Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Sunil ji, I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya). Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). -VJ ________________________________ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM Suryasiddhanta Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Vinayji, The topic is on prediction of the eclipses with Suryasiddhanta.. My very first sentence was as follows: Quote I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. Unquote Though I did not explicitly frame the question it was implicit in the above sentence. Okay, here is the direct question: Question : Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. - SKB --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Suryasiddhanta Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM Sunil ji, I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM Suryasiddhanta Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Dear Shri Vinayji, We agree with all your points. You know one person attacked on some forum on renowned Sanskrit University of India. He is muslim in the disguise of Brahmin. I have recorded his msg from his forum to show to RSS and also to court, now i think we should sue him and owner of that group and we should also handle them in public. Ramveer --- On Tue, 14/4/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Suryasiddhanta Tuesday, 14 April, 2009, 2:52 AM Sunil ji, I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM Suryasiddhanta Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Vinayji, My intention is not to attack you but to really know when the Suryasiddhanta was composed. Kaulji says that Suryasiddhanta was copied from the Greek work. I did contest that. Butfinding the date of Suryasiddhanta will help. I am optimistic that we shall be able to find the date. Bentley failed because he believed in the AIT and he looked for dates after 1500 BCE. Did he try any date in the third millennium BCE? He should have tried for dates eariler than what he had tried. So a proper investigation is yet to be undertaken? May be some scholar will undertake that study sooner or later. Is it necessary that we must agree? Can we not agree to disagree without being emotional. -SKB --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta " Sunil Bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:26 AM To All : Sunil Ji is unable to address me without personal attacks or sarcastic remarks, which I will not answer. He is adamant on judging Suryasiddhanta in a biased way, because he has not spent time to understand the problem fully. Since he is not interested in understanding my statements, I am requesting other interested members to consider following points : If we use eclipses as the sole criterion for deducing the amount of apparent " error " in Suryasiddhanta, we will easily find some date for which Suryasiddhantic eclipse will tally with the timing given by physical astronomy. But then, other planets will show great differences, often of more than 10 degrees, which increases as we go into past. If we decide that Jupiter's position, for instance, should be the reference for which Suryasiddhanta's dating ought to be calculated in comparison to the value given by physical astronomy, Saturn or Venus will disagree. I have devoted a whole chapter on this problem in my Hindi book on Suryasiddhanta which was published in 2005 and went out of print in 2006. The conclusion is : there is no period in whole history for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. I repeated this point again and again in my mails, but to no avail, because some people are adamant on taking Suryasiddhantic planets as physical bodies. If this be accepted, Suryasiddhanta must have a date for which ALL its planets, tithis, yogas, karanas, eclipses, etc ought to conform to the findings of physical astronomy within a margin of tolerable limits, say 1 degree (supposing ancient Indians could not make more precise observations). What is that date ? I challenge Sunil ji to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. He will fail, utterly. That is why Bentely took a resort to devious means to get a date of 1091 AD, which is against historical evidences, as even Varaha Mihira is known to be acquainted with Suryasiddhanta and eulogised it as the best. As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, should not Sunil ji check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira. Mathematics is also a tapasya. Do some computations, instead of playing with mere words. Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets, including eclipses ????? Why ?? The reason is simple. A single criteria is selected according to dating which fits in Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Other facts need to be neglected, in order to save this AIT. Vedanga Jyotisha mentioned Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa as one of the conditions of uttarayana at the start of Dhanishthaa, which Colebrooke and all his " honest " followers deliberately neglected to mention, because they had to prove a date not before 1500 BC. Similarly, Varaha Mihira's verse-9 in Brihaspati-chaaraadhyaaya of Brihad-samhitaa is never analyzed for dating a concurreence when Prabhava samvatsara concurred with Brihaspati at the start of Dhanishthaa in Maagha month , because any sincere effort of finding such concurrences push the dates of Indian history into remote prehistory. Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories. sunil ji is not interested in either testing the validity of Suryasiddhanta because he has no serious interest in it, but why he unwilling to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets ? He will never find any such date, either in past or in future. That is why he is hell-bent on denouncing it. Another point is about Samanta Chandrashekhara. He changed values of Suryasiddhantic constants in order to get modern astronomical positions of planets. Had he succeeded, why some panchanga makers are not making panchangas on his lines ? The fact is thet whatever changes we make in Suryasiddhantic constanta, we cannot make the planetary positions conform to physical planets due to fundamental theoretical differences. For instance, the four mandaphala and shighraphala samskaaras can never fit with modern astronomy. Another instance is planetary distances : Suryasiddhantic Sun is at a distance of 1/ 27.2 AU !! But Moon's distance is same as given by modern astronomy !! How can such a system fit with physical astronomy ?? Hence, if one wants the positions of physical astronomy, he/she will have ti discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed. But it is wrong to call it outdated, because if Suryasiddhanta is wrong today, it was more wrong in any period of the past. Nirayana mean values of Suryasiddhantic planetary positions have minimum " errors " for ~2000 AD !! Does it mean Suryasiddhanta was composed for 2000 AD ?? Comparison with physical astronomy gives impossible conclusions which cannot be resolved. If such a method is accepted, we must conclude that all ancient scholars were idiots who could not observe errors of ober 10 degrees in planetary positions for long durations. But ancient evidence is opposite : Suryasiddhanta was eulogized as the best treatise for astrology, and those who observed physical stars and planets for astrological purposes were despised as nakshatra-soochakas !! This is the very meaning 'f " soochaka " . All ancient texts say that astrological planets are divinities. And divinities can never be seen sensorily. The only proof of Suryasiddhana is an honest and sioncere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Persons like Sunil ji will never undertake such investigations, but many members are already downloading Lundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. -VJ ===================== ======================= Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya vinayjhaa16 Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07:53 PM Fw: Re: Suryasiddhanta --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Suryasiddhanta Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:38 PM Vinayji, You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta.. My very first sentence was as follows: Quote I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. Unquote For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. In the light of the above my observations are as follows: 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar's effort in this regard. 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. - SKB --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Suryasiddhanta Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM Sunil ji, I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM Subject: Suryasiddhanta Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 My intention was also not to attack you But always :- Tit-For-Tat --- On Wed, 15/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta Cc: " Vinay Jha " <vinayjhaa16 Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 8:49 AM Vinayji, My intention is not to attack you but to really know when the Suryasiddhanta was composed. Kaulji says that Suryasiddhanta was copied from the Greek work. I did contest that. Butfinding the date of Suryasiddhanta will help. I am optimistic that we shall be able to find the date. Bentley failed because he believed in the AIT and he looked for dates after 1500 BCE. Did he try any date in the third millennium BCE? He should have tried for dates eariler than what he had tried. So a proper investigation is yet to be undertaken? May be some scholar will undertake that study sooner or later. Is it necessary that we must agree? Can we not agree to disagree without being emotional. -SKB --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta " Sunil Bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:26 AM To All : Sunil Ji is unable to address me without personal attacks or sarcastic remarks, which I will not answer. He is adamant on judging Suryasiddhanta in a biased way, because he has not spent time to understand the problem fully. Since he is not interested in understanding my statements, I am requesting other interested members to consider following points : If we use eclipses as the sole criterion for deducing the amount of apparent " error " in Suryasiddhanta, we will easily find some date for which Suryasiddhantic eclipse will tally with the timing given by physical astronomy. But then, other planets will show great differences, often of more than 10 degrees, which increases as we go into past. If we decide that Jupiter's position, for instance, should be the reference for which Suryasiddhanta' s dating ought to be calculated in comparison to the value given by physical astronomy, Saturn or Venus will disagree. I have devoted a whole chapter on this problem in my Hindi book on Suryasiddhanta which was published in 2005 and went out of print in 2006. The conclusion is : there is no period in whole history for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. I repeated this point again and again in my mails, but to no avail, because some people are adamant on taking Suryasiddhantic planets as physical bodies. If this be accepted, Suryasiddhanta must have a date for which ALL its planets, tithis, yogas, karanas, eclipses, etc ought to conform to the findings of physical astronomy within a margin of tolerable limits, say 1 degree (supposing ancient Indians could not make more precise observations) . What is that date ? I challenge Sunil ji to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. He will fail, utterly. That is why Bentely took a resort to devious means to get a date of 1091 AD, which is against historical evidences, as even Varaha Mihira is known to be acquainted with Suryasiddhanta and eulogised it as the best. As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, should not Sunil ji check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira. Mathematics is also a tapasya. Do some computations, instead of playing with mere words. Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets, including eclipses ????? Why ?? The reason is simple. A single criteria is selected according to dating which fits in Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Other facts need to be neglected, in order to save this AIT. Vedanga Jyotisha mentioned Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa as one of the conditions of uttarayana at the start of Dhanishthaa, which Colebrooke and all his " honest " followers deliberately neglected to mention, because they had to prove a date not before 1500 BC. Similarly, Varaha Mihira's verse-9 in Brihaspati-chaaraad hyaaya of Brihad-samhitaa is never analyzed for dating a concurreence when Prabhava samvatsara concurred with Brihaspati at the start of Dhanishthaa in Maagha month , because any sincere effort of finding such concurrences push the dates of Indian history into remote prehistory. Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories. sunil ji is not interested in either testing the validity of Suryasiddhanta because he has no serious interest in it, but why he unwilling to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets ? He will never find any such date, either in past or in future. That is why he is hell-bent on denouncing it. Another point is about Samanta Chandrashekhara. He changed values of Suryasiddhantic constants in order to get modern astronomical positions of planets. Had he succeeded, why some panchanga makers are not making panchangas on his lines ? The fact is thet whatever changes we make in Suryasiddhantic constanta, we cannot make the planetary positions conform to physical planets due to fundamental theoretical differences. For instance, the four mandaphala and shighraphala samskaaras can never fit with modern astronomy. Another instance is planetary distances : Suryasiddhantic Sun is at a distance of 1/ 27.2 AU !! But Moon's distance is same as given by modern astronomy !! How can such a system fit with physical astronomy ?? Hence, if one wants the positions of physical astronomy, he/she will have ti discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed. But it is wrong to call it outdated, because if Suryasiddhanta is wrong today, it was more wrong in any period of the past. Nirayana mean values of Suryasiddhantic planetary positions have minimum " errors " for ~2000 AD !! Does it mean Suryasiddhanta was composed for 2000 AD ?? Comparison with physical astronomy gives impossible conclusions which cannot be resolved. If such a method is accepted, we must conclude that all ancient scholars were idiots who could not observe errors of ober 10 degrees in planetary positions for long durations. But ancient evidence is opposite : Suryasiddhanta was eulogized as the best treatise for astrology, and those who observed physical stars and planets for astrological purposes were despised as nakshatra-soochakas !! This is the very meaning 'f " soochaka " . All ancient texts say that astrological planets are divinities. And divinities can never be seen sensorily. The only proof of Suryasiddhana is an honest and sioncere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Persons like Sunil ji will never undertake such investigations, but many members are already downloading Lundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. -VJ ============ ========= ============ ========= == Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> vinayjhaa16@ Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07:53 PM Fw: Re: Suryasiddhanta --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Re: Suryasiddhanta Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:38 PM Vinayji, You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta. . My very first sentence was as follows: Quote I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. Unquote For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. In the light of the above my observations are as follows: 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar' s effort in this regard. 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. - SKB --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Suryasiddhanta Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM Sunil ji, I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM Subject: Suryasiddhanta Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I do not meddle when two people have debate unless I have something to add myself in that debate. I do not attack people but do contest unconvincing claims. I do not pass judgement on others like you do. A debate is not an attack. Why don't you let us know your views on the date of the Suryasiddhanta with supporting data? --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer wrote: Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 7:50 AM My intention was also not to attack you But always :- Tit-For-Tat --- On Wed, 15/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta Cc: " Vinay Jha " <vinayjhaa16@ > Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 8:49 AM Vinayji, My intention is not to attack you but to really know when the Suryasiddhanta was composed. Kaulji says that Suryasiddhanta was copied from the Greek work. I did contest that. Butfinding the date of Suryasiddhanta will help. I am optimistic that we shall be able to find the date. Bentley failed because he believed in the AIT and he looked for dates after 1500 BCE. Did he try any date in the third millennium BCE? He should have tried for dates eariler than what he had tried. So a proper investigation is yet to be undertaken? May be some scholar will undertake that study sooner or later. Is it necessary that we must agree? Can we not agree to disagree without being emotional. -SKB --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta " Sunil Bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:26 AM To All : Sunil Ji is unable to address me without personal attacks or sarcastic remarks, which I will not answer. He is adamant on judging Suryasiddhanta in a biased way, because he has not spent time to understand the problem fully. Since he is not interested in understanding my statements, I am requesting other interested members to consider following points : If we use eclipses as the sole criterion for deducing the amount of apparent " error " in Suryasiddhanta, we will easily find some date for which Suryasiddhantic eclipse will tally with the timing given by physical astronomy. But then, other planets will show great differences, often of more than 10 degrees, which increases as we go into past. If we decide that Jupiter's position, for instance, should be the reference for which Suryasiddhanta' s dating ought to be calculated in comparison to the value given by physical astronomy, Saturn or Venus will disagree. I have devoted a whole chapter on this problem in my Hindi book on Suryasiddhanta which was published in 2005 and went out of print in 2006. The conclusion is : there is no period in whole history for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. I repeated this point again and again in my mails, but to no avail, because some people are adamant on taking Suryasiddhantic planets as physical bodies. If this be accepted, Suryasiddhanta must have a date for which ALL its planets, tithis, yogas, karanas, eclipses, etc ought to conform to the findings of physical astronomy within a margin of tolerable limits, say 1 degree (supposing ancient Indians could not make more precise observations) . What is that date ? I challenge Sunil ji to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. He will fail, utterly. That is why Bentely took a resort to devious means to get a date of 1091 AD, which is against historical evidences, as even Varaha Mihira is known to be acquainted with Suryasiddhanta and eulogised it as the best. As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, should not Sunil ji check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira. Mathematics is also a tapasya. Do some computations, instead of playing with mere words. Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets, including eclipses ????? Why ?? The reason is simple. A single criteria is selected according to dating which fits in Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Other facts need to be neglected, in order to save this AIT. Vedanga Jyotisha mentioned Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa as one of the conditions of uttarayana at the start of Dhanishthaa, which Colebrooke and all his " honest " followers deliberately neglected to mention, because they had to prove a date not before 1500 BC. Similarly, Varaha Mihira's verse-9 in Brihaspati-chaaraad hyaaya of Brihad-samhitaa is never analyzed for dating a concurreence when Prabhava samvatsara concurred with Brihaspati at the start of Dhanishthaa in Maagha month , because any sincere effort of finding such concurrences push the dates of Indian history into remote prehistory. Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories. sunil ji is not interested in either testing the validity of Suryasiddhanta because he has no serious interest in it, but why he unwilling to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets ? He will never find any such date, either in past or in future. That is why he is hell-bent on denouncing it. Another point is about Samanta Chandrashekhara. He changed values of Suryasiddhantic constants in order to get modern astronomical positions of planets. Had he succeeded, why some panchanga makers are not making panchangas on his lines ? The fact is thet whatever changes we make in Suryasiddhantic constanta, we cannot make the planetary positions conform to physical planets due to fundamental theoretical differences. For instance, the four mandaphala and shighraphala samskaaras can never fit with modern astronomy. Another instance is planetary distances : Suryasiddhantic Sun is at a distance of 1/ 27.2 AU !! But Moon's distance is same as given by modern astronomy !! How can such a system fit with physical astronomy ?? Hence, if one wants the positions of physical astronomy, he/she will have ti discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed. But it is wrong to call it outdated, because if Suryasiddhanta is wrong today, it was more wrong in any period of the past. Nirayana mean values of Suryasiddhantic planetary positions have minimum " errors " for ~2000 AD !! Does it mean Suryasiddhanta was composed for 2000 AD ?? Comparison with physical astronomy gives impossible conclusions which cannot be resolved. If such a method is accepted, we must conclude that all ancient scholars were idiots who could not observe errors of ober 10 degrees in planetary positions for long durations. But ancient evidence is opposite : Suryasiddhanta was eulogized as the best treatise for astrology, and those who observed physical stars and planets for astrological purposes were despised as nakshatra-soochakas !! This is the very meaning 'f " soochaka " . All ancient texts say that astrological planets are divinities. And divinities can never be seen sensorily. The only proof of Suryasiddhana is an honest and sioncere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Persons like Sunil ji will never undertake such investigations, but many members are already downloading Lundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. -VJ ============ ========= ============ ========= == Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> vinayjhaa16@ Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07:53 PM Fw: Re: Suryasiddhanta --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Re: Suryasiddhanta Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:38 PM Vinayji, You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta. . My very first sentence was as follows: Quote I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. Unquote For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. In the light of the above my observations are as follows: 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar' s effort in this regard. 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. - SKB --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > Re: Suryasiddhanta Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM Sunil ji, I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). -VJ ____________ _________ _________ __ Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM Subject: Suryasiddhanta Dear all, I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? Regards, Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Hello Friends, I think the topic is very interesting and everything that could be said has already been said. Now, what comes out is only the anger, disappointment and frustration. So, I am treating this topic as closed. No further discussion in this group. Please feel free to continue the same in other groups and directly on email. If there are any findings (facts or opinion) that you wish to share with this group, please feel free to post the same. raj , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > I do not meddle when two people have debate unless I have something to add myself in that debate. I do not attack people but do contest unconvincing claims. I do not pass judgement on others like you do. A debate is not an attack. Why don't you let us know your views on the date of the Suryasiddhanta with supporting data? > > --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer wrote: > > Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 7:50 AM > > > > > > > > > > > My intention was also not to attack you > > > > But always :- Tit-For-Tat > > > > --- On Wed, 15/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > Cc: " Vinay Jha " <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 8:49 AM > > > > Vinayji, > > > > My intention is not to attack you but to really know when the Suryasiddhanta was composed. Kaulji says that Suryasiddhanta was copied from the Greek work. I did contest that. Butfinding the date of Suryasiddhanta will help. I am optimistic that we shall be able to find the date. > > > > Bentley failed because he believed in the AIT and he looked for dates after 1500 BCE. Did he try any date in the third millennium BCE? He should have tried for dates eariler than what he had tried. So a proper investigation is yet to be undertaken? May be some scholar will undertake that study sooner or later. > > > > Is it necessary that we must agree? Can we not agree to disagree without being emotional. > > > > -SKB > > > > --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:26 AM > > > > To All : > > > > Sunil Ji is unable to address me without personal attacks or sarcastic remarks, which I will not answer. He is adamant on judging Suryasiddhanta in a biased way, because he has not spent time to understand the problem fully. Since he is not interested in understanding my statements, I am requesting other interested members to consider following points : > > > > If we use eclipses as the sole criterion for deducing the amount of apparent " error " in Suryasiddhanta, we will easily find some date for which Suryasiddhantic eclipse will tally with the timing given by physical astronomy. But then, other planets will show great differences, often of more than 10 degrees, which increases as we go into past. > > > > If we decide that > > Jupiter's position, for instance, should be the reference for which Suryasiddhanta' s dating ought to be calculated in comparison to the value given by physical astronomy, Saturn or Venus will disagree. I have devoted a whole chapter on this problem in my Hindi book on Suryasiddhanta which was published in 2005 and went out of print in 2006. The conclusion is : there is no period in whole history for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. I repeated this point again and again in my mails, but to no avail, because some people are adamant on taking Suryasiddhantic planets as physical bodies. If this be accepted, Suryasiddhanta must have a date for which ALL its planets, tithis, yogas, karanas, eclipses, etc ought to conform to the findings of physical astronomy within a margin of tolerable > > limits, say 1 degree (supposing ancient Indians could not make more precise observations) . What is that date ? I challenge Sunil ji to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. He will fail, utterly. That is why Bentely took a resort to devious means to get a date of 1091 AD, which is against historical evidences, as even Varaha Mihira is known to be acquainted with Suryasiddhanta and eulogised it as the best. > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, should not Sunil ji check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira. Mathematics is also a tapasya. Do some computations, instead of playing with > > mere words. > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets, including eclipses ????? > > > > Why ?? The reason is simple. A single criteria is selected according to dating which fits in Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Other facts need to be neglected, in order to save this AIT. Vedanga Jyotisha mentioned Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa as one of the conditions of uttarayana at the start of Dhanishthaa, which Colebrooke and all his " honest " followers deliberately neglected to mention, because they had to prove a date not before 1500 BC. Similarly, Varaha Mihira's verse-9 in Brihaspati-chaaraad hyaaya of Brihad-samhitaa is never analyzed for dating a concurreence when Prabhava samvatsara concurred with Brihaspati at the start of Dhanishthaa in Maagha month , because any sincere effort of finding such concurrences push the dates of Indian history into remote prehistory. > > Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories. > > > > sunil ji is not interested in either testing the validity of Suryasiddhanta because he has no serious interest in it, but why he unwilling to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets ? He will never find any such date, either in past or in future. That is why he is hell-bent on denouncing it. > > > > Another point is about Samanta Chandrashekhara. He changed values of Suryasiddhantic constants in order to get modern astronomical positions of planets. Had he succeeded, why some panchanga makers are not making panchangas on his lines ? The fact is thet whatever changes we make in Suryasiddhantic constanta, we cannot make the planetary positions conform to physical planets due to fundamental theoretical differences. For instance, the four mandaphala and shighraphala samskaaras can never fit with modern astronomy. > > Another instance is planetary distances : Suryasiddhantic Sun is at a distance of 1/ 27.2 AU !! But Moon's distance is same as given by modern astronomy !! How can such a system fit with physical astronomy ?? Hence, if one wants the positions of physical astronomy, he/she will have ti discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed. > > > > But it is wrong to call it outdated, because if Suryasiddhanta is wrong today, it was more wrong in any period of the past. Nirayana mean values of Suryasiddhantic planetary positions have minimum " errors " for ~2000 AD !! Does it mean Suryasiddhanta was composed for 2000 AD ?? > > > > Comparison with physical astronomy gives impossible conclusions which cannot be resolved. If such a method is accepted, we must conclude that all ancient scholars were idiots who could not observe errors of ober 10 degrees in planetary positions for long durations. > > > > But ancient evidence is opposite : > > Suryasiddhanta was eulogized as the best treatise for astrology, and those who observed physical stars and planets for astrological purposes were despised as nakshatra-soochakas !! This is the very meaning 'f " soochaka " . All ancient texts say that astrological planets are divinities. And divinities can never be seen sensorily. The only proof of Suryasiddhana is an honest and sioncere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Persons like Sunil ji will never undertake such investigations, but many members are already downloading Lundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ============ ========= == > > Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > vinayjhaa16@ > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07:53 PM > > Fw: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:38 PM > > > > Vinayji, > > > > You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. > > > > > > My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta. . My very first sentence was as follows: > > > > Quote > > > > I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. > > > > Unquote > > > > For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: > > > > Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. > > > > I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: > > > > 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, > > 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and > > 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. > > > > > > In the light of the above my observations are as follows: > > > > 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar' s effort in this regard. > > > > 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. > > > > - SKB > > > > --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM > > > > Sunil ji, > > I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. > > > > We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? > > > > If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him > > to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). > > > > -VJ > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM > > Subject: > > Suryasiddhanta > > > > Dear all, > > > > I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. BHattacharjya > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Hello Friends, I think the topic is very interesting and everything that could be said has already been said. Now, what comes out is only the anger, disappointment and frustration. So, I am treating this topic as closed. No further discussion in this group. Please feel free to continue the same in other groups and directly on email. If there are any findings (facts or opinion) that you wish to share with this group, please feel free to post the same. raj , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > I do not meddle when two people have debate unless I have something to add myself in that debate. I do not attack people but do contest unconvincing claims. I do not pass judgement on others like you do. A debate is not an attack. Why don't you let us know your views on the date of the Suryasiddhanta with supporting data? > > --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer wrote: > > Ramveer Singh <singh_ramveer > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 7:50 AM > > > > > > > > > > > My intention was also not to attack you > > > > But always :- Tit-For-Tat > > > > --- On Wed, 15/4/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote: > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> > > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > Cc: " Vinay Jha " <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 8:49 AM > > > > Vinayji, > > > > My intention is not to attack you but to really know when the Suryasiddhanta was composed. Kaulji says that Suryasiddhanta was copied from the Greek work. I did contest that. Butfinding the date of Suryasiddhanta will help. I am optimistic that we shall be able to find the date. > > > > Bentley failed because he believed in the AIT and he looked for dates after 1500 BCE. Did he try any date in the third millennium BCE? He should have tried for dates eariler than what he had tried. So a proper investigation is yet to be undertaken? May be some scholar will undertake that study sooner or later. > > > > Is it necessary that we must agree? Can we not agree to disagree without being emotional. > > > > -SKB > > > > --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > " Sunil Bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:26 AM > > > > To All : > > > > Sunil Ji is unable to address me without personal attacks or sarcastic remarks, which I will not answer. He is adamant on judging Suryasiddhanta in a biased way, because he has not spent time to understand the problem fully. Since he is not interested in understanding my statements, I am requesting other interested members to consider following points : > > > > If we use eclipses as the sole criterion for deducing the amount of apparent " error " in Suryasiddhanta, we will easily find some date for which Suryasiddhantic eclipse will tally with the timing given by physical astronomy. But then, other planets will show great differences, often of more than 10 degrees, which increases as we go into past. > > > > If we decide that > > Jupiter's position, for instance, should be the reference for which Suryasiddhanta' s dating ought to be calculated in comparison to the value given by physical astronomy, Saturn or Venus will disagree. I have devoted a whole chapter on this problem in my Hindi book on Suryasiddhanta which was published in 2005 and went out of print in 2006. The conclusion is : there is no period in whole history for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. I repeated this point again and again in my mails, but to no avail, because some people are adamant on taking Suryasiddhantic planets as physical bodies. If this be accepted, Suryasiddhanta must have a date for which ALL its planets, tithis, yogas, karanas, eclipses, etc ought to conform to the findings of physical astronomy within a margin of tolerable > > limits, say 1 degree (supposing ancient Indians could not make more precise observations) . What is that date ? I challenge Sunil ji to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. He will fail, utterly. That is why Bentely took a resort to devious means to get a date of 1091 AD, which is against historical evidences, as even Varaha Mihira is known to be acquainted with Suryasiddhanta and eulogised it as the best. > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, should not Sunil ji check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira. Mathematics is also a tapasya. Do some computations, instead of playing with > > mere words. > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets, including eclipses ????? > > > > Why ?? The reason is simple. A single criteria is selected according to dating which fits in Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Other facts need to be neglected, in order to save this AIT. Vedanga Jyotisha mentioned Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa as one of the conditions of uttarayana at the start of Dhanishthaa, which Colebrooke and all his " honest " followers deliberately neglected to mention, because they had to prove a date not before 1500 BC. Similarly, Varaha Mihira's verse-9 in Brihaspati-chaaraad hyaaya of Brihad-samhitaa is never analyzed for dating a concurreence when Prabhava samvatsara concurred with Brihaspati at the start of Dhanishthaa in Maagha month , because any sincere effort of finding such concurrences push the dates of Indian history into remote prehistory. > > Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories. > > > > sunil ji is not interested in either testing the validity of Suryasiddhanta because he has no serious interest in it, but why he unwilling to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets ? He will never find any such date, either in past or in future. That is why he is hell-bent on denouncing it. > > > > Another point is about Samanta Chandrashekhara. He changed values of Suryasiddhantic constants in order to get modern astronomical positions of planets. Had he succeeded, why some panchanga makers are not making panchangas on his lines ? The fact is thet whatever changes we make in Suryasiddhantic constanta, we cannot make the planetary positions conform to physical planets due to fundamental theoretical differences. For instance, the four mandaphala and shighraphala samskaaras can never fit with modern astronomy. > > Another instance is planetary distances : Suryasiddhantic Sun is at a distance of 1/ 27.2 AU !! But Moon's distance is same as given by modern astronomy !! How can such a system fit with physical astronomy ?? Hence, if one wants the positions of physical astronomy, he/she will have ti discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed. > > > > But it is wrong to call it outdated, because if Suryasiddhanta is wrong today, it was more wrong in any period of the past. Nirayana mean values of Suryasiddhantic planetary positions have minimum " errors " for ~2000 AD !! Does it mean Suryasiddhanta was composed for 2000 AD ?? > > > > Comparison with physical astronomy gives impossible conclusions which cannot be resolved. If such a method is accepted, we must conclude that all ancient scholars were idiots who could not observe errors of ober 10 degrees in planetary positions for long durations. > > > > But ancient evidence is opposite : > > Suryasiddhanta was eulogized as the best treatise for astrology, and those who observed physical stars and planets for astrological purposes were despised as nakshatra-soochakas !! This is the very meaning 'f " soochaka " . All ancient texts say that astrological planets are divinities. And divinities can never be seen sensorily. The only proof of Suryasiddhana is an honest and sioncere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Persons like Sunil ji will never undertake such investigations, but many members are already downloading Lundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > -VJ > > ============ ========= ============ ========= == > > Sunil Bhattacharjya > > <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > vinayjhaa16@ > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07:53 PM > > Fw: Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> wrote: > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:38 PM > > > > Vinayji, > > > > You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. > > > > > > My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta. . My very first sentence was as follows: > > > > Quote > > > > I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. > > > > Unquote > > > > For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: > > > > Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. > > > > I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: > > > > 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, > > 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and > > 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. > > > > > > In the light of the above my observations are as follows: > > > > 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar' s effort in this regard. > > > > 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. > > > > - SKB > > > > --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > > > Re: Suryasiddhanta > > > > Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM > > > > Sunil ji, > > I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. > > > > We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? > > > > If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him > > to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana). > > > > -VJ > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjy a @> > > > > Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AM > > Subject: > > Suryasiddhanta > > > > Dear all, > > > > I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta? > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunil K. BHattacharjya > > > > 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.