Fwd: [Ind. & West. Astrology] Re:aryabhatta.net/Varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Shri Paul Kekai Manansalaji,Namaskar!I was out of town and on my return to Delhi found my system down with "viral fever", thanks to several of my "friends"! Hence the dealy in connecting with yr post!U ve said, "The nakshatras are definitely sidereal and not "tropical" as they are related to the movement of the Moon and not the Sun".

 

The fact of the matter is that the confusion about tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac is a creation of astrologers, therefore, it is only meant for their consumption! The zodiac itself is "an imaginary belt of imaginary animals". To call it tropical or sideral is, therefore, yet another hallucination!As far as the movement of the lights or planets vis-a-vis the nakshatras is concerned, we have to first decide as to what we mean by nakshatras! There is a lot of confusion there also! Yaska has said, "na kshyarateeti-nakshatram" i.e. "as they (stars)do not deviate from their places, that is why they are called nakshatras". That means that the stars were supposed to be "fixed" as there was no visible "disturbance" for a considerable period! However, we do find references to Krittikas in the Vedas, with statements like "All the other nakshatras/stars do deviate from the East but not the Krittikas".Right from the time of the Rik Jyotisham of 14th century BCE, we also find that there is an eaqual division of 27 naksahras in vogue in India. But that again is an imaginary division, since it is only the imaginary "zodiac" that can be divided into 27 or 2700 neat equal compartments! Then again, the junction stars i.e. yogataras of the nakshatra names make confusion worst confounded! They can not be accommodated even in unequal nakshatra divisions, not to speak of equal ones! For example, the distance between Spica (Chitra) and Arctrus (Svati) is less than one degree whereas the difference between Svati and Vishakha (Alpha Librae) is more than twenty degrees!The present nomenclature of yogatars is based on the Surya Sidhanta, but it is really a moot point that Maya the mlechha had actually correlated those yogataras with Vedic nakshatras!We will have to do a lot of rethinking about that nomenclature, thus!

 

U ve also said, "The zodiac is neither purely sidereal or tropical but rather luni-solar in origin with the year starting on the Full Moon, or more accurately the culmination, closest to the star Spica".

 

Your statement itself shows that zodiac is like the famous fable of "The elephant and nine blind men". U are making zodiac like "Narasimha Avatar"--half human and half animal by sayig that it is neither purely sideral nor tropical, though in the first part of your own satement u ve said, "the nakshatras are definitely sidereal and not tropical".

 

The confusion of Tropical and sidereal zodaics is applicable only to rashis, because Western jyotishis call their rashis as tropical whereas Indian jyotishis call them sidereal---when actually those rashis (wheter tropical or sidereal) also are figments of imagination of an "imaginary belt of imaginary animals", created by Babylonian astrologers more than five millenia back!

 

In any case, for the real Vedic calendar, we do not need any zodiac at all, whether sidereal or tropical! All we need is the four cardinal points viz. the two equinoxes and the two solstices--with twelve solar months, named Madhu, Madhava etc. to which are pegged the lunar months Chaitra, Vaishkha etc.What types of nakshatras have been referred to in the Vedas, needs a lot of delving deep in the Vedic lore instead of quibbling about sidereal and tropical zodiacs!

We must, therefore, let the jyotishis---whether "sayana vedic" or "nirayana vedic"--- continue to wallow in the mud of Mesha etc. rashis, but for God's sake, they must leave the Vedic calendar alone!With regards,With regards,A K Kaul

 

A K KaulIndiaArchaeology , "Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala wrote:>> IndiaArchaeology , "Avtar Krishen Kaul" <jyotirved@> wrote:> >> > Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest , "Avtar Krishen Kaul" <jyotirved@> wrote:> > > > Shri Gopal Goel ji,> > Namaskar!> > Many thanks indeed for your reply. > > <You are grossly wrong ,when you say that zodiac signs were not known to sages in ancient past.> > 1. There is a concrete evidence that they were following sidereal zodiac of 27 nakshatras >> > Before deciding whether the zodiac is so called sidereal or so called tropical, we must know as to what the definition of zodiac is! It is "an imaginary belt of imaginary animals". > >> > The nakshatras are definitely sidereal and not "tropical" as they are related to the movement of the Moon and not the Sun.> > The zodiac is neither purely sidereal or tropical but rather luni-solar in origin with the year starting on the Full Moon, or more accurately the culmination, closest to the star Spica.> > Regards,> Paul Kekai Manansala> Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan> http://sambali.blogspot.com/>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Koenraad Elst ji,Namaskar!I have already replied the points raised by Shri Manansala about the so called sidereal and tropical zodiacs.

 

Yr views that "The nakshatras are sidereal because they consist of stars and are strictly unrelated to the phases of the "tropical" year cycle" also are not based on astronomy but on premises of jyotishis!

 

Each "Nakshara" is supposed to be a group of stars but it is doubtful that they were named on the basis of the "appearances" of different groups of stars by Vedic Rishis, as against the names of Babylonian constellations like Aries, Taurus etc. in the hoary past. For example, the names like Svati, Vishakha, Anuradha etc. do not have any possibility of resembling any figures! There are some stories about "Mrigavyadha" (Mirgashira) nakshatra in the Vedic lore. Similarly, Krttikas are supposed to be the foster mother of Kartikeya. The Pauranic lore also tells us that the twenty-seven nakshatras are the copnsorts of Moon who had had excessive infatuation for Rohini and therefore stayed with her for a much longer time than the apportioned one!

The remaining twenty-six wives complained to their father Dakshya Prajapati, who cursed the Moon with "kshyaya-roga", i.e. tuberclosis--and the Moon became so "lean" that it was almost invisible!! Later, on his pleadings and the interventiion of all his consorts, Daksha Prajapati yielded and amelioraed that curse by making the Moon waxing and wanning!

 

From this anecdote it appears that in earlier days, the nakshatras were of unequal division/sizes and Rohini was much larger than other nakshatras, with the result that the Moon was "seen" as taking much longer in traversing that nakshatra than others.

Bhaskara-I is also said to have recommended an unequal nakshatra division, as advocated by the Vedas, since we find references to twenty-eight nakshatras, including Abhijit at several places.

 

Regarding zodiac being sidereal or tropical, I have made it very clear several times already that zodiac is actually an imaginary circle comprising imaginary animals! And those imaginary animals are nothing but groups of stars, as per the Babylonian astronomers. It was only after Maya the mlechha introduced those constellations in the garb of rashis (astrological signs) in India through his Surya Sidhanta, that nakshatras got entwined with those very constellations! And ever since then India has been reeling under that delirium of nakshatras-vis-a-vis-rashis, thanks to charlatans like Varahamihira etc. Nakasharas have actually nothing to do with Greek constellations and thus Mesha, Vrihsa etc. rashis.

So the premise that nakshatras are sidereal because they are groups of stars is itself fallacious since the zodiac itself is a conglomeration of constellations which themselves are conglomeatons of stars!

 

<The moon has nothing definitional to do with it; tropical astrologers consider the moon's position in the tropical signs. But in practice, the moon does have something to do with it: the present practice of astrologers, both sidereal and tropical, to consider the sun's position *in* a zodiacal sector or constellation involves geometrical calculations, as the sun is never seen against the constellations.>

 

Regarding the Tropical year cycle, a year is a duration of the revolution of the earth around the sun via the ecliptic! And Ecliptic itself is a fictitious (imaginary!) circle, which astronomers call "Apparent path of the earth and planets around the sun". It was next to impossible in ancient times to find the duration of a Sidereal year, since the sun could not be seen in conjunction with any star! Sidereal year is actually the duration of a Tropical year plus the time taken by the sun to cover the annual precessional arc of about 50."28 (these days). On the other hand, it is much easier to determine the duration of a Tropical year by means of "poles" which the astronomers called gnomon in ancient times.

We cannot have a lunar year, on the other hand. It is actualy the increment/decrement of twelve solar (Tropical) months over the synodic lunar months that accounts for adhika or kshyaha masa. It has again nothing to do with "zodiacal sectors", since the real Hindu calendar is unrelated to constellations.

Let me remind everybody here that all this mess about Ayanamsha is the creation of Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! As per his own statements that Makar Sankranti is another name of the start of the six months of Uttarayana and Karka Sankranti another name of the start of six months of Dakshinayana, etc. it is clear that he never had any idea about either precession or about any sidereal year, since all his definitions are confined to a Tropical year.

However, as ill luck would have it, he gave the duration of a year, in his calculations, more by 3.25 seconds than even the sidereal year! That created the mess of Sayana versus nirayana and Troical zodiac versus Sideral zodiac, since Jyotishis like Varahamihira, instead of going to the bottom of the confusion, took Maya the mlechha's words as gospel truth as they were the words of Surya Bhagwan according to them. No Indian astronomer (read jyotishi) had any idea about precession till at least 15th century AD, and all along they have been making efforts to make their calendars/panchangas subservient to the Surya Sidhanta calculations instead of the Vedas or even the Puranas!

<The choice of Spica as marking the middle of the zodiac (180° after its putative starting point O° Aries) dates to the 1950s, as far as I know. It shows the hollowness of the sidereal zodiac: the star marking the balance of the Zodiac (Libra, the middle), is actually the main star of Virgo! >

 

Chitra-paksha ayanamsha is actually a creation of N.C. Lahiri! In order to sell his "Lahiri's Indian Ephemeris" and "Vishudha Sidhanta Panjika", he wanted an Ayanamsha that was nearest to Grahalaghava in around 1940, so that there was not a "violent break" from Grahalaghava Sankrantis that the people had become addicted to! As such, he "invented" an imaginary point by way of the VE that was opposite to Star Chitra in 285 AD! It defies imagination actually that if he really wanted "sidereal" longitudes, and if he was so enamoured of Chitra, why did he not take Chitra as the starting point of the "zodiac" and why did he have to find the devious ways of going back in time by about 2000 years and then selecting the VE of 285 AD as the starting point of the "zodiac" since it was not conjunct any Star at that point of time! If at all any Star could be the starting point, it should have been Revati (Zeta Piscium) since the Surya Sidhanta also had said, "Bhaganam to paushanantam"---the "Bhagana starts from the end of Revati division". This is what Tilak had suggested to the Saha Calendar Reform Committee and we do have a panchanga named Talaka Panchanga from Maharashtra with Revati Star as the starting point of Rashsi. That is known as Eaivata-paksha ayanamsha! That, however, does not mean that that that Ayanamsha has any scientfic basis, but it would have been like choosing the lesser of two evils!

It is, therefore, no surprise that "Vedic astrologers" can make correct predictions from Chitra-paksha ayanamsha (read Lahiri Ayanamsha) since they can make correct predictions only from incorrect data!

 

<"Luni-solar" is not a type of zodiac but a type of calendar, viz. one that combines lunar months of 29+ days with the solar year of 365+ days by adjusting the number of months (12 or 13) so as to keep pace with the solar year.>

Yes, u r right! Luni-solar is a type of calendar, and we must peg them to Vedic Tropical months like Madhu, Madhava etc. instead of Lahiris and Ramanas and Tilaks and Chandraharis and Kharegats and Yukteshwars and so on, to name just a few of them!

<If there were no moon, there would be no luni-solar calendar, but there would still be sidereal and tropical zodiacs. >

The "if" in this sentence is really a big IF! We may as well say "If there were no sun, there would be no earth -- at least the human population including u and me". However, yr postulate "but there would still be sidereal and tropical zodiacs" is again wishful thinking since the zodiac is neither sidereal nor tropical, but just a pure and unadulterated zodiac!

It is only because of the quibblings/confusion of sidereal and tropical zodiacs that the Vedic calendar has been the real casulaty!

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

IndiaArchaeology , "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst wrote:>> > > 1. There is a concrete evidence that they were following sidereal zodiac of 27 nakshatras >> > >> > > > The nakshatras are definitely sidereal and not "tropical" as they are related to the movement of the Moon and not the Sun.> >> > The nakshatras are sidereal because they consist of stars and are strictly unrelated to the phases of the "tropical" year cycle. The moon has nothing definitional to do with it; tropical astrologers consider the moon's position in the tropical signs. But in practice, the moon does have something to do with it: the present practice of astrologers, both sidereal and tropical, to consider the sun's position *in* a zodiacal sector or constellation involves geometrical calculations, as the sun is never seen against the constellations. That is why the ancients considered the sun's connection with a constellation through the latter's heliacal rising (first visibility at dawn after some weeks of invisibility under the sun's rays), as the Babylonians did, or through the latter's opposition to the sun and its containing the full moon, as practised in India. That is why presently the month named after the star Magha, with which the sun is conjunct in summer, falls in winter, when the full moon conjoins the star Magha (Regulus). > > > > > The zodiac is neither purely sidereal or tropical but rather luni-solar in origin with the year starting on the Full Moon, or more accurately the culmination, closest to the star Spica.> > > > The choice of Spica as marking the middle of the zodiac (180° after its putative starting point O° Aries) dates to the 1950s, as far as I know. It shows the hollowness of the sidereal zodiac: the star marking the balance of the Zodiac (Libra, the middle), is actually the main star of Virgo! "Luni-solar" is not a type of zodiac but a type of calendar, viz. one that combines lunar months of 29+ days with the solar year of 365+ days by adjusting the number of months (12 or 13) so as to keep pace with the solar year. If there were no moon, there would be no luni-solar calendar, but there would still be sidereal and tropical zodiacs. The sidereal Z depends on the "fixed" stars (which unfortunately for it are not really fixed when considered over the long term) and the sun/earth revolution plane, the tropical Z depends only on the sun/earth cycle without reference to the stars, which could all disappear without affecting the tropical Z. Neither requires the existence of the moon. > > Kind regards,> > KE>

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology , " Paul Kekai Manansala "

<p.manansala wrote:

 

Let me add a few more reasons to show that the Greek zodiac was linked to the

sidereal and not the tropical year.

 

1. The Greek zodiac is explicitly a division of the ecliptic, i.e. the path of

the Sun around the stars. The tropical year does not represent a full

revolution of the Sun, i.e. the earth around the Sun.

 

2. If the Greeks were intent on tropical astrology they would not attempt to

calculate the position of the planets using the tropical year! Planetary

positions only make sense against the background of the stars not in relation to

the declination of the Sun. The fact is that Ptolemy, although aware of

Hipparchus theory of the precession, does not seem to have bought the idea.

Therefore, he attempts to ascertain the sidereal position of the planets without

correcting for precession.

 

3. Ptolemy very clearly details the stars associated with each sign in the

zodiac. This does not make sense in tropical astrology! So if Mars is

calculated to be in Sagittarius, it means that the planet supposedly has the

stars of that constellation in the background.

 

4. When the Arabs adopted both Indian and Greek astrology, they also adopted

the Indian theory of either a libration or a full revolution (Bhaskara, Munjala)

of the equinoxes, clearly indicating that they were concerned about the sidereal

position of the Sun and planets. Not only that but some European

astrologer-astronomers did the same including Arzael and Alphonsus copying

directly however the Arab astronomers like Albategnius, and culminating in the

findings of Copernicus.

 

Regards,

Paul Kekai Manansala

Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan

http://sambali.blogspot.com

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology , " Paul Kekai Manansala "

<p.manansala wrote:

 

Let me add a few more reasons to show that the Greek zodiac was linked to the

sidereal and not the tropical year.

 

1. The Greek zodiac is explicitly a division of the ecliptic, i.e. the path of

the Sun around the stars. The tropical year does not represent a full

revolution of the Sun, i.e. the earth around the Sun.

 

2. If the Greeks were intent on tropical astrology they would not attempt to

calculate the position of the planets using the tropical year! Planetary

positions only make sense against the background of the stars not in relation to

the declination of the Sun. The fact is that Ptolemy, although aware of

Hipparchus theory of the precession, does not seem to have bought the idea.

Therefore, he attempts to ascertain the sidereal position of the planets without

correcting for precession.

 

3. Ptolemy very clearly details the stars associated with each sign in the

zodiac. This does not make sense in tropical astrology! So if Mars is

calculated to be in Sagittarius, it means that the planet supposedly has the

stars of that constellation in the background.

 

4. When the Arabs adopted both Indian and Greek astrology, they also adopted

the Indian theory of either a libration or a full revolution (Bhaskara, Munjala)

of the equinoxes, clearly indicating that they were concerned about the sidereal

position of the Sun and planets. Not only that but some European

astrologer-astronomers did the same including Arzael and Alphonsus copying

directly however the Arab astronomers like Albategnius, and culminating in the

findings of Copernicus.

 

Regards,

Paul Kekai Manansala

Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan

http://sambali.blogspot.com

 

--- End forwarded message ---