Ayanamsha---the true reference point!

[Guest guest]

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

astrologers”.

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  jyotishis”!

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

astrologers”, as has been rightly pointed out by you.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

HinduCalendar , " Prashant

Pandey " <praspandey wrote:

>

> --- In

Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest , " 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         

>

> --- In

Indian_Astrology_Group_Daily_Digest , " 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 ---

>