Consideration of the Nakshtras and their starting point

[Guest guest]

Shri A Sharmaji,

 

Jai Shri Ram!

 

Glad to see your response.

 

< It is possible that 'Nakshatra' does not pin-point star constellations and

instead are just mathematical divisions of the sphere.>

 

You are right. Equal divisions of the Ecliptic/Zodiac, whether twelve or

twenty-seven, are imaginary and just for computational ease! Thus they are

“mathematical” divisions, known as Mesha, Vrisha etc. rashis and Ashvini,

Bharni etc. nakshatras. Actually, scientifically, anything that is

tangible, i.e. real, cannot be divided into equal divisions, with each

division remaining intact! Thus they are fictitious divisions. So while

there are no Mesha etc. rashis in the Vedas or as per modern astronomy at

all, even the twenty-seven equal nakshatra divisions cannot be Vedic or

scientific either

 

 

 

I am quoting below an excerpt from “Rashi5.doc” in the files section, which

is self-explanatory in this regard:

 

**** ***** *****

*****

 

“(As per Subhash Kak also) Maitrayani and Kathaka Samhitas and Atharvaveda

contain lists with the 28 nakshatras. And these are certainly Vedic texts!

So we have in fact twenty-eight Vedic nakshatras instead of twenty-seven,

however hard we try to obliterate Abhijit from our memory!

 

“Suryaprajnyapti” – the main astronomical work for making Jainese

calendars, is a work of about 3rd century BC, and follows the same system of

five year yuga as the Vedanga Jyotisha. However, this work also gives 28

nakshatra none equal with the other and the nakshatra-division started with

Abhijit, unlike Krittika as in the Vedanga Jyotisha.

 

 

 

All the Sidhantas list twenty-eight Junction Stars:

 

Surya Sidhanta VIII/2-4 lists twenty-eight nakshatras/Stars including

Abhijit; so does Brahmasphuta Sidhanta, Lallatantra and even the world

famous Sidhanta Shiromani of Bhaskaracharya of 12th century AD lists

twenty-eight nakshatras as per XVI/1-6. Our “neither-so-good nor-so-old”

rather the worst culprit for spreading the “nirayana mayhem”, viz.

Grahalaghava as per XI/1-2 also lists twenty-eight nakshatras!

 

 

 

All the real scholars also vouch for an unequal nakshatra division in the

Vedas: In his magnificent work on nakshatras vis-à-vis the Vedas,

viz. “The Orion – or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas”, Lokamanya

Tilak has this to say on page 26, “The Vedic observations could not again be

such as need any minute or detailed arithmetical operations. I shall

therefore adopt for the present the simplest possible method of

calculation---a method which may be easily understood and followed by any

one, who can watch and observe the stars after the manner of the ancient

priest. We shall assume that the zodiac was divided into 27 parts, not by

compass but by means of the leading stars, which Prof. Max Muller rightly

calls the milestones of the heavens. The Vedic priest, who ascertained the

motion of the sun by observing with his unaided eye the nearest visible

star, cannot be supposed to have followed a different method in making other

celestial observations; and if so, we cannot assume that he was capable of

recognizing and using for the purposes of observation any artificial

divisions of the ecliptic on a mathematical principle, such as those which

would result from the division of 360° of the zodiac into 27 equal parts,

each part thus extending over 13° 20’ of the ecliptic. …When we therefore

find it stated in the Vedic works that the sun was in the Krittika, it is

more probable that the fixed asterism, and not the beginning of the

artificial portion of the zodiac, was intended.”

 

Similarly, the main “pillar” of nirayana confusion viz. late N. C. Lahiri is

very emphatic on page Xi of his Foreword to Popular Hindu Astronomy by Kali

Nath Mukherji (1969- Calcutta) when he says, “In India the ecliptic stars

were divided into 28 divisions even in the Vedic times. These are known as

nakshatra divisions or lunar mansions. As these clusters of stars do not

cover equal lengths of the ecliptic the original divisions were naturally of

unequal length. We get a description of this unequal division in the work

of Bhaskaracharya,(-I) who has stated that it (the equal division) was

introduced by early sages (those like Garga)”.

 

 

 

Historical proofs also list twenty-eight and unequal nakshatra divisions

 

Besides, this is what Alberuni’s India says on page 89 of part II, “For

Brahmagupta says in the Uttara-Khandakhadyaka…’The measure of some stations

exceeds the measure of the mean daily motion of the moon by one half.

Accordingly their measure is 19° 45’ 52” 18”’. These are six stations, viz.

Rohini, Punarvasu, Uttaraphalguni, Visakha, Utarshadha, Uttarabhadrapada.

These together occupy the space of 118° 35’ 13” 48”’. Further six stations

are short ones, each of them occupying less than the mean daily motion of

the moon by one half. Accordingly, their measure is 6° 35’ 17” 26”’. These

are Bharni, Ardra, Ashlesha, Svati, Jyeshtha, Satabhishaj. They together

occupy the space of 39° 31’ 4” 36”’. Of the remaining fifteen stations,

each occupies as much as the mean daily motion. Accordingly, it occupies

the space of 13° 10’ 34” 52”’. They together occupy the space of 197° 38’

43”. These three groups of stations together occupy the space of 355° 45’

41” 24”’, the remainder of the complete circle is 4° 14’ 18” 36”’, and this

is the space of Abhijit, the falling Eagle”. Not surprisingly, it is the

same duration of nakshatras that has been given by N C Lahiri in his Preface

to “Popular Hindu Astronomy”

 

Thus our Vedic Rishis were more akin to modern astronomy than to today’s so

called “Vedic astronomers” and like the real astronomers of today, they also

had therefore envisaged an unequal division of the “constellations/lunar

mansions”. It is only our overzealous “Vedic astrologers” who want us to

close our eyes to the real facts and just go by the jugglery they are

keeping before us!

 

Here is the genesis of the “equal division”: As per the Surya Sidhanta etc.

the daily mean motion of the Moon is 13° 10’ 34” 52”’ i.e. 13° 10’ 34”.8666

which is almost equal to the daily mean motion of the Moon as per modern

astronomy. It was only for computation ease that the Moon was supposed to

cover one lunar mansion per day---twenty-seven nakshatras in twenty-seven

days! It has absolutely no correspondence with the actual Stars i.e.

nakshatra divisions of the Vedas.

 

 

 

Puranas also list an unequal division of 28 nakshatras:

 

There are legends galore in the Puranas that the Moon spent more time with

“Rohini” i.e. Alpha Tauri than with other “wives” i.e. constellations. They

complained to their father Daksha Prajapati who tried to persuade the Moon

to spend equal time with all his wives. When the Moon did not pay heed to

the admonishments of his father-in-law, the latter cursed him to wane

permanently. However, on the pleadings of his other wives and the Moon

promising to spend equal time with all the “wives”, the Moon was given a

reprieve and the curse was ameliorated to waxing and waning!

 

It means clearly that the earlier nakshatra divisions were of unequal length

as otherwise there was absolutely no reason of the Moon “over-staying” in

one nakshatra longer than in others.

 

Vishnudharmottarapurana, which was held in great reverence in India as per

Alberuni for deciding proper muhurtas etc., and which is like an “agama”

i.e. a “Veda” as per Bhaskaracharya, lists twenty eight nakshatras

(including Abhijit) in Part III- Adhyaya 68, Shloka 6 and then again in

Adhyaya 104 Shloka 87 of the same Part. There are other instances from

other Puranas also.

 

So if someone is trying to “eliminate” the Abhijit constellation, he is just

trying to achieve the impossible, which “wise men” never do!

 

 

 

Even equal divisions would have given unequal durations of nakshatras:

 

Anyone knowing a bit of astronomy will be surprised on the eagerness of

these “Vedic astrologers” and “Vedic astronomers” to make each nakshatra

division of 13°-20’, since even then the Moon would have to spend unequal

time in all those “equal divisions”. We have seen that the average mean

motion of Moon is 13.1763521472222 degrees which means it would cover 13°

20’ of each of the 27 nakshatras in 24 hrs 17m 9.357 s if its True Motion

also remained the same as mean motion. (It is to be noted here that even on

the basis of daily mean motion, no nakshatra is covered in exactly one day

of 24 hours! However, as can be seen from any panchanga including the

nirayana bible viz. Lahiri Panchanga for any year, this is not the case.

E.g. even the geocentric Ardra nakshatra on June 2, 2003, ranged from 4-4 am

to 6-6 am of June 3 i.e. 26 hrs 2 minutes but the same nakshatra prevailed

from 14-29 on January 16 to 15-5 of January 17 i.e. 25hrs and 36 minutes

only! Similar is the case with all the other nakshatras! The reasons is

simple. The mean motion of any planet is an imaginary one, whereas the True

motion is the actual one, which is almost always different from the Mean

Motion and which keeps on changing depending on its distance from the

Earth/Sun. It must be mentioned here that the True Motion of the Moon varies

from 11° 46’ to 15° 23’ per day

 

****** ***** ****

 

 

 

The Vedic basis of unequal division can be demonstrated by the following

proofs:

 

1. The Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/2 says, ”One should get consecrated in

Krittikas. Krittika nakshatra has many stars whereas the rest of the

nakshatras have one or two or three or four. Krittikas have many more. That

is why Krittikas do not swerve from the East. All the other nakshatras do

swerve”. It is thus clear that the Vedas talk of nakshatras comprising

stars and no nakshatra had an equal number of stars. As such, the Vedic

nakshtras were neither equal nor unrelated to stars.

 

2. Taittiriya Samhita 4/4/10, Taittiriya Brahmana 1/5/1 and the Atharva

Veda (19/7/1-5) talk of twenty eight nakshatras, including Abhijit. They

were thus talking of unequal divisions!

 

3. The nakshatra divisions started from various naksahtras in the past. As

per the Yajurveda, Taittiriya Samhit, Shatapatha Brahmana, Tairritiya

Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha etc., it started from Krittikas, though

except for the Vedanga Jyotisha, it was an unequal division but in the VJ

we find an equal division.

 

However, what is not clear is as to whether some star of Krittika division

was its starting point or midpoint. If some star was its starting point,

what star was that? Similarly, if it was its midpoint, what star was that?

 

We are also not at all sure that Alcyone (Eta Tauri) was its starting or

midpoint.

 

Similarly, there is no clear indication as to why the Vedanga Jyotisha makes

its nakshatra division start from Krittikas, though it talks of twenty-seven

equal nakshatra divisions. But when it says (in fifth mantra), “When the

sun and the moon while moving in the sky, come to Vasava (Dhanishtha, Beta

Delhpini) star together, then the Yuga, the Magha (month the Tapas, the

light half of the month, and the winter solstice, all commence together” It

is certainly refereeing to some star known as Dhanishtha and not an

imaginary division which has nothing to do with the star of that name!

 

Then in the sixth mantra, it says, “The sun and the Moon turn north in the

beginning of Dhanishtha and towards South in the middle of Ashlesha. The

sun always does this in the months of Magha and Shravana”.

 

BTW, from these (fifth and sixth) mantras of the VJ it is clear that the

month of (lunar) Magha always started/starts immediately after Uttarayana

and (lunar) Shravana immediately after Dakshinayana. The word “Magha

Shraqvanyor-sada” has been emphasized in the VJ and that negates the

statement of “Vedic astrologers” that the month of (lunar) Magha takes place

only when the Full Moon is in Magha nakshatra! Not Magha Nakshatra but

Uttarayana is the criterion of lunar Magha and Dakshinayana the criterion of

lunar Shravana!

 

 

 

Thus, it is clear from these mantras that the VJ is not talking of some

imaginary division of nakshatras but the one that had definitely something

to do with the Junction Stars.

 

As such, even if the VJ used equal division for computation ease, it could

not have been unrelated to stars at all.

 

And that is the main problem! The Junction stars being used these days can

never fit into any equal nakshatra division. About 33 per cent of Junction

Stars fall outside of nakshatra division of similar names, if we take so

called nirayana equal divisions and if so called sayana equal divisions are

taken, then none of the stars falls in the nakshatra group of that name.

 

 

 

Surya Siddhanta talks of Junction stars for the first time:

 

We find for the first time the names of Junction Stars in the Surya

Siddhanta of Maya the mlechha. He has not clarified it anywhere as to on

what basis he has decided that nomenclature. Nor has any Hindu stalwart

discussed this anachronism of the Surya Siddhanta though several

commentaries have been written on it by several scholars.

 

Let us take the case of Ashvini naksahtra. As per the Surya Siddhanta, the

longitude of Ashvini Star is twelve degrees away from the start of the SS

Asvhini nakshatra division! The SS Kritika Junction Star is at the fag end

of Krittika nakshatra divisions whereas the Mula Junctin star of the SS is

almost the starting point of the SS Mula nakshatra division. Svati (Arcturs)

is away by less than a degree from Chitra (Spica) whereas Vishakha (Alpha

Librae) is away by about 22 degrees from Svati.

 

Thus it is does not support your statement, “It is possible that a

particular star is/was used to fix the starting point for the following

fixed divisions”.

 

BTW, it is high time that the Surya Siddhanta stars are compared with

Hipparchus Stars and see if the former are a direct borrowing from the

latter!

 

 

 

Nakshatras vis-à-vis characteristics:

 

Now coming to your second point, “ Perhaps a simple test could help us move

in one way or another. For example, each Nakshatra is given certain

characteristics of a person. The test could be to take 1000 persons and

check their Nakshatrik Personal Characteristics using both equal and unequal

divisions”.

 

The world famous book “Sun Signs” by Linda Goodman must have sold at least a

billion copies! Everyone fell for it hook, line and sinker! The ”sun

signs” of that book are supposed to be doing exactly what you want “nakshtra

stars” to do! That book is based on so called Sayana Mesha etc. rashis, and

surprisingly, its readers find uncanny resemblance with the characteristics

of sun-signs of that book! Romantic activities also are pursued only after

seeing “sun-sign” compatibility! Even weekly Tarot readings are given in

papers like the Hindustan Times for those very sun signs! Most of the

readers claim that they find those “weekly predictions” very correct!

Surprisingly, these so called Sayana Rashis are an anathema to most of the

“Vedic astrologers” though all the Puranas and Siddhantas talk of nothing

but those very Sayana Rashis!

 

So, there is every possibility that if you subsume the equal nakshatra

divisions in so called Sayana Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis, with Mesha rashi

starting from Ashivin nakshatra, perhaps you may be able to arrive at the

same conclusion that Linda Goodman had arrived i.e. the characteristics may

tally exactly with the supposed indications!

 

Pt. Sudhakar Dwivedi has decried so called sideareal zodiac more than one

and a quarter century back:

 

In fact, quite a few Hindu astrologers also find so called Sayana Rashis

more reliable in astrological predictions! And when we talk of sayana Hindu

rashis, it means (sayana) nakshatras are supposed to be subsumed in them!

 

A biography of the famous Hindi poet, Bharatendu Harishchandra, by Babu

Shivnandan Sahay has been published by Hindi Samiti, Lucknow. Pt. Sudhakar

Dwivedi is well known as a Sanskrit commentator of Panchasidhantika and

Surya Sidhanta etc. He has prepared a horoscope of the said poet in the

same book. In his preface to Bharatendu Harischandra’s horoscope he has

said on page 4, “There is no doubt that planets were calculated on tropical

basis in India during the last several centuries and horoscopes also were

prepared accordingly. It has been just out of sheer lethargy on the part of

our jyotishis that they stopped observing the actual longitudes of the sun,

moon etc. through gnomon etc. and resorted to some myth called ayanamsha

with the result that the so called nirayana rashichakra was invented”. He

had written this in 1883 AD, i.e. about 127 years back!

 

So sayana-walas do have a case for equal nakshatras being clubbed with

Sayana Rashis!

 

 

 

Nirayana nakshatras characteristics are doomed to failure:

 

However, the fate of similar efforts about nirayana nakshtras can well be

visualized since no “Vedic astrologer” himself/herself is as yet sure as to

wherefrom his/her Ashvini nakshatra division----leave alone other

divisions---- starts: Whether it is the Vernal Equinox of 285 AD opposite

Chitra star then or whether it is Revati Star or Muladhara or something

else! Some “Vedic astrologers” even claim that the real Ashvini nakshatra

division starts from Vernal Equinox even today! And technically speaking,

they may be right since as seen above, as per Alberuni’s India, in eleventh

century India, nakshatras were clubbed with Sayana Rashis!

 

But then those nakshatra divisions will have nothing to do with the Vedic

nakshatras!

 

 

 

Thus unless and until “Vedic astrologers” decide their own janma as well

karma nakshatra, it is impossible for them to come to any conclusions about

the characteristics of those nakshatras as that is exactly what “they” have

been doing over the last about two thousand years----right from the Brihat

Jatakam of Varahamihra to the latest nadi concoctions---with dismal results!

 

 

 

BHU s publishing the most incorrect panchanga these days!

 

You have said further, “The equal divisions could come from BHU's Vishwa

Panchang and DrikGanita MyPanchang.Com”.

 

Perhaps you are unaware that BHU is publishing its Vishwa-Panchanga even

today from the Surya Siddhanta, with some beeja corrections! And as

everybody knows, the Surya Siddhanta by Maya the mlechha is the most

monstrous astronomical work that has deluded India for the last two

millennia! Even BHU are using Surya Siddhanta only for calculating tithi,

nakshatra and samkrantis etc. for “Vedic (sic!)” Hindus! For deciding

eclipses etc., however, they get the data from Positional Astronomy Centre,

Kolkatta!

 

You are also unaware that Shri Vinay Jha, an expert on the Surya Siddhanta,

is of the opinion that the Surya Siddhanta calculations are to be used only

for predictive astrology and nothing else---which means calculation of tithi

etc. from the Surya Siddhanta for jataka is also ruled out, since they are

all real astronomical phenomena i.e. drik-gantiam!

 

In other words, though you may calculate planetary position of a native from

the Surya Siddhanta, but to decide as to what was his/her janma tithi is,

you have to go by Rashtriya Panchanga! Tut, tut, tut!

 

Regarding equal nakshatra divisions in other panchangas, whether from

Kashmir or Kanyakumari, all of them follow a cue from the Rashtriya

Panchanga! That is the real unfortunate situation! All those panchangas

are doing so blindly and God only knows how long they will continue with

that blindness! As clarified already, they have no idea as to wherefrom the

nakshtra division starts---whether Krittika (as in the Yajurveda, the VJ and

Puranas) or Ashvini (as in the Surya Siddhanta) or Purvabhadra, since the

Vernal Equinox is in exact conjunction with Beta Pegassi these days! They

will continue to grope in darkness till eternity, since they are just like

blind following blind---as per the Katha Upanishada! All I can do is pray

to Him to remove their blindness. But then that can happen only if we come

out of our fatal infatuation with predictive gimmicks!

 

When are you going to do that? Shubhasya sheeghram!

 

 

 

You have said in the end, “In software engineering, each part/module is

independently tested to verify it's correctness. Note, a chain is only

strong as it's weakest link. Therefore, the reformed Panchang's each part

must be correct and verifiable on it's own.”

 

That is exactly what this discussion forum viz. HinduCalendar is meant for!

And it must have become evident to you by now that every

statement/suggestion is evaluated and accepted or discarded after due

consideration! Hence this longish reply!

 

 

 

Jai Shri Ram

 

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HinduCalendar , A Sharma <asharmanz wrote:

 

[HinduCalendar] Re: Consideration of the Nakshtras and their starting point

 

 

 

It is possible that 'Nakshatra' does not pin-point star constellations and

instead are just mathematical divisions of the sphere. Note that 'Nakshatra'

means 'not decay here'. It is possible that a particular star is/was used to

fix the starting point for the following fixed divisions.

 

 

 

Perhaps a simple test could help us move in one way or another. For example,

each Nakshatra is given certain characteristics of a person. The test could

be to take 1000 persons and check their Nakshatrik Personal Characteristics

using both equal and unequal divisions.

 

 

 

The equal divisions could come from BHU's Vishwa Panchang and DrikGanita

MyPanchang.Com and unequal divisions from AKKji and Darshaney Lokeshji.

 

 

 

In software engineering, each part/module is independently tested to verify

it's correctness. Note, a chain is only strong as it's weakest link.

Therefore, the reformed Panchang's each part must be correct and verifiable

on it's own.