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

<HinduCalendar/post?postID=HYmjGz8GGwrMeORkzTA

-6ORKo7G9shk2B3oArADa3JCBvY47f53AfB5vVdM6BmdcRoI0NIOACROAcxI8zeHTUs53frI> ,

" 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 Hari Malla ji,

 

Jai Shri Ram!

 

<Even before munjal, the differene of sidereal and tropical concepts was

known.This knowledge was there even during the Vedanga jyotish period,>

 

Sidereal and Tropical are just two measurable dimensions of time, one

with respect to the vernal equinox and the other with respect to some so

called fixed star! The zociac is neither sidereal nor tropical, or you

can say it is sidereal as well as tropical, because anything that is

imaginary can be anything to anybody!

 

<Otherwise how could mention of this statemement in Brihad samhita(

Adityacharadhyaya) be made as follows? " We find mention in the old

scriptures that uttrayan started when the sun was in dhanistha because

it was true those days.But now uttaryan starts when the sun is in makar

sankranti. " >

 

This statment of Varaha Mihira has been repeated by you at least a

hundred times and I have not replied it even once! I was under the

impression that you will ponder on all the hilarious statements of

Brihat Samhita yourself and then arrive at the conclusion yourself that

poor Varahamihira had actually no idea as to what he was saying and why!

Pl. do study Brihat Samhita thorouhgly and you will find the correct

answer to your question about Varahamihira;s faux pas yourself.

 

<The calendar reform was done from vedanga jyotish to sidhanta jyotish,

when the solstice or equinox crossed from the maagha sukla pratipada

zone to the poush purnima zone (from pratipada to full moon or one

pakshya) by shifting the nirayan uttaryan from sun in dhanisatha to

makar sankranti (23 degrees or seven padas). This is clear from

Barahmihir's statement in Adityacharadhayaya.>

 

Unfortunately for India, we have billions of people today who consider

themselves extraordinary scholars on a particular subject when

actuallythey have not studied even the priliminary three rs of that

topic thoroughly! You are talking of fifteen degrees/days plus and

fiteen days/degrees minun on the shoulders of the Vedanga Jyotisha

without having any idea as to what you are actualy saying! VJ has

nothing to do with either your tropical or sidereal zodiac because

theVJ, like all the other Vedic lore, does not deal with imaginary

figments of imagination! VJ is dealing with certain dimensions of time

like synodic months and seasonal monthsyears and they have absolutely

nothing to do with the will of the wisp ayanamsha!

 

<Do not try to take a short cut, by copying the western concept of pope

Gregory, who reformed a calendar which had no soli-lunar month, but had

only purely solar month.>

 

Do you mean to say that Pope Gregory has invented the names Madhu,

Madhava or Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. months and Uttarayana, Dakshinaya

etc. phenomena or Krittika, Rohini etc nakshatras?

 

<< You have yet to do a lot of homework to understand the vedic method,

my dear friend.>

 

You have yet to do a lot of homework to understand the vedic method, my

dear friend.

 

Jai Shri Ram!

 

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

HinduCalendar , " hari " harimalla@ wrote:

>

> Dear Kaujlji,

> namskar!

> <Since the word ayanamsha itself did not appear before Laghumanasa of

> Munjala (tenth century AD) on the scene, naturally, there is no

question of discussing that word with reference to any earlier work,

whether the Vedas or the Puranas or sidhantas!>

>

> Even before munjal, the differene of sidereal and tropical concepts

was known.This knowledge was there even during the Vedanga jyotish

period, 'Kalpa being a thousand ages' as quoted in the Gita.They may not

have measured the exact value of ayanamsa, but the concept of the

difference between the tropcial and the sidereal (of ayanamsa) was

known.Otherwise how could mention of this statemement in Brihad samhita(

Adityacharadhyaya) be made as follows? " We find mention in the old

scriptures that uttrayan started when the sun was in dhanistha because

it was true those days.But now uttaryan starts when the sun is in makar

sankranti. "

> When the sidhantas talk of kalpa and manwantars, as 14 manwantars

making one kalpa,could it not based on the 27 degrees of precession in

each manawantar? I agree, due to the lack of the knowledge of exact

value of precesion, the years attributed to these periods were fantastic

and unreasonable. But they did use symbolic figures as 'divya varsha'

etc., which have no real cycles of 360 years.But now at present, since

we know the value of precession, we can safely say the kalpa is the

total cycle of precesison of 25,800 years, with one manwantar when one

kalpa is divided into 12 parts or of 30 degrees each, becomes 2150

years. This is when we have to reform our calendar every time the

equinox or sosltice crosses from one fullmoon zone to the other. The

calendar reform was done from vedanga jyotish to sidhanta jyotish, when

the solstice or equinox crossed from the maagha sukla pratipada zone to

the poush purnima zone (from pratipada to full moon or one pakshya) by

shifting the nirayan uttaryan from sun in dhanisatha to makar sankranti

(23 degrees or seven padas). This is clear from Barahmihir's statement

in Adityacharadhayaya.

> You have yet to do a lot of homework to understand the vedic method,

my dear friend.Do not try to take a short cut, by copying the western

concept of pope Gregory, who reformed a calendar which had no soli-lunar

month, but had only purely solar month.

> More in the next.

> Regards,

> Hari Malla

>

> HinduCalendar , " Krishen " jyotirved@ wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Shri Hari Malla ji,

> >

> > Jai Shri Ram!

> >

> > <Please learn to discuss one with respect to the other, since that

is

> > what ayanamsa is for, and that is our subject matter too, instead of

> > branding every ting as imaginary and trying to escape from the

> > conventional concepts.>

> >

> > Since the word ayanamsha itself did not appear before Laghumanasa of

> > Munjala (tenth century AD) on the scene, naturally, there is no

question

> > of discussing that word with reference to any earlier work, whether

the

> > Vedas or he Puranas or sidhantas!

> >

> > And Munjala has used that word in an entirely different manner and

sense

> > than what " Vedic astrologers " and you are trying to use it these

days!

> > You are actually putting the cart before the horse since that is

what

> > Ganesha Daivajnya has done!

> >

> > < You are jumbling up many things togetther here.If the vedic

calendar

> > goes only by the four cardinal points, as you say, then why the

> > definition of vedanga jyotish as ' when the sun and the moon are

> > together in dhanistha...uttaryan occurs.' >

> >

> > For God's sake, Hari Malla ji, do read the statements in their

totality!

> > I have emphasized it time and again that the beauty of Vedic calenar

> > lies in the solar months being aligned to seasons and four cardinal

> > points to which are appended synodic (lunar) motnsh! As such, what

are

> > yor cribbing about?

> > < Please do not think of the rashis as only animals imagined over

them,

> > they are existing stars in the first place which are real and not

> > imaginary as you keep on repeating>

> >

> > Stars are real, but the resulting " animal divisions " are not real!

Then

> > again, do you have any idea what you mean by stars? Do you have any

> > idea as to how many galaxied are " covered " by one constellation? Why

> > are you making a mockery of the astronomical facts with your

imaginary

> > " equal animals " ?

> >

> > < So do not say they are not sidereal.The solar and the lunar months

> > related to the rashis and the nakshaytras are also sidereal,

distinct

> > from the tropical or seasonal concept related to the precession of

the

> > earth axis.>

> >

> > Unless you prove " beyond all the reasonable doubts " that rashis are

real

> > divisions of some real circle, instead of imaginary divisions of

> > imaginary circles, there is no question of considering them as

sidereal

> > or tropical etc. etc. Vedic solar months have nothing to do with

> > rashis. And as such, the lunar months too have nothing to do with

them.

> >

> > Since the Vedic months are seasonal, they have nothing to do with

> > precesson of equinoxes either.

> >

> >

> > <Please first get your concepts clear.It will be much easier to talk

> > after that.>

> >

> > Pl. firs get your concepts clear. It will be much easier to talk

after

> > that.

> >

> > Jai Shri Ram.

> >

> > A K Kaul

> >

> >

> > HinduCalendar , " hari " <harimalla@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear shir Kaulji,

> > >

> > > <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 " .

> > > >

> > >

> > > The above definitions do support my intention. The word 'Sidereal'

> > meaning 'related to the practically fixed stars' and the word

'tropical'

> > meaning 'pertaining to the precession of the earth axis,' which in

its

> > turn moves the tropical points over the annual sidereal dates.Please

> > learn to discuss one with respect to the other, since that is what

> > ayanamsa is for, and that is our subject matter too, instead of

branding

> > every ting as imaginary and trying to escape from the conventional

> > concepts.

> > >

> > > <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.>

> > >

> > > You are jumbling up many things togetther here.If the vedic

calendar

> > goes only by the four cardinal points, as you say, then why the

> > definition of vedanga jyotish as ' when the sun and the moon are

> > together in dhanistha...uttaryan occurs.' Here, are the sun and the

moon

> > not related to the stars also for uttarayan to occur, instead of

only

> > your four cardinal points being independant by themselves? Why do

you

> > say uttaryan will be the shortest day all the time as if I have

doubted

> > that? Was it necessary to make such a understood concept whereas we

are

> > talking of the realtionship of uttaryan or the shortest day in

> > relationship with the position of the stars.

> > > Where in the vedas are madhu madhav given importance as solar

> > months.Madhu madhava are seasonl months but are mainly talked of as

the

> > lunar months.Vedanga jyotish proves that by saying 'it has talked of

the

> > lunar year'towards the ending verse.So the lunar months are seasonal

> > months, as per the vedic definitions.The solar months and solar

seasons

> > are given second priority as is clearly mentioned in dharma

sashtras,

> > both during Vedanga jyotish period and the sidhanta jyotish period.

> > > Again why do you bring the Islamic months here out of context,

which

> > have no adhimaas.Are adhimases not celebrated to give seasons to the

> > lunar months? What other purpose does it have?

> > > You do have tendency to disturb all conventional concepts. Please

do

> > not think of the rashis as only animals imagined over them, they are

> > existing stars in the first place which are real and not imaginary

as

> > you keep on repeating. Any time period pertaining to them is

sidereal

> > concepts as you have diefined. So do not say they are not

sidereal.The

> > solar and the lunar months related to the rashis and the nakshaytras

are

> > also sidereal, distinct from the tropical or seasonal concept

related to

> > the precession of the earth axis.

> > > Please first get your concepts clear.It will be much easier to

talk

> > after that.

> > > Regards,

> > > Hari Malla

> > >

> > > HinduCalendar , " jyotirved " jyotirved@

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > 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

> > > >

> >

<HinduCalendar/post?postID=HYmjGz8GGwrMeOR\

\

\

> > kzTA

> > > >

> >

-6ORKo7G9shk2B3oArADa3JCBvY47f53AfB5vVdM6BmdcRoI0NIOACROAcxI8zeHTUs53frI\

\

\

> > > ,

> > > > " 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?

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Kaulji,

The answer you have given hereunder is not satisfactory.Please confirm the

reality of the stars and the increasing difference of the sidereal and the

tropical solstices and equinoxes as pecessional ayanamsa. You are trying to run

away with your 'imaginary' theory of real stars and real cardial points.

 

My claim:

<Even before munjal, the differene of sidereal and tropical concepts was

known.This knowledge was there even during the Vedanga jyotish period,>

 

Your reply:

<Sidereal and Tropical are just two measurable dimensions of time, one with

respect to the vernal equinox and the other with respect to some so called fixed

star! The zociac is neither sidereal nor tropical, or you can say it is sidereal

as well as tropical, because anything that is imaginary can be anything to

anybody!>

 

The two measurable dimensions of time has a difference and is called as

ayanamsa. The difference of time was known to the vedic people although they did

not measure it.

 

My claim:

<Otherwise how could mention of this statemement in Brihad samhita(

Adityacharadhyaya) be made as follows? " We find mention in the old

scriptures that uttrayan started when the sun was in dhanistha because it was

true those days.But now uttaryan starts when the sun is in makar sankranti. " >

Also explain how you think Barhmihir did not know about precession, when from

the above expression,it is crystal clear that he knew about precession and so

also ayanamsa too, although they diid not feel the need to measure it then.

 

Regards,

Hari Malla

 

 

, " Krishen " <jyotirved wrote:

>

>

> HinduCalendar , " Krishen " <jyotirved@> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Shri Hari Malla ji,

>

> Jai Shri Ram!

>

> <Even before munjal, the differene of sidereal and tropical concepts was

> known.This knowledge was there even during the Vedanga jyotish period,>

>

> Sidereal and Tropical are just two measurable dimensions of time, one

> with respect to the vernal equinox and the other with respect to some so

> called fixed star! The zociac is neither sidereal nor tropical, or you

> can say it is sidereal as well as tropical, because anything that is

> imaginary can be anything to anybody!

>

> <Otherwise how could mention of this statemement in Brihad samhita(

> Adityacharadhyaya) be made as follows? " We find mention in the old

> scriptures that uttrayan started when the sun was in dhanistha because

> it was true those days.But now uttaryan starts when the sun is in makar

> sankranti. " >

>

> This statment of Varaha Mihira has been repeated by you at least a

> hundred times and I have not replied it even once! I was under the

> impression that you will ponder on all the hilarious statements of

> Brihat Samhita yourself and then arrive at the conclusion yourself that

> poor Varahamihira had actually no idea as to what he was saying and why!

> Pl. do study Brihat Samhita thorouhgly and you will find the correct

> answer to your question about Varahamihira;s faux pas yourself.

>

> <The calendar reform was done from vedanga jyotish to sidhanta jyotish,

> when the solstice or equinox crossed from the maagha sukla pratipada

> zone to the poush purnima zone (from pratipada to full moon or one

> pakshya) by shifting the nirayan uttaryan from sun in dhanisatha to

> makar sankranti (23 degrees or seven padas). This is clear from

> Barahmihir's statement in Adityacharadhayaya.>

>

> Unfortunately for India, we have billions of people today who consider

> themselves extraordinary scholars on a particular subject when

> actuallythey have not studied even the priliminary three rs of that

> topic thoroughly! You are talking of fifteen degrees/days plus and

> fiteen days/degrees minun on the shoulders of the Vedanga Jyotisha

> without having any idea as to what you are actualy saying! VJ has

> nothing to do with either your tropical or sidereal zodiac because

> theVJ, like all the other Vedic lore, does not deal with imaginary

> figments of imagination! VJ is dealing with certain dimensions of time

> like synodic months and seasonal monthsyears and they have absolutely

> nothing to do with the will of the wisp ayanamsha!

>

> <Do not try to take a short cut, by copying the western concept of pope

> Gregory, who reformed a calendar which had no soli-lunar month, but had

> only purely solar month.>

>

> Do you mean to say that Pope Gregory has invented the names Madhu,

> Madhava or Chaitra, Vaishakha etc. months and Uttarayana, Dakshinaya

> etc. phenomena or Krittika, Rohini etc nakshatras?

>

> << You have yet to do a lot of homework to understand the vedic method,

> my dear friend.>

>

> You have yet to do a lot of homework to understand the vedic method, my

> dear friend.

>

> Jai Shri Ram!

>

> A K Kaul

>

>

>

>

> HinduCalendar , " hari " harimalla@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kaujlji,

> > namskar!

> > <Since the word ayanamsha itself did not appear before Laghumanasa of

> > Munjala (tenth century AD) on the scene, naturally, there is no

> question of discussing that word with reference to any earlier work,

> whether the Vedas or the Puranas or sidhantas!>

> >

> > Even before munjal, the differene of sidereal and tropical concepts

> was known.This knowledge was there even during the Vedanga jyotish

> period, 'Kalpa being a thousand ages' as quoted in the Gita.They may not

> have measured the exact value of ayanamsa, but the concept of the

> difference between the tropcial and the sidereal (of ayanamsa) was

> known.Otherwise how could mention of this statemement in Brihad samhita(

> Adityacharadhyaya) be made as follows? " We find mention in the old

> scriptures that uttrayan started when the sun was in dhanistha because

> it was true those days.But now uttaryan starts when the sun is in makar

> sankranti. "

> > When the sidhantas talk of kalpa and manwantars, as 14 manwantars

> making one kalpa,could it not based on the 27 degrees of precession in

> each manawantar? I agree, due to the lack of the knowledge of exact

> value of precesion, the years attributed to these periods were fantastic

> and unreasonable. But they did use symbolic figures as 'divya varsha'

> etc., which have no real cycles of 360 years.But now at present, since

> we know the value of precession, we can safely say the kalpa is the

> total cycle of precesison of 25,800 years, with one manwantar when one

> kalpa is divided into 12 parts or of 30 degrees each, becomes 2150

> years. This is when we have to reform our calendar every time the

> equinox or sosltice crosses from one fullmoon zone to the other. The

> calendar reform was done from vedanga jyotish to sidhanta jyotish, when

> the solstice or equinox crossed from the maagha sukla pratipada zone to

> the poush purnima zone (from pratipada to full moon or one pakshya) by

> shifting the nirayan uttaryan from sun in dhanisatha to makar sankranti

> (23 degrees or seven padas). This is clear from Barahmihir's statement

> in Adityacharadhayaya.

> > You have yet to do a lot of homework to understand the vedic method,

> my dear friend.Do not try to take a short cut, by copying the western

> concept of pope Gregory, who reformed a calendar which had no soli-lunar

> month, but had only purely solar month.

> > More in the next.

> > Regards,

> > Hari Malla

> >

> > HinduCalendar , " Krishen " jyotirved@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Shri Hari Malla ji,

> > >

> > > Jai Shri Ram!

> > >

> > > <Please learn to discuss one with respect to the other, since that

> is

> > > what ayanamsa is for, and that is our subject matter too, instead of

> > > branding every ting as imaginary and trying to escape from the

> > > conventional concepts.>

> > >

> > > Since the word ayanamsha itself did not appear before Laghumanasa of

> > > Munjala (tenth century AD) on the scene, naturally, there is no

> question

> > > of discussing that word with reference to any earlier work, whether

> the

> > > Vedas or he Puranas or sidhantas!

> > >

> > > And Munjala has used that word in an entirely different manner and

> sense

> > > than what " Vedic astrologers " and you are trying to use it these

> days!

> > > You are actually putting the cart before the horse since that is

> what

> > > Ganesha Daivajnya has done!

> > >

> > > < You are jumbling up many things togetther here.If the vedic

> calendar

> > > goes only by the four cardinal points, as you say, then why the

> > > definition of vedanga jyotish as ' when the sun and the moon are

> > > together in dhanistha...uttaryan occurs.' >

> > >

> > > For God's sake, Hari Malla ji, do read the statements in their

> totality!

> > > I have emphasized it time and again that the beauty of Vedic calenar

> > > lies in the solar months being aligned to seasons and four cardinal

> > > points to which are appended synodic (lunar) motnsh! As such, what

> are

> > > yor cribbing about?

> > > < Please do not think of the rashis as only animals imagined over

> them,

> > > they are existing stars in the first place which are real and not

> > > imaginary as you keep on repeating>

> > >

> > > Stars are real, but the resulting " animal divisions " are not real!

> Then

> > > again, do you have any idea what you mean by stars? Do you have any

> > > idea as to how many galaxied are " covered " by one constellation? Why

> > > are you making a mockery of the astronomical facts with your

> imaginary

> > > " equal animals " ?

> > >

> > > < So do not say they are not sidereal.The solar and the lunar months

> > > related to the rashis and the nakshaytras are also sidereal,

> distinct

> > > from the tropical or seasonal concept related to the precession of

> the

> > > earth axis.>

> > >

> > > Unless you prove " beyond all the reasonable doubts " that rashis are

> real

> > > divisions of some real circle, instead of imaginary divisions of

> > > imaginary circles, there is no question of considering them as

> sidereal

> > > or tropical etc. etc. Vedic solar months have nothing to do with

> > > rashis. And as such, the lunar months too have nothing to do with

> them.

> > >

> > > Since the Vedic months are seasonal, they have nothing to do with

> > > precesson of equinoxes either.

> > >

> > >

> > > <Please first get your concepts clear.It will be much easier to talk

> > > after that.>

> > >

> > > Pl. firs get your concepts clear. It will be much easier to talk

> after

> > > that.

> > >

> > > Jai Shri Ram.

> > >

> > > A K Kaul

> > >

> > >

> > > HinduCalendar , " hari " <harimalla@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear shir Kaulji,

> > > >

> > > > <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 " .

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The above definitions do support my intention. The word 'Sidereal'

> > > meaning 'related to the practically fixed stars' and the word

> 'tropical'

> > > meaning 'pertaining to the precession of the earth axis,' which in

> its

> > > turn moves the tropical points over the annual sidereal dates.Please

> > > learn to discuss one with respect to the other, since that is what

> > > ayanamsa is for, and that is our subject matter too, instead of

> branding

> > > every ting as imaginary and trying to escape from the conventional

> > > concepts.

> > > >

> > > > <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.>

> > > >

> > > > You are jumbling up many things togetther here.If the vedic

> calendar

> > > goes only by the four cardinal points, as you say, then why the

> > > definition of vedanga jyotish as ' when the sun and the moon are

> > > together in dhanistha...uttaryan occurs.' Here, are the sun and the

> moon

> > > not related to the stars also for uttarayan to occur, instead of

> only

> > > your four cardinal points being independant by themselves? Why do

> you

> > > say uttaryan will be the shortest day all the time as if I have

> doubted

> > > that? Was it necessary to make such a understood concept whereas we

> are

> > > talking of the realtionship of uttaryan or the shortest day in

> > > relationship with the position of the stars.

> > > > Where in the vedas are madhu madhav given importance as solar

> > > months.Madhu madhava are seasonl months but are mainly talked of as

> the

> > > lunar months.Vedanga jyotish proves that by saying 'it has talked of

> the

> > > lunar year'towards the ending verse.So the lunar months are seasonal

> > > months, as per the vedic definitions.The solar months and solar

> seasons

> > > are given second priority as is clearly mentioned in dharma

> sashtras,

> > > both during Vedanga jyotish period and the sidhanta jyotish period.

> > > > Again why do you bring the Islamic months here out of context,

> which

> > > have no adhimaas.Are adhimases not celebrated to give seasons to the

> > > lunar months? What other purpose does it have?

> > > > You do have tendency to disturb all conventional concepts. Please

> do

> > > not think of the rashis as only animals imagined over them, they are

> > > existing stars in the first place which are real and not imaginary

> as

> > > you keep on repeating. Any time period pertaining to them is

> sidereal

> > > concepts as you have diefined. So do not say they are not

> sidereal.The

> > > solar and the lunar months related to the rashis and the nakshaytras

> are

> > > also sidereal, distinct from the tropical or seasonal concept

> related to

> > > the precession of the earth axis.

> > > > Please first get your concepts clear.It will be much easier to

> talk

> > > after that.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Hari Malla

> > > >

> > > > HinduCalendar , " jyotirved " jyotirved@

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > 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

> > > > >

> > >

> <HinduCalendar/post?postID=HYmjGz8GGwrMeOR\

> \

> \

> > > kzTA

> > > > >

> > >

> -6ORKo7G9shk2B3oArADa3JCBvY47f53AfB5vVdM6BmdcRoI0NIOACROAcxI8zeHTUs53frI\

> \

> \

> > > > ,

> > > > > " 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?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>