Fwd: [Ind-Arch] The Views of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

[Guest guest]

IndiaArchaeology , " Koenraad " <koenraad.elst

wrote:

 

Namas sarvebhya:

 

Today, at the time of this writing, is the day when Hindus make fools of

themselves by celebrating Makar Sankranti with statements like " today

the sun starts its northward course " . That event took place 24 days ago,

the whole world knows it, but some people prefer to pretend it is 300 AD

when the entry into sidereal Makara/Capricorn coincided with the Winter

Solstice. They will repeat the same mistake by celebrating New Year on

14 April, 24 days after the Spring Equinox which is the natural and

original New Year's day.

 

 

IndiaArchaeology , Sunil Bhattacharjya

sunil_bhattacharjya@ wrote:

>

>

>> Of course, in the time of the self-styled " Manu " , probably 1st

century CE, there wereastrologers in India, a novelty imported from

Greek Afghanistan and beyond. That foreignness may be a typical Manu

reason for opposing them. Manu preferred the Vedas (or what he imagined

the Vedas to be) and never liked these foreign non-Vedic innovations.<<

> This is a braindead assertion that Manu could have been of the 1st

century CE without adducing any proof. That is how these pseudo-scholars

like koenraad argue.

>

 

Manu mentions the Cînâ-s, which we know from other usages to be

the Chinese (e.g. Cînâcâra, the Chinese-originated " internal

alchemy " and esp. " sexual alchemy " ). That name comes from the Qin

dynasty, which ruled in the 3rd century BC. Before that, throughout the

Vedic age which Manu supposedly predates, no one in the world called the

Middle Kingdom anything sounding like " China " . The Manu-Smriti

definitely dates from the time around Christ. Like " Vedic astrology " is

a false attribution of Hellenistic-imported astrology to Bhrgu and other

Rishis, tyhe " Manu " Smrti is a faklse attribution to the Ur-Manu.

 

 

 

>

>

> 4)

>

> Ptolemy was already adopting the tropical zodiac in principle, though

he wasn't entirely clear on the difference yet, easy because the two

zodiacs practically coincided in his day. In discussing the system of

exaltation, he says that the sun is exalted in Aries and Saturn in Libra

because they mark spring, when the sun becomes strong, and autiumn, when

Saturnine coldness starts prevailing. So, he attached seasonal (=

tropical) phenomena to the zodiac signs.

>  

> The very fact thart  Claudius Ptolemy considered  Aldevaran

(Rohini)  to be at the middle of Taurus (Vrishava) shows that he

recognised the Sidereal Rashis. Whether he also recognised the Seasonal

calendar is beside the point. .

>

>

 

 

On this point, Ptolemy merely copied the Babylonians, who ca. 700 BC

took Aldebaran as the root star of the Zodiac, calculating all position

from the defining equation " Aldebaran = 15° Taurus " . They made no

distinction between tropical and sidereal, because they couldn't have as

they didn't know of the precession yet. However, their intention was

clearly not sidereal but tropical: rather than giving primacy to the

" real " visible constellations, they gave it to the division of the year

cycle: that is why they defined the " constellations " not by their

visible boundaries but as equal sectors of 30° disregarding their

visible boundaries.

 

Ptolemy was a bad astrologer, and only wrote his astrological

Tetrabiblos as if under publisher's pressure to capitalize commercially

on his earlier success with his astronomical Almagest. Compare him with

contemporaneous astrology writers and he comes out very poor on

knowledge of the existing techniques of practising astrologers.

 

At any rate, he and the Siddhantic astronomers wrote at a time when the

two Zodiacs more or less coincided. When reading the statement

" Aldebaran is at the middle of Taurus " , you have to keep in mind a

profound remark by the great thinker Bill Clinton when he tried to

wriggle out of his Monica Lewinsky scandal: " It depends on what the

meaning of 'is' is. " Indeed, " is " here can have two different meanings,

which the Spanish language happens to explicitate. Either the verb is a

copula (Sp. " es " , from the verb " ser " ), and then the sentence is a

definition. Otherwise, the verb describes a location, with " is "

practically replaceable by " lies " or " stands " or " can be found " (Spanish

" esta " from the verb " estar " ). In the first reading, the equation is

absolute: whatever may happen, Aldebaran is and will always be at the

middle of Taurus. In that case, " Taurus " is defined by a star and is

part of a sidereal Zodiac. In the second reading, the sentence only

applies in the tense in which it is used, viz. the present, so at the

time of Ptolemy's locating Aldebaran in the middle of Taurus. There is

no intrinsic tie between the star and that location, and indeed they

move vis-à-vis one another. Today, that is no longer the case:

Aldebaran now lies in tropical Gemini.

 

So, you haven't made any dent in my position that Ptolemy conceived of

the Zodiac in tropical terms. But even if Ptolemy was on the sidereal

side, that would make no difference to the facts of the matter, it would

only imply that Ptolemy was mistaken.

 

>

>> And now I am once more going to receive mails off-list from Hindus

who deplore that i get sidetracked into discussions with people who

aren't worth it and only waste everybody's time with their incurable

incomprehension.<<

>  

> Please do not write that you will receive hate mail. This is your

false statement till you forward a copy at least of a haste mail to the

group to substantiate your statement.

>

 

 

I didn't refer to hate mail from people supporting you. I meant mail

from people sympathetic to me, who warn me not to waste time on you. I

choose nonetheless to engage in this debate because your fanatical

incomprehension of the basic concepts of the calendar debate is

unfortunately quite representative of a critical mass among Hindu

calendar-makers, judging from the fact that the Makar Sanrkanti mistake

persists.

 

Kind regards,

 

KE

 

--- End forwarded message ---