niradhar Sayana versus Niradhar nirayana zodiac/rashis!

[Guest guest]

Shri Hari Malla ji,

Jai Shri Ram!

Thanks for your #6446 of Oct 29,

09 in hinducalendar forum.

 

< May I please know

what according to you is the meaning of 'sidereal' and 'tropical' and also

sayan or niraya?>

The meaning of “sidereal” as per

Random House Dictionary” is “determined by or from the stars; of or

pertaining to stars; belonging to stars” and that of the word Tropical,

as per the same dictionary, is, “pertaining to, characteristic of,

occurring in, or inhabiting the tropics; used in or suitable for the

tropics” and the meaning of Tropic is, ”Either of the two

corresponding parallels of latitude on the terrestrial globe, one (tropic of

Cancer)  23°5 N of the equator and the other (tropic of cancer) about 23°.5 S

degrees of the equator, being the boundaries of the torrid zone”.

We also find the definitions of sidereal second,

sidereal minute, sidereal hour, sidereal day, sidereal month and sidereal year

in the same dictionary.  There is also definition of a tropical year as

“Also called astronomical year, equinoctial year, solar year, A division

of time equal to the interval between one vernal equinox and the next”. 

The definition of sidereal year is, “A division of time representing the

time required for the earth to complete one revolution around the sun measured

with relation to the fixed stars”.

The definition of zodiac has been repeated

literally hundreds of times by me and it is, “an imaginary belt of the

heavens centering on the ecliptic”  and the definition of ecliptic is

“the apparent path of the sun in the heavens” and the meaning of the

word “apparent” itself is something that appears to be but does not

really exist!

We find similar definitions of these terms as

per all the other dictionaries!

As such, there was hardly any need for you to

ask me their meanings!

By now it must be clear to you that the

zodiac itself is an imaginary circle and an imaginary circle can neither be

sidereal nor tropical!  Or it may be just sidereal or just tropical or both of

them simultaneously, what you call so called coordinated system---depending on

the imagination of the person concerned!  But imaginary means that which does

not exist anywhere  else except in the imagination of the person concerned!

 

< I am scared we are using the meanings of

the words in very special senses and there is some communication gap between

us.>

No.  there is absolutely no communication

gap, since I have been repeating these statements ad nauseam and ad infinitum

and giving their meanings in as simple terms as is humanly possible! The

problem is that you just do not want to understand the fact that you are

creating sidereal and tropical zodiacs only in your imagination and they do not

exist in reality!  And as you know, or at least should know,  Vedic calendar

does not go by your or my imagination!  It goes by the four cardinal points and

seasonal months to which are appended synodic (lunar) months which do not have

any independent existence in the Vedic calendar! 

If because of your infatuation with lunar (synodic)

months to the exclusion of the Vedic months Madhu, Madhava etc. you call the

synodic months an attribute of the so called sidereal zodiac, you must bear in

mind Synodic (lunar) months have independent existence only in Islamic

calendar!  You are, as such, trying to thrust down the throat of  the Hindu

community a sort of Hegira calendar under the garb of a so called sidereal zodiac.

 

< If the rashis are stars or groups of

stars, why cannot they be sidereal in the true sense of the word? Are all stars

not sidereal in the normal sense?>

Now all of a sudden you jump from zodiac to

rashis!  Who told you that rashis are groups of stars?  Can you quote even a

single astronomical work in support of your argument?  I have repeated it

hundreds of times that rashis are twelve imaginary equal “animal

division” of twelve “imaginary unequal animal divisions”. 

Several millennia back some groups of infinite stars had been presumed by

Babylonian astrologers to be resembling certain animal figures which they named

as “Ram” (Aries) and “Bull” (Taurus) etc.  Even those

constellations do not resemble those animals now!  In other words, the present “Rams” 

have got completely delinked from the “original (imaginary) Rams”

and so on!  As such, when even the unequal constellations have nothing

resembling the original namesake unequal animals now a days, how can equal

animals (rashis) resemble them?  Thus there is absolutely no connection of any

rashis with anything whether the zodiac or the constellations!  They are all

creations of Chaldean astrologers, which were lapped by Hindu jyotishis via the

Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha, and that is all there is to it!

Even if for the sake of argument we agree

that rashis are groups of stars, what do you mean by the statement, “are

all stars not sidereal in the normal sense”? 

Anything pertaining to stars means sidereal

so how can the stars themselves be sidereal or even tropical for that matter? 

 

< In my understanding, 'sidereal' means

stellar or fixed like the stars. 'Tropical' means the shifting or moving very

slowly with the seasons by the precessional effects of the earth's axis,> 

You are talking in circles!  Is a sidereal

day “fixed like the stars”? Is a “sidereal second fixed like

the stars”?  or is a “sidereal year fixed like the stars”?

Then again, who told you that stars are fixed?  At least it cannot be any astronomer! 

The tragedy lies in the fact that every body is these days authorized to speak

on everything even if he/she has absolutely no knowledge about that subject! 

Stars have their own motion known as Proper Motion.  They are not fixed at all

in the real sense of the word!  You must know that there is nothing fixed in

the universe!  Nor is anything ever equal to anything else there, except in one’s

imagination!  Pl. remove this confusion from your mind.  All that can be said

is that the Proper Motion of stars  is very very small, but that does not mean

that they are fixed!

I am really surprised to see your definition

of “Tropical means the shifting or moving slowly with the seasons by the

precessional effects of the earth’s axis”.  What is supposed to be

moving with the seasons by the precessional effects of the earth’s axis? 

If the Uttarayana was the shortest day of the year in 10000 BCE, it will be the

shortest day of the year in 10000 AD.  If Dakshinayana was the longest day of

the year in 10000 BCE, it will be the longest day of the year in 10000 AD. 

Equinoxes are precessing.  So are the Solstices.  But the seasons, which are

directly related to the equinoxes and solstices,  are immune from the effects

of that precession! Why are you creating unnecessary dichotomies of sidereal

and tropical and coordinated and so on zodiacs, and then linking them

unnecessarily to the Vedic calendar, when you cannot define even the word

zodiac properly? 

 

Now coming to your “Sayana” and

“nirayana” cofusion: Can you quote any astronomical work,

including the sidhantas, that have talked of nirayana and sayana, or even

ayanamsha  prior to Munjala’s Laghumanasa?  When you presume that the

starting point of the “twelve equal imaginary animals” is the

Vernal Equinox, you call that starting point of imaginary circle of imaginary

animals as sayana and even those twelve imaginary animals, that you call

rashis, as sayana.  When you presume that  the imaginary circle of

“twelve equal imaginary animals” starts from some  point other than

the Vernal Equinox, you call that point including the twelve equal animals as nirayana. 

The difference between the imaginary circle of animals supposed to be starting

from the Vernal Equinox and the imaginary circle of animals supposed to be starting

from some other point, depending on the whim and fancy of the creator of that

particular division, is known as ayanamsha!

They are all imaginary points of imaginary

differences between two types of imaginary circles!

< Please correct me if I am wrong. In this

light I do not understand when you say the rashi of stars are not sidereal.>

I hope you will not continue with your

confusion about sidereal and tropical and coordinated etc. etc. rashis now.

Jai Shri Ram.

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

 

] Fwd: Re: Jyotishis

Vs Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul - 2

 

Dear shri Kaulji,

namaskar! <Rashis are imaginary divisions of an imaginary zodiac! They can,

as

such, never be either sidereal or tropical!>

May I please know what acoording to you is the meaning of 'sidereal' and

'tropical' and also sayan or nirayan? I am scared we are using the meanings of

the words in very special senses and there is some communication gap between

us.If the rashis are stars or groups of stars,why cannot they be sidereal

in the

true sense of the word? Are all stars not sidereal in the normal sense? In my

understanding, 'sidereal' means steller or fixed like the stars. 'Tropical'

means the shifting or moving very slowly with the seasons by the precessional

effects of the earth's axis, which changes direction very slowly. Please

correct

me if I am wrong. In this light I do not understand when you say the rashi of

stars are not sidereal. Thus the constellations or rashis of stars are

sidereal,

in this light. Have I understood the words correctly?

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

HinduCalendar ,

" jyotirved " <jyotirved wrote:

>

> Shri Hari Malla ji,

> Jai Shri Ram!

> <Here your interpretation is correct that the rashis are stellar and

thus

> approximately tropical but exactly sidereal. Have I understood you

> correctly>

> No! Absolutely not!

> Rashis are imaginary divisions of an imaginary zodiac! They can, as such,

> never be either sidereal or tropical!

> Even the original Greek constellations Aries, Taurus etc. are " effect

of the

> eye-sight " i.e. they are also imaginary animal divisions and not the

real

> divisions of Rams and Bulls etc. Why don't you go through some good books

> on astronomy?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

HinduCalendar , " Krishen " <jyotirved wrote:

 

 

 

Shri Narayan Iyerji,

 

Jai Shri Ram!

 

Welcome to Hinducalendar forum and many thanks for your response.

 

< 1. Are there any week-days, like bhanu-vasara, indu-vasara etc.

mentioned in the vedas? If not vedas, what is their origin?>

 

No. There is no mention of weekdays not only in the Vedas but neither

in the Vedanga Jyotisha nor itihasa. They are all imports from some

other country, probably around 500 BCE. That makes Atharvajyotisha also

a work of post 500 BCE.

 

<2. Do all portion of vedas speak about 6 ritus unequivocally? I

remember having read in some portion of brahmanas/aranyaka mention of

only 5 ritus, and if I recall correctly Shishira and Hemanta ritus were

clubbed together.>

 

You are absolutely right. Some Vedic mantras club two ritus together,

and probably it is Shishira and Hemanta. It could be because in certain

parts of India Shishira is not as cold as in Northern regions, and as

such, not much different from Hemanta. It is only a guess work and not

a firm view. So do not impale me for the same!

 

 

<3. What would we be missing if only solar return is considered for

celebrating festivals instead of the existing soli-lunar or luni-solar

calendars and their contradiction and reconciliation.>

 

That is exactly what Gregorian calendar is doing---celebrating birthdays

as per " solar returns " ! These are two extremes---one is the solar

calendar to the exclusion of synodic months and that is Gregorian! The

other is pure synodic months, to the exclusion of solar months. That is

Hegira/Islamic calendar! The Vedic calendar is unique since it combines

both the lunar as well as solar phenomena---vis-a-vis seasons!

 

You must be aware that in India we never celebrate any Jayanti purely on

solar basis! Rama Navmi is a festival celebrated on Shukla Paksha navmi

in Chaitra. But that lunar Chaitra has to be pegged to the solar month

Madhu. Janmashtami is celebrated on Shravana/Bhadra Krishna ashtami at

midnight. But that Shrvana has to be pegged to solar Nabhas. Similarly,

there is Vamana Jayanti, Nrisimha Chaturdshi etc. etc. All on the

basis of lunar tithis, but pegged to seasonal solar months.

 

Equal importance is give to the four cardinal points. Some of the

puranas say that by taking a bath during the ayana/vishuva sankrantis,

one attains the punya of hundreds of Ashvamedha yajnyas. Those

veryAyana sankrantis were known as Makara (Uttarayana), Karkata

(Dakshinayana), Vasant Sampat (Mesha) and Sharat Sampat (Tula Sankranti)

as per those very puranas. Since phalita-jyotishis delinked their

sankrantis from the Pauranic ones on the behest of Ganesha Daivajnya

etc. after about sixteenth century, a dichotomy of sayana versus

nirayana got created unnecessarily and the hindu community is reeling

under the same, the worst casuality being the Hindu festivals.

 

<4. You seem to have adopted a harsh language in respect of imaginery

Ram, bull, zodiac etc. What if they are imaginery? Aren't the

international dateline, equator, the lines that divide the earth to form

tropic of cancer, tropic of capricorn, etc. imaginery? Although the

international date line is imaginery, the date is very real, as also

though the lattitudanal etc. divisions are imaginery, the existence of

tropical forests like savannah and tundra regions are real, isn " t it?

So, why one set of imaginations/assumptions is okay and the other not?>

 

The problem of Rams and Bulls arises when they get into direct conflict

witht the Vedic calendar! As on date, as you must be aware by now, we

are not celebrating our festivals as per the Vedic lore since they are

based on Madhu, Madhava etc. months and have nothing to do with Mesha,

Vrisha etc. rashis, whether Sayana or nirayana. We are not celebrating

our festivals as per the Puranas or even sidhantas either, not even

geographical phenomena, since they are all so called Sayana! We are

celebrating all the festivals only as per the whims and fancies of

Lahiriwalas and Ramanawas and Muladharawalas etc. etc. since it is

those very " walas " who decide our calendar and they decide it in a very

wrong manner because they base it all on imaginary Rams and Bulls!

 

International date line is imaginary, but we never celebrate our

festivals on that basis but on the basis of sunrise/sunset since the day

in India ranges from one sunrise to another. Simiarly some festivals

depend on moonrise/moonset like Karuva Chauth etc.

Vedic calendar is least bothered as to what name you give to

Dakshinayana or Uttarayana--whetehr you call it Tropic of Cancer or

Caner of the Tropic! What it is bothered about is that the Uttarayana

has to be the shortest day of the year and Dakshinayana the longest day

of the year and days have to be equal to nights on the days of

Vishuvas------this has been clarified in theVedanga Jyotisham in no

uncertain terms.

 

As such, imaginary animals maybe alright for making correct predictions,

but those animals have to be eliminated mercilessly from the gamut of

Vedic calenars as they are making all the festivals spin on their heads.

That is why I request all the jyotishis that they may select watever

ayanamsha or zodiac (type of animals!) etc. etc. they want for making

correct predictions, but they must leave the Vedic calendar alone!

 

 

<5. I am on your side as far as phalita jyotish is concerned, with its

ability to predict correct results from the wrong set of data!>

 

Many thanks for your good wishes. In fact, I appreciate the contrarian

views as much as my own views since it gives me an opportunity to clear

my own doubts, if any, in a better manner, to myself, becaue unless I

convince myself first that I am on the rigth track, I will never be able

to clarify it to others.

 

As the saying goes, satyam eva jayate naanritam.

 

Jai Shri Ram

 

 

HinduCalendar , narayan iyer z1e1b1r1a@

wrote:

>

 

 

> Namaste Sri AKKji,

>

> On the current discussion, I would like to know the following:

>

> 1. Are there any week-days, like bhanu-vasara, indu-vasara etc.

mentioned in the vedas? If not vedas, what is their origin?

>

> 2. Do all portion of vedas speak about 6 ritus unequivocally? I

remember having read in some portion of brahmanas/aranyaka mention of

only 5 ritus, and if I recall correctly Shishira and Hemanta ritus were

clubbed together.

>

> 3. What would we be missing if only solar return is considered for

celebrating festivals instead of the existing soli-lunar or luni-solar

calendars and their contradiction and reconciliation.

>

> 4. You seem to have adopted a harsh language in respect of imaginery

Ram, bull, zodiac etc. What if they are imaginery? Aren't the

international dateline, equator, the lines that divide the earth to form

tropic of cancer, tropic of capricorn, etc. imaginery? Although the

international date line is imaginery, the date is very real, as also

though the lattitudanal etc. divisions are imaginery, the existence of

tropical forests like savannah and tundra regions are real, isn " t it?

So, why one set of imaginations/assumptions is okay and the other not?

>

> 5. I am on your side as far as phalita jyotish is concerned, with its

ability to predict correct results from the wrong set of data!!!

>

> Regards,

>

> narayan

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 11/7/09, Krishen jyotirved@ wrote:

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Dear freidns,

 

Jai Shri Ram!

 

<What proof is there that Atharva jyotisha is post 500 BCE work. Atharva

Jyotisha?>

 

The mention of weekdays and also planets in Atharva Jyotisha is a proof

in itself that that work is of post 500 BCE period.

 

In fact, the editor of that work himself has said the same thing in his

preface to that work. It is available in the files section of

hinducalendar forum and anybody can check it for himself/herself.

 

Jai Shri Ram

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear friends,

>

> ////Â Â No. There is no mention of weekdays not only in the

Vedas but neither in the Vedanga Jyotisha nor itihasa. They are all

imports from some other country, probably around 500 BCE. That makes

Atharvajyotisha also a work of post 500 BCE. /////

>

> This is a wicked statement. What proof is there that Atharva jyotisha

is post 500 BCE work. Atharva Jyotisha?

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

> --- On Mon, 11/9/09, Krishen jyotirved wrote:

>

> Krishen jyotirved

> Fwd: Re: niradhar Sayana versus Niradhar

nirayana zodiac/rashis!

>

> Monday, November 9, 2009, 1:44 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>