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

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,Namaskar!Some people believe that by repudiating something out of the context they will be able to prove their "height of knowledge" but they are actually thus exhibiting their ignorance!Mr. Bhattacharjya has said, "At no time did anybody claim that the Nakshatras were named after some shapes." What is he trying to repudiate when I have said the same thing and I quote, "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". In any case, will Shri Bhattacharjya be kind enough to enlighten this forum as to what was the basis of the nomenclature of naksahtras in the Vedas! Mr. Bhatacharjya has said further, "It is the Rashis, which were named on the basis of the shapes of their appearance". Yes, he is right, but then those rashis are Greek constellations of unequal divisions which were thrust on the Hindus by Maya the mlechha through his Surya Sidhanta!

He has said further, "The same ignorant person has been saying that the Rashis are not mentioned in the Veda and Vedanga Jyotisha, though Veda does mention Vrishabha and several other Rashis and the Vedanga Jyotisha mentions the Meena Rashi."

Mr. Bhattacharjya is again requested, though he has been already requested several times, to quote the exact Vedic mantras with their translation that talk of Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis. Similarly, he is requested to quote the exact mantra with its translation from the Vedanga Jyotisha that talks of Mina etc. Rashis. Unless he does so, he will only be making a laughing stock of himself and will lose his credibility all the more!

Shri SB has said, "Further the Bhagavata Purana also mentions the Rashis and we all know that upanishads have mentioned the fifth veda status of the Puranas."Again, Shri SB is exhibiting his ignorance! As the Upanishadas talk of the Puranas, it means the Puranas existed prior to the Upanishadas! Upanishadas are an inseparable part of the Vedic lore! And thus Shri SB is proving it himself that either there is an interpolation in the Upanishadas or that the Vedas were not revealed at the dawn of the creation but only after Bhagawata Purana was narrated to Parikshit at the beginning of Kaliyuga! Thus Shri SB is again caught on the wrong foot, whichever way he looks at it!Further, Shri SB was a member of the HinduCalendar forum for several years and it had been repeatedly pointed out to him through BVB6.doc and other papers that not only the Srimad Bhagavata Purana, but all the other Puranas like the Shiva Mahapurana, Viushnudharmotara-Purana, Vishnu Purana etc. etc. were talking in uison about a so called Sayana Rashichakra, where Makara Sankranti is a synonym of the starting day of Uttarayana, Karkata Sankranti a synonym of the starting day of Dakshinayana and so on! In fact all the puranas refer to rashis in the same manner as the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! It is thus quite clear that the Rashis were a later addition to the Puranas!

In any case, if Shri SB is so enamoured of the Pauranic Rashichakra, he must follow a so called Sayana Rashichakra not only for predictive gimmicks but even for festivals and muhurtas!

 

Besides, there are several points in my post, which Shri SB has just conveniently kept quiet about! Why does he not reply them one-on-one?

In any case, unless he clarifies the issues raised above, he must realize that we cannot taken his statements seriously!

Regards,

A K Kaulvedic_research_institute , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> Dear All,> > The following statement from a person who claims to know about astrology shows the height of his ignorance level. He said as follows:. > > Quote> > > 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! > > Unquote> > At no time did anybody claim that the Nakshatras were named after some shapes. It is the Rashis, which were named on the basis of the shapes of their appearance. The same ignorant person person has been saying that the Rashis are not mentioned in the Veda and Vedanga Jyotisha, though Veda does mention Vrishabha and several other Rashis and the Vedanga Jyotisha mentions the Meena Rashi. Further the Bhagavata Purana also mentions the Rashis and we all know that upanishads have mentioned the fifth veda status of the Puranas. This person has been trying to show that the concept of Rashis was taken by the Indians from Babylonia and Greece.> > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya> > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 5/8/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:> > jyotirved <jyotirved> [VRI] Fwd: [ind. & West. Astrology] Re:aryabhatta.net/Varahamihira> indiaarchaeology > Cc: usbrahmins , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest , hinducalendar > Friday, May 8, 2009, 2:15 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/panchanga s 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/confusio n 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> >>