Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

India Policy egroup, jyOtiSa (Fwd: [IndianCivilization] a quick look at astronomy ..)

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Reference: This thread is generated on

IndianCivilization egroup regarding K Elst comments on

jyOtiSa on IndiaPolicy egroup. Just forwarding fyi.

 

Note on Tropical zodiac = geocentric inertial

reference frame/curvilinear co-ordinate system. Of

course, we have to obey Geocentric

world(anti-scientific, eh:-), as per tropical

fanatics.

 

Regards,

VR

 

--- Start forwarded message ---

alphapazuzu wrote:

 

Where is mEshAdi today? Regional traditions differ in

their answers to this question. Why? We need to trace

each tradition's history to figure out where the

differences cropped up. May be when JyotiSi-s stopped

examining the skies or when most of them got killed by

Alexander's soldiers or by the later Muslim invaders.

That does not mean that the fixed zodiac is not the

basis in jyotiSa. I think Parashara covers this in his

br`hat parashara hora shastra. You may check it out.

Within each nakSatra, the angular position of chandra

decides the dashaabhukti-s. Thus, being born in the

beginning, midpoint or end of Taurus all differ.

Further, dashaa-s, bhukti-s and antarbhukti-s are

influenced by the relative placements of the graha-s

(through dr`Sti-s). jyotiSa is incomplete without

assessing the various varga-s and varga bala-s. Most

jyotiSi-s don't go to this detail - "Vedic

astrologers" never do - most people are burdened with

life's strifes, they seek solutions and comforts, not

science or meta physics or meditation. This is the

state of affairs in kaliyuga anyway. (Thus, jyotiSa

these days has

become Indian version of psychotherapy - it is very

inexpensive and quite effective compared to western

psychotherapy. Majority of Americans seek the high

priced therapists routinely. Is it much different in

practice?)

 

The attempt done by Lahiri & Co. (whom I presume Elst

refers to as THEY, the "Vedic astrologers") was under

a Nehruvian dictat to make the panchangam "fit" with

Gregorial calendar. This is MacCaulay onslought in

disguise, and is a case of traditional approach trying

to survive under its onslought. Most village jyotiSi-s

who make the panchangams hardly go by Lahiri's

framework. B.G. Tilak and Venkatesh Ketkar are more

favored in southern India.

 

For example, take the simple case: Lahiri coined

raashtreeya "maasa chaitra" to begin with spring

equinox. This has two scientific/astronomical

blunders. One, maasa in jyotiSa means a natural cycle

of moon's phase, and thus Lahiri's use of "maasa"

beginning with every spring equinox is astronomically

incorrect. Two, chaitra refers to paurNami in chitraa.

Thus, Lahiri redifining the maasa names to fit with

tropical zodiac does not connect the words with events

they signify. All in all it was a silly

Nehruvian-Leftist unscientific mess. I have not come

across any "Vedic astrologer" (whatever it means) who

finds the flaws here.

 

The relative motions of stars are noticeable over a

very long time duration only. Thus, JyotiSa

calculations have been adjusted from time to time. The

method involved some re-checks (drg-gaNita) in

500-1000 years(modern version: Predictor-corrector

mehtods in n-body simulation). I have used the math on

my own chart - by making slight changes to my

time/place of birth. The resulting charts &

dashaabhukti-s

predicted don't drastically change. Transition from

one nakSatra to the next or within a nakSatra is not

black&white, it has gray zone.

 

There are also chakra-s in the 'fixed" zodiac, just as

 

visualized in a human body. I don't know details. I

heard it from a JyotiSi in a Kerala village.

 

These days, for precise answers, astronomers do not

use any tropical point as final reference. Yes, it is

a gross reference since that is what most of us are

familiar with. Most cosmic measurements are tracked

and measured wrt relatively "fixed" stars. Star

movements are deduced from redshifts, and not by

tracking them with tropics. With the advent of atomic

clock, it was found that a leap second has to be added

every year - rendering the tropical points not as good

references.

 

Everyone's goal in life is continuous happiness. If

jyOtiSa did not help in this pursuit but it is all

statstically nothing, why is it still around? One way

to prove if it is a true science is by sincerely

pursuing its study AND engaging in its practice. Real

jyOtiSa practice has the pre-requisite of a daily life

following all the conditions of astAnga yOga

(yama, niyama, Asana, prANAyAma, pratyAhAra, DhAraNa,

DhyAna, etc.). Lahiri & Co. and the "Vedic

astrologers" might not have had such jyOtiSa

tradition. So, we need to distinguish between

practicing surgeon, family doctor, and fake MD.

British Raj did promote many such fakes - that was

one tactics of uprooting Hinduism.

 

 

Wrt raashtreeya panchangam, here is what I see in a

panchangam I have ("Vaijayanti Panchanga" in Kannada

cast by a traditional jyOtiSi family near Mangalore,

India (Puttur). Dates/times/ tiThi-s refer to that

location):

 

Vasanta vishuvam is given as March 20, 2002.

Raashtreeya maasa (rm for short) chaitra day 1 is

given as March 22, 2002. This maasa has 30 days. The

remaining are as follows:

 

rm vaishaaKha has 31 days

rm jyESTa has 31 days

rm ASADa has 31 days

rm shrAvaNa has 31 days

rm BhAdra has 31 days

rm Ashvina has 30 days

rm kArtika has 30 days

rm AgrahAyana has 30 days

rm pauSa has 30 days

rm mAGa has 30 days

rm PhAlguna has 30 days (365 total days/year; in every

leap year an extra day is added?).

 

Next vasanta vishuvam (spring equinox) is on March 21,

2003. rm chaitra day 1 is on March 22, 2003. Thus in

this scheme, maasa-s are arbitrarily fixed, the year

starting at or near spring equinox. This is purely a

tropical calendar and is a copy of gregorian scheme.

It has no astronomical significance and nobody in

India uses it. It died just as it was born.

 

The Vaijayanti panchangam also notes "ayanaamsha" at

the end of every pakSa. On coming paurNami (Sept. 21,

2002), it is 23d 53m 25s. It increases by about 50s

every year (due to earth axis precession wrt

nakSatra-s).

 

If some note the ayanaamsha as 20d or 30d, it may be

due to loss of proper mathematics and traditional

rigor. Among most traditional panchanga makers there

is no confusion on this count or on the 27 equal

nakSatra divisions or on mEshAdi (tied to the annual

yugAdi or samvatsara beginning celebrations). Of

course persons like Elst focus on the minority who

differ or add Abhijit a small degree space. These may

be errors that crept in probably due to historical

strifes and barbaric invasions till 1947 and the

ongoing MacCaulay slavery of the tiny but vocal

minority.

 

The biggest stumbling block towards panchangam

standardization per astronomy is the MacCaulay slave

minority as is evident in the scheme of Lahiri & Co.

Since Tilak and Ketkar were forceful in their work and

convinced the panchanga makers, the MacCaulay

minions did not reach the 85% of India's (non-English

rural) society. Nehru also contributed to this schism

by his brashy arrogance and open contempt to

traditions. I remember in the sixties our village

jyOtiSi-s were making jokes of the "profound" western

wisdom.....

 

 

> IndianCivilization, "Koenraad Elst"

<elst.koenraad@p...>

> wrote:

> This should be a new thread, as Shankara shifts the

topic from

> astronomy as

> a tool to decide on Vedic chronology to Vedic

astrology.

>

> > "For they use a sidereal Zodiac, shifted between

22°

> > and 30° (they haven't figured that out yet) from

the

> > tropical Zodiac"

> >

> > Who are THEY? The primitive MacCaulites, born with

> > falsehood, Not practising vedanga jyotisa-s

>

> Seems I am once again addressing a Hindu who wipes a

whole body of

> evidence

> from the table.

>

> "THEY" are the Vedic astrologers, as mentioned in

the previous

> sentence.

>

> It is a fact that Vedic astrologers of various

schools use different

> values

> of Ayanamsha (distance between the vernal equinox

and 0° sidereal

> Aries),

> from 22° to 30°. Those whom I have asked have so

far been unable to

> explain

> how they justified the specific value they use,

except: "This is what

> I was

> taught, and I find that it works." Same answer from

the one who

> takes it as

> 22°, 27° or 30°. Between these schools, you have

the same problem as

> between the sidereal schools together and the

tropical school (which

> says,

> in a way: ayanamsha = 0°): huge numbers of people

get their sun,

moon,

> ascendant etc. in a different sign depending on the

choice of

> ayanamsha.

> This means that one astrologer will say to you: "You

are Cancer,

> homebuddy,

> kind, modest, you dislike the limelight, etc.",

whereas another will

> say:

> "You are Leo, ambitious, love the limelight, etc."

The least one

could

> expect of a science is that the different schools

sit together and

> decide on

> criteria to decide which system is correct. But no,

all of them are

> satisfied that their own system "works".

>

> I have often seen Vedic astrology "work", and I have

often sen

Western

> astrology "work". Yet, not unoften, the same

astrologers who made

> such a

> strong impression when reading an individual's

horoscope, fail when

> they are

> made to do a test, often a test designed by

statisticians in

> cooperation

> with astrologers confident that any moderately

well-trained

> astrologers

> should pass it. That is why I have become slightly

more skeptical of

> astrology. But I keep my options open and will

gladly be convinced if

> an

> astrologer offers the kind of proof that would stand

up in hard

> science.

> Being an underdog like the OIT, astrology has my

sympathy and I would

> like

> it to be true just for the fun of upsetting the

established

> consensus, but

> at this point I am not convinced.

>

> > What is sidereal zodiac? Did you ever take

Astronomy

> > class at KUL/UCL. There is only one zodiac..That

is

> > wrt nakSatra-s. This is called sidereal zodic,

thus

> > the MacCaulites and primitive west promoted

tropical

> > zodiac(seasonal calender). Any "practising"

astronomer

> > laughs at the idea of "zodiac moves"..<

>

> Please read the evidence on the table before

contemptuously wiping it

> off.

> Astronomical tables used worldwide by astronomers do

use the tropical

> Zodiac

> (based on the entirely objective coordinates of

solstice and equinox)

> as a

> frame of reference. The reason is that it is purely

spatial, whereas

> the

> actual stars that make up the sidereal Zodiac are

material things

> subject to

> change. The angular distances between the "fixed"

stars are

> constantly

> changing, even if very slowly. As long as the earth

moves around the

> sun

> with the equator at a non-zero angle to the

ecliptic, there will be a

> stable

> tropical Zodiac; but the sidereal Zodiac is changing

from day to day,

> and if

> you wait long enough, you won't find the present

constellations in

> the sky

> anymore.

>

> Now to continue, in spite of the skepticism

expressed above, I will

> for now

> accept the assumption that there is something to

astrology, that the

> 12

> sectors of the Zodiac have distinct effects on

people. In that case,

> why

> should the tropical Zodiac be superior?

>

> Only testing of people's characteristsics against

their star signs

can

> decide, but consider first these theoretical

problems with the

> sidereal

> Zodiac. As already mentioned, they have no clear

boundaries between

> the

> sidereal constellations, so that astrologers are in

disagreement by a

> margin

> of 8° (affecting 8/30 or ca. 27% of the population)

about where

> exactly the

> star signs start and end. Also, these sectors are

not the "real"

> constellations, as they are artificially taken to

span 30° each, when

> in

> fact they differ a lot in size. This 12x30° is a

projection of the

> neat

> tropical division, inappropriate in practice as well

as in theory to

> the

> sidereal Zodiac, claimed to be dealing with the

"real" stellar world

> as

> against the immaterial spatial projection of the

tropical Zodiac.

>

> Moreover, what makes the stars of, say, Taurus, into

> a "constellation"? Why

> should a star at the end of Taurus have the same

effect as one in the

> beginning of Taurus (at, say, 25° angular distance)

and not with one

> at the

> beginning of Gemini (at, say, 6° angular distance)?

Why should a

> Taurus

> star in 20 light years have the same effect as a

Taurus star at 500

> light

> years distance, but different from a Virgo star at

20 light years

> distance?

> The answer is that the Taurus stars have exactly one

thing in common,

> viz.

> that they fall in the same 30° sector as projected

from the earth.

An

> observer here on earth projects into space six lines

(or planes) at

> 30°

> distance from eachother, and these are called

Arties, Taurus etc.,

> and all

> the celestial bodies caught inside one such sector

are classified as

> Taurus,

> etc.

>

> However, this principle of classifying the sectors

of space and

> everything

> in them on the basis of a spatial projection from

the earth is

> precisely the

> principle underlying the tropical Zodiac. Though the

tropical Zodiac

> was

> abstracted from the pre-existing sidereal Zodiac

(though then not yet

> divided eqiually but merely registering the actual

constellations

> with their

> unequal shapes and sizes) ca. the time of Christ,

the tropical one

> has a

> *logical* priority over the sidereal one. The

sidereal Zodiac is

> parasitic

> upon the principle underlying the tropical Zodiac.

>

> Kind regards,

>

> KE

> --- End forwarded message ---

 

 

 

 

Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

http://webhosting./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...