Secrets of the Earth

[Guest guest]

Dear Francesco Brigenti,

Namaskar!

Many thanks for yr enquiries #5001

of May 10, 09 regarding my ascribing certain dates to the Vedas and the VJ etc.

 

Let me start from “upside

down”.

 

1  < 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata>

a). Mbh is a

voluminous work of about one hundred thousand verses.  It has followed the

Vedanga Jyotisha system of five year yuga, determining the   nomenclature of

months and tithis/nakshatras etc.  The VJ is a work of an era of at least

fourteenth century BCE.  As such, the Mbh, to start with, is most probably a

work of the VJ era.

b) Since Mesha,

Vrisha etc. rashis are conspicuous by their absence from the Mbh, it is

certainly a work of an era of prior to about 400 BCE, when rashi based

Grecho-Chaldean astrology had not gained foothold in India. 

c) There is no

mention of any weekdays  in the Mbh.  That also confirms the date as prior to 4th

century BCE.

d) All the planets

right from Budha to Shani being mentioned vis-à-vis various nakshatras, is

certainly a “side effect” of works like Atharva-Veda-Parishsita

etc. which is a work of about sixth century BCE.

All these factors

prove that the MBh is a work of a “steady development” of 14th

century BCE to 4th century BCE.

 

2 <1400 BCE: [...] Vedanga

Jyotisha>

 

a)

The VJ has said in the fifth mantra,

“When the sun and the moon while moving in the sky, come to Vasava

(Dhanishtha, Alpha Delphini), then the yuga, the Magha and Tapas months, the

light half of the month and the winter solstice, all commence together”.

b)

The VJ has followed a pattern of 27

equal nakshatra divisions, starting from Krittika.  Presuming that Alpha

Delphini is supposed to be in the middle of Dhanishshta nakshtra division, it

had an almost exact longitude of about 270 degrees as per FK5 catalogue on

January 1, 1400 BCE.  The winter solstice was thus in exact conjunction with

Alpha Delphini (Dhanishtha) star then.  Hence it can safely be deduced that the

VJ is a work of at least fourteenth century BCE, if not earlier.

 

3.    <3000 BCE: Taittiriya

Samhita>

 

       < 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita>

        <3000 BCE: [...] Shatapatha Brahmana>

 

a)

Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/1-4 says,

“One should get consecrated in Krittikas…Krittikas alone consist of

many stars.  Other asterisms consist of only one or two or three or four stars

but Krittikas have many.  These are the only stars which do not deviate from

the east whereas all the other nakshatras do deviate from the East but not

Krittikas…”

b)

This is what S B Dikshit has said on

page 128 of History of Indian Astronomy, “The statement ‘kritikas never

deviate from the east, implies that these stars always rise in the east, that

is they are situated on the equator or their declination is zero.  At present

they do not appear to rise exactly in the east but at a point north of east;

this happens because of precessional motion of equinoxes.  Assuming 50”

as annual motion, the time when the junction star of the krittika had zero

declination, comes to be 3068 years before Shaka and even 150 years earlier

before i.e. the approximate time of commencement of Kali era. If 48” be

adopted as the precessional annual motion”.

c)

Dikshit is quite correct even

through his rough estimates since as per FK5 catalogue, the declination of

Alcyone, the Junction Star of Krittika  was about 24 arc minutes south as on

January 1, 3000 BCE!

 

d)

We have to bear in mind that as per

these Mantras of the Shatapatha Brahmana, Krittika nakshatra had maximum number

of stars.  That means that nakshatra divisions in the Vedic time were of

unequal dimensions unlike that of the Vedanga Jyotisha!  And it also means that

apart from Alcyone, there were several other prominent stars in that division. 

 

 

e)

Krittikas are a part of the

Constellation (and not astrological sign!) Taurus.  They are a part of Pleiades,

and there is every possibility that quite a few other prominent stars, about

which we have no information, are a part of Krittikas, as per the Vedas.  That

means that one or the other star of Kritikas had a zero degree declination for

quite sometime, much before and even after 3000 BCE. 

 

f)

We can, therefore, safely conclude

that Madhyanhdina Shukla Yajurveda, of which Shatapatha Brahmana is a part, is

a work of about 3000 BCE and maybe even earlier. 

 

g)

Taittiriya Samhita and Vajasneya

Samhita are more or less contemporaneous of Shukla Yajurveda!  Thus they also

are of about 3000 BCE, if not earlier.

3. <4000 BCE: [...] Rigveda>

            a)         As is common

knowledge by now, Rigveda is a much earlier work than all the other Vedas!

            b)         There is no

doubt, thus, that the Rigveda is of at least 4000 BCE, if not earlier!

Q.E.D. (or is it QEF?)

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

PS

1.

All the remaining claptrap of your

post is “immaterial, inconsequential and irrelevant”. with due

apologies to good old Perry Mason!

2.

Declinations/longitudes of Stars can

be checked by anybody from 10000 BCE to 12030 AD after downloading “Vasistha”

program from HinduCalendar forum, for free and without any obligation!

AKK

 

 

 

 

--- In

Abhinavagupta , Francesco Brighenti wrote:

[A

preliminary question to Sunthar: Since this thread deals with calendars, how

is that the message of Avtar's I am replying to shows the date " Fri Mar

27,

2009 " , at least on my browser? :^)]

 

Dear Avtar,

 

You write:

 

> 4000 BCE: [...] Rigveda

>

> 3000 BCE: Taittiriya Samhita

>

> 3000 BCE: Vajasaneya Samhita

>

> 3000 BCE: [...] Shatapatha Brahmana

>

> 1400 BCE: [...] Vedanga Jyotisha

>

> 1400 BCE to 400 BCE: The Mahabharata

 

May I ask you, if you haven't already done it before on this List, to clarify

to

all of us how you calculated the above dates for the Rigveda, the Taittiriya

Samhita, the Vajasaneya Samhita, the Vedanga Jyothisha, and the Mahabharata?

 

I think you realize you are here violating an elementary principle regulating

scholarly debates. According to this principle, any proponent of a theory that

objectively represents a slap to the face of the specialists in the field that

theory applies to (in your case, a theory that back-dates the beginning of the

Vedic age to 2,500 years before the date favoured, as we all know, by most of

Vedic specialits) must produce some conspicuous evidence supporting his/her

claims, and must at the same time show he/she is familiar with the mass of

evidence supporting the consensually held mainstream theory he/she wishes to

update (or even demolish).

 

I can't recall you ever did such a thing, at least not on this List.

 

The irony, as far as I am concerned, is that I have been following your posting

activity on this and other Lists, and I find your arguments against the Vedic

origins of the Rashi-based calendar convincing. Why do you need to back-date

the

Rigveda to 4000 BCE to defend your arguments? Would they lose their force if

you

accepted the mainstream dating of the Rigveda to ca. 1500 BCE? (I don't think

they would lose their force in that event, yet I leave to you the decision as

to

whether to explain to me the reasons why you need to adopt this Hindutva-style

chronology to support your arguments).

 

Thanks and best regards,

Francesco Brighenti

 

 

 

 

[Response to Avtar Krishen Kaul's post (09 May 2009) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/4997

]