Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Sushri Juliana Swanson, Namaskar! Many thanks for your response. <I have been following some of your discussion with interest. When you said, " The Vedic calendar is neither so called Tropical nor so called Sidereal " what did you mean? The nakshatras are found along the ecliptic/zodiac, aren't they? > Pl. do not confuse zodiac as being Tropical or Sidereal! It is an imaginary circle comprising inanimate animals, where a Lion is supposed to be equal to a Scorpion---perhaps both in mass and size!--and so on. So how can it be Tropical or Sidereal? <If you are saying that the Vedic calendar is not zodiacal, then on what celestial coordinate system do you believe it is based...galactic, equatorial, horizontal or ???> We require celestial coordinates only if we have to declare as to how many degrees a body is up or below the ecliptic or the equator. For a seasonal year, all we need is to decide any of the four cardinal points as the start of the solar year. It was Uttarayana, the Winter Solstice, during the Vedic and the Vedanga Jyotisha period. And the VJ does not talk of any such coordinates! The amount of time between two Winter Solstices i.e. one seasonal (Tropical) year was divided into six seasons, each season comprising two months. Three seasons between the WS and Summer Solstice were known as the period of Uttarayana and the rest of the three seasons (six months) as Dakshinayana. The initial month of the Solar year was known as Tapah. With the start of a new moon after that, a lunar new year would start and usually the first lunar month after Uttarayana was known either by the name of Magha or sometimes even Tapah. The time span between two Solstices was divided equally into two portions, which were known as Vishuvas---the Vernal and the Autumnal Equinox. Regarding nakshatras in the Vedas, there is a lot of controversy going on at present. To start with, nakshatras were unequal, just as the Greek constellations of Aries, Taurus etc. were. Later, for computational ease (and not for the ease of phalita-jyotishis!) Abhijit was dropped and the remaining nakshatras clubbed into twenty-seven groups. They have actually nothing to do with either ecliptic or Equator! For instance, very few stars, if any, are a permanent fixture either along the equator or the ecliptic, but they have a more or less permanent place in the nakshatra-chakra in ancient astronomy. Then again the VJ says that the nakshatras start from Krittika but the Mahabharata says that they start from Shravana! Besides, most of the Junction stars are outside the group of their namesake nakshatra divisions, whereas quite a few are too close for any comfort! e.g. Chitra is away by less than a degree from Swati whereas Vishakha is away from Svati by about 21 degree and so on! At no point of time, till the advent of Maya the mlechha, were nakshatras clubbed with rashis, just for the simple reason that we did not have any Meha etc. curses in India till then! As such, the rashis being sidereal because nakshatras are clubbed with them is also a creation of phalita-jyotishis, as even Maya the mlechha had absolutely no such idea as to what mess he was creating by resorting to such a sleight of hand! <Are you also arguing that the BPHS is 5000 years old but that it has been massively corrupted in the last 1500 years? If so, is there a copy of the BPHS that is not corrupted and how does one get a copy?> Whenever we see any work these days, usually there is a “list of other publications by the same author” somewhere in that book! It has been so in the past also! It is said that Vedavyasa had compiled eighteen Puranas. Valmiki had compiled just one work and that was Valmiki Ramayana though Yoga-Vsishtha also can be attributed to him in a sort of way. Maharshi Prashara, the father of Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa, has just compiled one work and that is known as the “Vishnu Purana”. In that work, he has discussed a lot of astronomy, more or less on the same pattern as the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! However, he has not hinted, even in the remotest manner, that he had written anything about predictive gimmicks! It is also doubtful that Maharshi Parashara himself had any faith in the predictions of soothsayers, because he has not advised anybody anywhere that he/she must consult some soothsayer! If Parashaa Rishi had been around 3200 BCE, as is suggested by “Vedic astrologers”, the million dollar question is that why do we have a work like the Vedanga Jyotisha or 14th century BCE, that talks, in a very crude manner, only of the mean motion of the sun and the moon and their derivatives like Ayanas and ritus and months and nakshatras etc. etc. Why do we not find any works of astronomical calculations, especially the ones which tell us the methodology of calculating planetary longitudes vis-à-vis Mesha etc. Rashis before the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha! How did jyotishis, prior to the Surya Sidhata, calculate their horoscopes with navamshas and trimshamshad and shashtyamshas and dasha-bhuktis and so on? It is thus proved conclusively that Brihat Parashari is a concoction of the worst order, just as we have Brighu and Ravana and Aruna Samhita etc. etc. In any case, if you are really interested in the gamut etc. of the Hindu calendar, I suggest you join HinduCalendar where posts are not moderated at all and anybody can post his/her views. With regards, A K Kaul , Juliana Swanson <jai.ma wrote: Dear Mr. Kaul, I have been following some of your discussion with interest. When you said, " The Vedic calendar is neither so called Tropical nor so called Sidereal " what did you mean? The nakshatras are found along the ecliptic/zodiac, aren't they? With respect, I would like to ask, what exactly is your point in this discussion as it is becoming somewhat difficult to follow. If you are saying that the Vedic calendar is not zodiacal, then on what celestial coordinate system do you belive it is based...galactic, equatorial, horizontal or ??? Are you also arguing that the BPHS is 5000 years old but that it has been massively corrupted in the last 1500 years? If so, is there a copy of the BPHS that is not corrupted and how does one get a copy? Thanks for your clarification, JS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Thanks Mr. Kaul...you make some interesting points...and I respect your opinions. I see the zodiac as a belt of constellations along the ecliptic which was originally used as a device to measure time and only later (in certain civilizations) was used for divination. There are a few different systems used to orient the earth to this belt. However, I imagine you see explanation as rather simplistic or perhaps even naive.All the best,Juliana--- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:jyotirved <jyotirved Ameracnaised (Westernized) Ramayana! Cc: hinducalendar , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:02 AM Sushri Juliana Swanson, Namaskar! Many thanks for your response. <I have been following some of your discussion with interest. When you said, "The Vedic calendar is neither so called Tropical nor so called Sidereal" what did you mean? The nakshatras are found along the ecliptic/zodiac, aren't they? > Pl. do not confuse zodiac as being Tropical or Sidereal! It is an imaginary circle comprising inanimate animals, where a Lion is supposed to be equal to a Scorpion---perhaps both in mass and size!--and so on. So how can it be Tropical or Sidereal? <If you are saying that the Vedic calendar is not zodiacal, then on what celestial coordinate system do you believe it is based...galactic, equatorial, horizontal or ???> We require celestial coordinates only if we have to declare as to how many degrees a body is up or below the ecliptic or the equator. For a seasonal year, all we need is to decide any of the four cardinal points as the start of the solar year. It was Uttarayana, the Winter Solstice, during the Vedic and the Vedanga Jyotisha period. And the VJ does not talk of any such coordinates! The amount of time between two Winter Solstices i.e. one seasonal (Tropical) year was divided into six seasons, each season comprising two months. Three seasons between the WS and Summer Solstice were known as the period of Uttarayana and the rest of the three seasons (six months) as Dakshinayana. The initial month of the Solar year was known as Tapah. With the start of a new moon after that, a lunar new year would start and usually the first lunar month after Uttarayana was known either by the name of Magha or sometimes even Tapah. The time span between two Solstices was divided equally into two portions, which were known as Vishuvas---the Vernal and the Autumnal Equinox. Regarding nakshatras in the Vedas, there is a lot of controversy going on at present. To start with, nakshatras were unequal, just as the Greek constellations of Aries, Taurus etc. were. Later, for computational ease (and not for the ease of phalita-jyotishis! ) Abhijit was dropped and the remaining nakshatras clubbed into twenty-seven groups. They have actually nothing to do with either ecliptic or Equator! For instance, very few stars, if any, are a permanent fixture either along the equator or the ecliptic, but they have a more or less permanent place in the nakshatra-chakra in ancient astronomy. Then again the VJ says that the nakshatras start from Krittika but the Mahabharata says that they start from Shravana! Besides, most of the Junction stars are outside the group of their namesake nakshatra divisions, whereas quite a few are too close for any comfort! e.g. Chitra is away by less than a degree from Swati whereas Vishakha is away from Svati by about 21 degree and so on! At no point of time, till the advent of Maya the mlechha, were nakshatras clubbed with rashis, just for the simple reason that we did not have any Meha etc. curses in India till then! As such, the rashis being sidereal because nakshatras are clubbed with them is also a creation of phalita-jyotishis, as even Maya the mlechha had absolutely no such idea as to what mess he was creating by resorting to such a sleight of hand! <Are you also arguing that the BPHS is 5000 years old but that it has been massively corrupted in the last 1500 years? If so, is there a copy of the BPHS that is not corrupted and how does one get a copy?> Whenever we see any work these days, usually there is a “list of other publications by the same author†somewhere in that book! It has been so in the past also! It is said that Vedavyasa had compiled eighteen Puranas. Valmiki had compiled just one work and that was Valmiki Ramayana though Yoga-Vsishtha also can be attributed to him in a sort of way. Maharshi Prashara, the father of Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa, has just compiled one work and that is known as the “Vishnu Puranaâ€. In that work, he has discussed a lot of astronomy, more or less on the same pattern as the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! However, he has not hinted, even in the remotest manner, that he had written anything about predictive gimmicks! It is also doubtful that Maharshi Parashara himself had any faith in the predictions of soothsayers, because he has not advised anybody anywhere that he/she must consult some soothsayer! If Parashaa Rishi had been around 3200 BCE, as is suggested by “Vedic astrologersâ€, the million dollar question is that why do we have a work like the Vedanga Jyotisha or 14th century BCE, that talks, in a very crude manner, only of the mean motion of the sun and the moon and their derivatives like Ayanas and ritus and months and nakshatras etc. etc. Why do we not find any works of astronomical calculations, especially the ones which tell us the methodology of calculating planetary longitudes vis-à -vis Mesha etc. Rashis before the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha! How did jyotishis, prior to the Surya Sidhata, calculate their horoscopes with navamshas and trimshamshad and shashtyamshas and dasha-bhuktis and so on? It is thus proved conclusively that Brihat Parashari is a concoction of the worst order, just as we have Brighu and Ravana and Aruna Samhita etc. etc. In any case, if you are really interested in the gamut etc. of the Hindu calendar, I suggest you join http://groups. / group/HinduCalen dar where posts are not moderated at all and anybody can post his/her views. With regards, A K Kaul , Juliana Swanson <jai.ma wrote: Dear Mr. Kaul, I have been following some of your discussion with interest. When you said, "The Vedic calendar is neither so called Tropical nor so called Sidereal" what did you mean? The nakshatras are found along the ecliptic/zodiac, aren't they? With respect, I would like to ask, what exactly is your point in this discussion as it is becoming somewhat difficult to follow. If you are saying that the Vedic calendar is not zodiacal, then on what celestial coordinate system do you belive it is based...galactic, equatorial, horizontal or ??? Are you also arguing that the BPHS is 5000 years old but that it has been massively corrupted in the last 1500 years? If so, is there a copy of the BPHS that is not corrupted and how does one get a copy? Thanks for your clarification, JS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Thanks Mr. Kaul...you make some interesting points...and I respect your opinions. I see the zodiac as a belt of constellations along the ecliptic which was originally used as a device to measure time and only later (in certain civilizations) was used for divination. There are a few different systems used to orient the earth to this belt. However, I imagine you see explanation as rather simplistic or perhaps even naive.All the best,Juliana--- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote:jyotirved <jyotirved Ameracnaised (Westernized) Ramayana! Cc: hinducalendar , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:02 AM Sushri Juliana Swanson, Namaskar! Many thanks for your response. <I have been following some of your discussion with interest. When you said, "The Vedic calendar is neither so called Tropical nor so called Sidereal" what did you mean? The nakshatras are found along the ecliptic/zodiac, aren't they? > Pl. do not confuse zodiac as being Tropical or Sidereal! It is an imaginary circle comprising inanimate animals, where a Lion is supposed to be equal to a Scorpion---perhaps both in mass and size!--and so on. So how can it be Tropical or Sidereal? <If you are saying that the Vedic calendar is not zodiacal, then on what celestial coordinate system do you believe it is based...galactic, equatorial, horizontal or ???> We require celestial coordinates only if we have to declare as to how many degrees a body is up or below the ecliptic or the equator. For a seasonal year, all we need is to decide any of the four cardinal points as the start of the solar year. It was Uttarayana, the Winter Solstice, during the Vedic and the Vedanga Jyotisha period. And the VJ does not talk of any such coordinates! The amount of time between two Winter Solstices i.e. one seasonal (Tropical) year was divided into six seasons, each season comprising two months. Three seasons between the WS and Summer Solstice were known as the period of Uttarayana and the rest of the three seasons (six months) as Dakshinayana. The initial month of the Solar year was known as Tapah. With the start of a new moon after that, a lunar new year would start and usually the first lunar month after Uttarayana was known either by the name of Magha or sometimes even Tapah. The time span between two Solstices was divided equally into two portions, which were known as Vishuvas---the Vernal and the Autumnal Equinox. Regarding nakshatras in the Vedas, there is a lot of controversy going on at present. To start with, nakshatras were unequal, just as the Greek constellations of Aries, Taurus etc. were. Later, for computational ease (and not for the ease of phalita-jyotishis! ) Abhijit was dropped and the remaining nakshatras clubbed into twenty-seven groups. They have actually nothing to do with either ecliptic or Equator! For instance, very few stars, if any, are a permanent fixture either along the equator or the ecliptic, but they have a more or less permanent place in the nakshatra-chakra in ancient astronomy. Then again the VJ says that the nakshatras start from Krittika but the Mahabharata says that they start from Shravana! Besides, most of the Junction stars are outside the group of their namesake nakshatra divisions, whereas quite a few are too close for any comfort! e.g. Chitra is away by less than a degree from Swati whereas Vishakha is away from Svati by about 21 degree and so on! At no point of time, till the advent of Maya the mlechha, were nakshatras clubbed with rashis, just for the simple reason that we did not have any Meha etc. curses in India till then! As such, the rashis being sidereal because nakshatras are clubbed with them is also a creation of phalita-jyotishis, as even Maya the mlechha had absolutely no such idea as to what mess he was creating by resorting to such a sleight of hand! <Are you also arguing that the BPHS is 5000 years old but that it has been massively corrupted in the last 1500 years? If so, is there a copy of the BPHS that is not corrupted and how does one get a copy?> Whenever we see any work these days, usually there is a “list of other publications by the same author†somewhere in that book! It has been so in the past also! It is said that Vedavyasa had compiled eighteen Puranas. Valmiki had compiled just one work and that was Valmiki Ramayana though Yoga-Vsishtha also can be attributed to him in a sort of way. Maharshi Prashara, the father of Krishna Dwaipayana Vedavyasa, has just compiled one work and that is known as the “Vishnu Puranaâ€. In that work, he has discussed a lot of astronomy, more or less on the same pattern as the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha! However, he has not hinted, even in the remotest manner, that he had written anything about predictive gimmicks! It is also doubtful that Maharshi Parashara himself had any faith in the predictions of soothsayers, because he has not advised anybody anywhere that he/she must consult some soothsayer! If Parashaa Rishi had been around 3200 BCE, as is suggested by “Vedic astrologersâ€, the million dollar question is that why do we have a work like the Vedanga Jyotisha or 14th century BCE, that talks, in a very crude manner, only of the mean motion of the sun and the moon and their derivatives like Ayanas and ritus and months and nakshatras etc. etc. Why do we not find any works of astronomical calculations, especially the ones which tell us the methodology of calculating planetary longitudes vis-à -vis Mesha etc. Rashis before the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha! How did jyotishis, prior to the Surya Sidhata, calculate their horoscopes with navamshas and trimshamshad and shashtyamshas and dasha-bhuktis and so on? It is thus proved conclusively that Brihat Parashari is a concoction of the worst order, just as we have Brighu and Ravana and Aruna Samhita etc. etc. In any case, if you are really interested in the gamut etc. of the Hindu calendar, I suggest you join http://groups. / group/HinduCalen dar where posts are not moderated at all and anybody can post his/her views. With regards, A K Kaul , Juliana Swanson <jai.ma wrote: Dear Mr. Kaul, I have been following some of your discussion with interest. When you said, "The Vedic calendar is neither so called Tropical nor so called Sidereal" what did you mean? The nakshatras are found along the ecliptic/zodiac, aren't they? With respect, I would like to ask, what exactly is your point in this discussion as it is becoming somewhat difficult to follow. If you are saying that the Vedic calendar is not zodiacal, then on what celestial coordinate system do you belive it is based...galactic, equatorial, horizontal or ??? Are you also arguing that the BPHS is 5000 years old but that it has been massively corrupted in the last 1500 years? If so, is there a copy of the BPHS that is not corrupted and how does one get a copy? Thanks for your clarification, JS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Sushri Fuliana Swanson, Namaste! You have said, " I see the zodiac as a belt of constellations along the ecliptic... " It is immaterial as to who sees what! What is material as to what the facts are! And the facts are that the zodiac and ecliptic, bot are imaginary circles comprising imaginary animals! But I respect your views, even if they are fallacios! <I imagine you see explanation as rather simplistic or perhaps even naive> Could you pl. explain this statement. With regards, A K Kaul , Juliana Swanson <jai.ma wrote: > > Thanks Mr. Kaul...you make some interesting points...and I respect your opinions. I see the zodiac as a belt of constellations along the ecliptic which was originally used as a device to measure time and only later (in certain civilizations) was used for divination. There are a few different systems used to orient the earth to this belt. However, I imagine you see explanation as rather simplistic or perhaps even naive. > > All the best, > Juliana > > --- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved wrote: > > jyotirved <jyotirved > Ameracnaised (Westernized) Ramayana! > > Cc: hinducalendar , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest > Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:02 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Sushri Juliana Swanson, Sorry for the type in your first name. AKK , " Avtar Krishen Kaul " <jyotirved wrote: > > Sushri Fuliana Swanson, > Namaste! > You have said, " I see the zodiac as a belt of constellations along the ecliptic... " It is immaterial as to who sees what! What is material as to what the facts are! And the facts are that the zodiac and ecliptic, bot are imaginary circles comprising imaginary animals! > But I respect your views, even if they are fallacios! > <I imagine you see explanation as rather simplistic or perhaps even naive> > Could you pl. explain this statement. > With regards, > A K Kaul > , Juliana Swanson <jai.ma@> wrote: > > > > Thanks Mr. Kaul...you make some interesting points...and I respect your opinions. I see the zodiac as a belt of constellations along the ecliptic which was originally used as a device to measure time and only later (in certain civilizations) was used for divination. There are a few different systems used to orient the earth to this belt. However, I imagine you see explanation as rather simplistic or perhaps even naive. > > > > All the best, > > Juliana > > > > --- On Wed, 7/15/09, jyotirved <jyotirved@> wrote: > > > > jyotirved <jyotirved@> > > Ameracnaised (Westernized) Ramayana! > > > > Cc: hinducalendar , indian_astrology_group_daily_digest > > Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:02 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.