > MOOLA (Nakshatra) means root (of the zodiac,of the 12 Rashis).

> > > > The previous Nakshatra Jyestha translates into "the oldest".

> > > > So, the starting reference for the zodiac is Moola/Dhanu, not

> > Ashvini/Mesha.

> > > > It is the starting *reference* - but not the exact degree of the

> > Galactic Center.

> > > > Galactic Center lies in 3° of Dhanu, exactly, taking Chitrapaksha.

> > > > So, Moola Nakshatra starts - becomes effective - 3° before Galactic

> > Center.

> > > > We can derive from this that 3 degree is the orbis in which yutis become

> > really effective.

> > The field "Moola" becomes effective 3 degrees in front of its reference.

> > > > So, a transiting planet becomes really effective being 3° before a

> > natal chart planet.

> > > > Surprisingly, our so-called "Vedic Astrology" becomes valid this way -

> > taking the Galactic Center as reference - in all parts all over the

> > whole universe.

> > > > Best Wishes,

> > Revati

> >

> > --- End forwarded message ---

>