Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Dear Vinay ji, I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? Thanks for your time and attention, Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Dear Sir, Paralox correction based on geocentric position is more for the purpose to supplement accuracy in vimshottari dasa calculations.where as surya siddhnta principles though considers longitudes and lattitudes along with sun rise and sun set times has no means to correct paralox corrections.In geo centic positions,we find visionaries do reflect some small errors and their influence in dasa calculations may on ly effet sookshma dasa calculations vrkrishnan --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan wrote: Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan A question ... Thursday, April 9, 2009, 7:21 PM Dear Vinay ji, I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? Thanks for your time and attention, Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Dear Krishnan Dada! Let me remind you that you are talking to the peasANT I am and that I once wrote about ;-) The one who was visiting his gifted and Einsteinisque son who was proudly showing his foolish dad this UNIVERSAL SOLVENT that can dissolve anything and everything! The foolish, uneducated peasANT asked innocently and really worriedly, " Betu, What would you store this University Solvent in? " <typo intentional!> RR , vattem krishnan <bursar_99 wrote: > > Dear Sir, > Paralox correction based on geocentric position is more for the purpose to supplement accuracy in vimshottari dasa calculations.where as surya siddhnta principles though considers longitudes and lattitudes along with sun rise and sun set times has no means to correct paralox corrections.In geo centic positions,we find visionaries do reflect some small errors and their influence in dasa calculations may on ly effet sookshma dasa calculations > vrkrishnan > > --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan wrote: > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > A question ... > > Thursday, April 9, 2009, 7:21 PM > > Dear Vinay ji, > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Rohini ji, Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM A question ... Dear Vinay ji, I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? Thanks for your time and attention, Rohiniranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Dear Vinay ji, Thanks for your email. So, it is geotopical! Centered on Mount Meru! Whether one is born in Greenland or Sidney or Ujjain, at the very same instant -- the planets would have the same longitudes! Did I understand you correctly? Thanks in advance for your confirmation or rectification. Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini ji, > > Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. > > -VJ > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM > A question ... > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > Rohiniranjan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Dear Jha Saheb, .... Before correction for difference from locality -- deshantarik sanskara as you stated! Meru being a substantial parwat with some elevation -- are you calculating the values for the top of Meru Parwat or the base and does it make any difference which point you choose? Regards, Rohiniranjan , " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan wrote: > > Dear Vinay ji, > > Thanks for your email. > > So, it is geotopical! Centered on Mount Meru! Whether one is born in Greenland or Sidney or Ujjain, at the very same instant -- the planets would have the same longitudes! > > Did I understand you correctly? > > Thanks in advance for your confirmation or rectification. > > Rohiniranjan > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@> wrote: > > > > Rohini ji, > > > > Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@> > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM > > A question ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Rohini ji Suryasiddhantic planets move round Mt Meru according to many Puranas and MBh too, besides ancient Jain texts, whose actual mathematics is highly complicated and not explained in published commentaries of Suryasiddhanta. But Suryasiddhantic formulae for computing planetary positions have been so designed as to give planetary positions for Ujjain only. One may forget all about Mt Meru while computing planets. After we get planetary positions for Ujjain, we must carry on deshaantara samskaara for the given place, otherwise we will get wrong values of planetary positions. Deshaantara samskaara : If a planets moves 2 degrees in one day, it will move 0.5 degrees over a longitude of 90 degrees. So much correction in planetary position must be carried out to get true planets for a given place, in Suryasiddhantic scheme. This same scheme is used in vedic astrological softwares based on modern physical astronomy. But modern astronomers have nothing to do with astrology and use different system which we need not discuss here. There are good articles on those systems in Wikipedia. -VJ ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Friday, April 10, 2009 9:02:27 AM Re: A question ... Dear Jha Saheb, .... Before correction for difference from locality -- deshantarik sanskara as you stated! Meru being a substantial parwat with some elevation -- are you calculating the values for the top of Meru Parwat or the base and does it make any difference which point you choose? Regards, Rohiniranjan , " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan@ ...> wrote: > > Dear Vinay ji, > > Thanks for your email. > > So, it is geotopical! Centered on Mount Meru! Whether one is born in Greenland or Sidney or Ujjain, at the very same instant -- the planets would have the same longitudes! > > Did I understand you correctly? > > Thanks in advance for your confirmation or rectification. > > Rohiniranjan > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > Rohini ji, > > > > Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. > > > > -VJ > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ > > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM > > A question ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2009 Report Share Posted April 9, 2009 Dear Vinay ji, Thank you! You have told us all so much more in the last two or three messages coming straight from your heart than you have over last many months! Perhaps years!! I am not sure how long you had been trying to tell and share. At the risk of irking your good self, I must ask...! Was the original calculation based on the pinnacle/tip of Meru or its base? What is Meru Parwat's elevation as given in the scriptures? Thanks. Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini ji > > Suryasiddhantic planets move round Mt Meru according to many Puranas and MBh too, besides ancient Jain texts, whose actual mathematics is highly complicated and not explained in published commentaries of Suryasiddhanta. But Suryasiddhantic formulae for computing planetary positions have been so designed as to give planetary positions for Ujjain only. One may forget all about Mt Meru while computing planets. > > After we get planetary positions for Ujjain, we must carry on deshaantara samskaara for the given place, otherwise we will get wrong values of planetary positions. > > Deshaantara samskaara : > > If a planets moves 2 degrees in one day, it will move 0.5 degrees over a longitude of 90 degrees. So much correction in planetary position must be carried out to get true planets for a given place, in Suryasiddhantic scheme. This same scheme is used in vedic astrological softwares based on modern physical astronomy. But modern astronomers have nothing to do with astrology and use different system which we need not discuss here. There are good articles on those systems in Wikipedia. > > -VJ > > > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Friday, April 10, 2009 9:02:27 AM > Re: A question ... > > > > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > ... Before correction for difference from locality -- deshantarik sanskara as you stated! > > Meru being a substantial parwat with some elevation -- are you calculating the values for the top of Meru Parwat or the base and does it make any difference which point you choose? > > Regards, > > Rohiniranjan > > , " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > Thanks for your email. > > > > So, it is geotopical! Centered on Mount Meru! Whether one is born in Greenland or Sidney or Ujjain, at the very same instant -- the planets would have the same longitudes! > > > > Did I understand you correctly? > > > > Thanks in advance for your confirmation or rectification. > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Rohini ji, > > > > > > Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ > > > > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM > > > A question ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > > > > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > > > > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > > > > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Rohini ji, You are a rarity in Kaliyuga. As you quipped elsewhere, stimulus and response are correlated. If genuine questions are raised, I put forth straightforward answers as far as my knowledge goes. Please do not use words like : " At the risk of irking your good self ... " . I have tolerated constant abuses by a dedicated team. Why should I be irked by your sincere questions, even if I do not know answers ? Merucentric cosmology is the basis of Vedic-Puranic-Suryasiddhantic astronomy. Mt Meru is regarded as the centre of all 14 worlds, only one of which is manifest to human senses. This sensory world is called physical or material world. Ancients (esp spiritualists) called it Maayaa, materialists call it reality. Most recent theories of modern physics has identified three basic constituents behind all Matter termed as quarks of three colours (different from colours perceived by sense organs) in quantum chromodynamics ; ancients defined it as three colours of white Sattva, red Raja and black Tama gunas which formed all Matter. Quantum chromodynamics has no explanation of this process as yet, but scientists are sure of the existence of three types of coloured quarks.The most scientific definition of Matter is " that which can be perceived by sense organs " . Non-material things cannot be directly perceived, only their effects can be perceived. A Meru Parvat being the centre of all sensory and non-sensory worlds should not be merely a heap of matter, although material world must have a counterpart in material form. That material Mt Meru has a height of 5199 metres and is known as Mt Kenya now-a-days. To it, add 28923 metres of correction for the distance between the real centre of Cosmos and the tip of Mt Kenya, and you get 34113 metres, which is equal to 4.278576 Suryasiddhantic yojanas. Add it to Suryasiddhantic diameter of Earth (1600 yojanas exactly), and multiply the resultant with " pi " , you get 5040 yojanas. Its 360th part is defined as Mandaparidyamsha of the Sun in Suryasiddhanta and is equal to 14. Manda-paridhi (5040 yojanas) is circumference of the central manda-vritta in traditional Indian astronomy and was also used by Ptolemy. In a geocentric system, this manda paridhi must be defined merely in terms of Earth's radius and not in terms of Earth's diameter (plus 34113 metres). This incomprehensible doubling of mandaparidhi was never explained by any commentator of Suryasiddhanta or of Ptolemy's Almagest . Ptolemy has only minor differences from Suryasiddhanta, which shows his system was also not geocentric in fact and had evolved out of Merucentric system in remote prehistory. Egyptian civilization had its chief origins in the south (Sudan & c) which nurtured a Meruvian civilization centred at a splendid prehistoric city Meru (in south Sudan, different from Mt Meru of Kenya), whose language is enigmatic and some experts have thought it to be related to the Indo-European language of the central Asian Kushanas. Eurocentrists are reluctant to comment on Sanskrit place names like Meru(Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania) or Kinyangiri (in Tanzania) and keep quiet on relations of Aryans to Africa, although everyone knows that all Aryans and all non-Aryans originated from central Africa ( where Brahmaa ji was believed to have created te Creation sitting atop Meru). The 28913 metre corerective is a complex term, requiring a long chapter for explanation. Even if we leave it explained, its existence cannot be ruled out, due to the difference between 5040 yojana of mandaparidhi (= 14 * 360 degrees) and Earth's circumference (1600 yojanas * pi = 5026.55 yojanas). Hence, the centre of mandaparidhi must be 34 kilometres above Earth's surface in the sky. There are other variants of Mt Meru in other 13 worlds, according to ancient wisdom. Real Meru is only one, but in every world it must have manifestations according to rules of that world. Moreover, the legth of yojana varied from aga to aga. Mahabharata's oldest stratum uses a yojana which is exactly equal to Suryasiddhantic yojana . Earth's diameter of 1600 yojanas is 12756.4 Kms, hence one Suryasiddhantic yojana is equal to 7.97274625 Kms. But during the period 400 AD-1500 AD, we have a measure of yojana nearly 1.5 (pi/2 to be exact) times greater, due to an erroneous visualization of Earth as a circular disc on a plane whose axial circumference was erroneously deduced to be double of diameter : ,mant texts used this wrong notion of Earth's circumference being ~3200 yojanas. in interpolated portions of Mahabharata, we find Jamboodvip measuring 18600 yojanas. Solar and lunar disc sizes are also inflated by same ratio in such portions of Mahabharata, which use a measure of yojana only 348 metres in length. Bhagvata-purana says Mt Meru has a height of 80000 yojanas, which can be possible only if one yojana measures only 65 millimetres (tips of four fingers joined together). Some sources say one yojana was also equal to one span of 9 inches, which seems to be a misinterpretation of 65 mm taken as one span (baalishta). You are right in suggesting that original calculation was based on Meru, but that original calculation has never been published in detail and we have to deduce it by means of analysis of existing information, in which moderners are not interested due to lack of faith in any utility of ancient mathematics. I do not want to discuss the intricacies of traditional astronomy in internet because most of members will get bored, and some of them may even start raising new controversies. Discussing practical problems of astrology will be more rewarding. But I will never neglect any of your messages, whatever be the consequences, because some persons are intelligent but scoiundrels while others are good hearted but dull, while you are both intelligent and good-hearted. Hitherto, I've failed to answer only one of your messages, which was inspired by Him, in which you had asked about Shraadha. Just a few days later, my mundane father expired, and I had to see his shraadha being performed according to rules which you had enquired about (although I kept away from rites, and did not had haircut, being a monk). Through your message, God had asked me to consult scriptures for the impending event !! Although God lives in every human heart, Bhagvata says that He is pratyaksha to sadhus in their hearts. Through your good heart, God warned me to get prepared. -VJ ================ ============== ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Friday, April 10, 2009 9:34:34 AM Re: A question ... Dear Vinay ji, Thank you! You have told us all so much more in the last two or three messages coming straight from your heart than you have over last many months! Perhaps years!! I am not sure how long you had been trying to tell and share. At the risk of irking your good self, I must ask...! Was the original calculation based on the pinnacle/tip of Meru or its base? What is Meru Parwat's elevation as given in the scriptures? Thanks. Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Rohini ji > > Suryasiddhantic planets move round Mt Meru according to many Puranas and MBh too, besides ancient Jain texts, whose actual mathematics is highly complicated and not explained in published commentaries of Suryasiddhanta. But Suryasiddhantic formulae for computing planetary positions have been so designed as to give planetary positions for Ujjain only. One may forget all about Mt Meru while computing planets. > > After we get planetary positions for Ujjain, we must carry on deshaantara samskaara for the given place, otherwise we will get wrong values of planetary positions. > > Deshaantara samskaara : > > If a planets moves 2 degrees in one day, it will move 0.5 degrees over a longitude of 90 degrees. So much correction in planetary position must be carried out to get true planets for a given place, in Suryasiddhantic scheme. This same scheme is used in vedic astrological softwares based on modern physical astronomy. But modern astronomers have nothing to do with astrology and use different system which we need not discuss here. There are good articles on those systems in Wikipedia. > > -VJ > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > Friday, April 10, 2009 9:02:27 AM > Re: A question ... > > > > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > ... Before correction for difference from locality -- deshantarik sanskara as you stated! > > Meru being a substantial parwat with some elevation -- are you calculating the values for the top of Meru Parwat or the base and does it make any difference which point you choose? > > Regards, > > Rohiniranjan > > , " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > Thanks for your email. > > > > So, it is geotopical! Centered on Mount Meru! Whether one is born in Greenland or Sidney or Ujjain, at the very same instant -- the planets would have the same longitudes! > > > > Did I understand you correctly? > > > > Thanks in advance for your confirmation or rectification. > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > Rohini ji, > > > > > > Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ > > > > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM > > > A question ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > > > > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > > > > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > > > > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Dear Vinay ji, Thank you very much for sharing so many rather engaging facts. My sincere, though belated condolences on the passing of your father. May His soul rest in everlasting peace. There will be more questions, which I shall not hesitate to raise. Best regards, Rohiniranjan , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Rohini ji, > > You are a rarity in Kaliyuga. As you quipped elsewhere, stimulus and response are correlated. If genuine questions are raised, I put forth straightforward answers as far as my knowledge goes. > > Please do not use words like : " At the risk of irking your good self ... " . I have tolerated constant abuses by a dedicated team. Why should I be irked by your sincere questions, even if I do not know answers ? > > Merucentric cosmology is the basis of Vedic-Puranic-Suryasiddhantic astronomy. Mt Meru is regarded as the centre of all 14 worlds, only one of which is manifest to human senses. This sensory world is called physical or material world. Ancients (esp spiritualists) called it Maayaa, materialists call it reality. Most recent theories of modern physics has identified three basic constituents behind all Matter termed as quarks of three colours (different from colours perceived by sense organs) in quantum chromodynamics ; ancients defined it as three colours of white Sattva, red Raja and black Tama gunas which formed all Matter. Quantum chromodynamics has no explanation of this process as yet, but scientists are sure of the existence of three types of coloured quarks.The most scientific definition of Matter is " that which can be perceived by sense organs " . Non-material things cannot be directly perceived, only their effects can be perceived. > > A Meru Parvat being the centre of all sensory and non-sensory worlds should not be merely a heap of matter, although material world must have a counterpart in material form. That material Mt Meru has a height of 5199 metres and is known as Mt Kenya now-a-days. To it, add 28923 metres of correction for the distance between the real centre of Cosmos and the tip of Mt Kenya, and you get 34113 metres, which is equal to 4.278576 Suryasiddhantic yojanas. Add it to Suryasiddhantic diameter of Earth (1600 yojanas exactly), and multiply the resultant with " pi " , you get 5040 yojanas. Its 360th part is defined as Mandaparidyamsha of the Sun in Suryasiddhanta and is equal to 14. Manda-paridhi (5040 yojanas) is circumference of the central manda-vritta in traditional Indian astronomy and was also used by Ptolemy. > > In a geocentric system, this manda paridhi must be defined merely in terms of Earth's radius and not in terms of Earth's diameter (plus 34113 metres). This incomprehensible doubling of mandaparidhi was never explained by any commentator of Suryasiddhanta or of Ptolemy's Almagest . Ptolemy has only minor differences from Suryasiddhanta, which shows his system was also not geocentric in fact and had evolved out of Merucentric system in remote prehistory. Egyptian civilization had its chief origins in the south (Sudan & c) which nurtured a Meruvian civilization centred at a splendid prehistoric city Meru (in south Sudan, different from Mt Meru of Kenya), whose language is enigmatic and some experts have thought it to be related to the Indo-European language of the central Asian Kushanas. Eurocentrists are reluctant to comment on Sanskrit place names like Meru(Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania) or Kinyangiri (in Tanzania) and keep quiet on relations of Aryans to Africa, > although everyone knows that all Aryans and all non-Aryans originated from central Africa ( where Brahmaa ji was believed to have created te Creation sitting atop Meru). > > The 28913 metre corerective is a complex term, requiring a long chapter for explanation. Even if we leave it explained, its existence cannot be ruled out, due to the difference between 5040 yojana of mandaparidhi (= 14 * 360 degrees) and Earth's circumference (1600 yojanas * pi = 5026.55 yojanas). Hence, the centre of mandaparidhi must be 34 kilometres above Earth's surface in the sky. > > There are other variants of Mt Meru in other 13 worlds, according to ancient wisdom. Real Meru is only one, but in every world it must have manifestations according to rules of that world. > > Moreover, the legth of yojana varied from aga to aga. Mahabharata's oldest stratum uses a yojana which is exactly equal to Suryasiddhantic yojana . Earth's diameter of 1600 yojanas is 12756.4 Kms, hence one Suryasiddhantic yojana is equal to 7.97274625 Kms. But during the period 400 AD-1500 AD, we have a measure of yojana nearly 1.5 (pi/2 to be exact) times greater, due to an erroneous visualization of Earth as a circular disc on a plane whose axial circumference was erroneously deduced to be double of diameter : ,mant texts used this wrong notion of Earth's circumference being ~3200 yojanas. in interpolated portions of Mahabharata, we find Jamboodvip measuring 18600 yojanas. Solar and lunar disc sizes are also inflated by same ratio in such portions of Mahabharata, which use a measure of yojana only 348 metres in length. Bhagvata-purana says Mt Meru has a height of 80000 yojanas, which can be possible only if one yojana measures only 65 millimetres > (tips of four fingers joined together). Some sources say one yojana was also equal to one span of 9 inches, which seems to be a misinterpretation of 65 mm taken as one span (baalishta). > > You are right in suggesting that original calculation was based on Meru, but that original calculation has never been published in detail and we have to deduce it by means of analysis of existing information, in which moderners are not interested due to lack of faith in any utility of ancient mathematics. > > I do not want to discuss the intricacies of traditional astronomy in internet because most of members will get bored, and some of them may even start raising new controversies. Discussing practical problems of astrology will be more rewarding. But I will never neglect any of your messages, whatever be the consequences, because some persons are intelligent but scoiundrels while others are good hearted but dull, while you are both intelligent and good-hearted. > > Hitherto, I've failed to answer only one of your messages, which was inspired by Him, in which you had asked about Shraadha. Just a few days later, my mundane father expired, and I had to see his shraadha being performed according to rules which you had enquired about (although I kept away from rites, and did not had haircut, being a monk). Through your message, God had asked me to consult scriptures for the impending event !! Although God lives in every human heart, Bhagvata says that He is pratyaksha to sadhus in their hearts. Through your good heart, God warned me to get prepared. > > -VJ > ================ ============== > > > > > ________________________________ > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan > > Friday, April 10, 2009 9:34:34 AM > Re: A question ... > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > Thank you! You have told us all so much more in the last two or three messages coming straight from your heart than you have over last many months! Perhaps years!! I am not sure how long you had been trying to tell and share. > > At the risk of irking your good self, I must ask...! Was the original calculation based on the pinnacle/tip of Meru or its base? What is Meru Parwat's elevation as given in the scriptures? > > Thanks. > > Rohiniranjan > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > > > Rohini ji > > > > Suryasiddhantic planets move round Mt Meru according to many Puranas and MBh too, besides ancient Jain texts, whose actual mathematics is highly complicated and not explained in published commentaries of Suryasiddhanta. But Suryasiddhantic formulae for computing planetary positions have been so designed as to give planetary positions for Ujjain only. One may forget all about Mt Meru while computing planets. > > > > After we get planetary positions for Ujjain, we must carry on deshaantara samskaara for the given place, otherwise we will get wrong values of planetary positions. > > > > Deshaantara samskaara : > > > > If a planets moves 2 degrees in one day, it will move 0.5 degrees over a longitude of 90 degrees. So much correction in planetary position must be carried out to get true planets for a given place, in Suryasiddhantic scheme. This same scheme is used in vedic astrological softwares based on modern physical astronomy. But modern astronomers have nothing to do with astrology and use different system which we need not discuss here. There are good articles on those systems in Wikipedia. > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ ...> > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 9:02:27 AM > > Re: A question ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jha Saheb, > > > > ... Before correction for difference from locality -- deshantarik sanskara as you stated! > > > > Meru being a substantial parwat with some elevation -- are you calculating the values for the top of Meru Parwat or the base and does it make any difference which point you choose? > > > > Regards, > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <rohini_ranjan@ ....> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > > > Thanks for your email. > > > > > > So, it is geotopical! Centered on Mount Meru! Whether one is born in Greenland or Sidney or Ujjain, at the very same instant -- the planets would have the same longitudes! > > > > > > Did I understand you correctly? > > > > > > Thanks in advance for your confirmation or rectification. > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > Rohini ji, > > > > > > > > Suryasiddhantic formulae give planetary positions for Ujjain , to which Deshaantara samskaara is added/substracted to get planetary positions for a given place. Suryasiddhantic geometrics is quite different from that of modern physical astronomy. Suryasiddhanta is neither heliocentric, nor geocentric, it is Merucentric. Mt Meru resides at surface of Earth and not at the globe-centre. Hence, there is no need of any parallax with reference to Earth's centre. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ > > > > > > > > > Friday, April 10, 2009 4:51:37 AM > > > > A question ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay ji, > > > > > > > > I realize that you are busy on many fronts, so please do not take this the wrong way, other than a genuine query. No need to answer right away but at your leisure. > > > > > > > > Over the past couple of decades on cyber-jyotish fora certain individuals have brought forth the thought that even with the 'physical' astronomy coordinates one should not use geocentric positions of the planets and lights, but geotopical (parallax-corrected positions). Now I realize that parallax-correction would only influence moon and sun more than other planets but that was precisely the point they were making because moon determines the lunar dasas in vogue. Obviously, the parallax correction would vary through out the day depending on which angle the moon is located near and so on. > > > > > > > > Is the Suryasiddhanta calculation correcting for parallax? Does it vary with the location of birth, obviously, in that case? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your time and attention, > > > > > > > > Rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.