Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 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./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.