SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES !

April 24, 2009

Dear friends,

It is very interesting to hear that SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATEIS.

Are the SIDDHANTA WERE; SIDDHI + ANTA = CONCLUSIVE PROOFS OF DIVINE POWERS OR

SIDDHI, just as VEDANTA ARE CONCLUSIVE PARTS OF OUR VEDAS.

so the planetary positions of SURYA SIDDHANTA has nothing to do with

astronomical planetary positions or ASTRONOMY.

Can it be safely assumed that ARYA BHATT USED HIS SPIRITUAL POWERS TO COMPILE

SURYA SIDDHANTIC FORMULA....RATHER THAN UTILISING PURE MATHEMATICS, TRIGONOMETRY

AND ASTRONOMY.

Does it mean that

(1)NO SIDDHANTA PRIOR TO SURYA SIDDHANTA

HAS THE CONCEPT OF AYANAMSA IN THEM ?

(2)WHICH SCIENTIFIC FACT OR ASTRONOMICAL FORMULA SHOWS THAT EARTH CAN TILT

ANYWAY(PRESENTLY IT IS AROUND 23 TO 24 DEGREE APPROXIMATELY) AND COMPLETE A FULL

CIRCLE OF CHAKRAYANA I.E. SOMEDAY (MAY BE 25,500 YEARS FROM NOW) NORTH POLE AND

SOUTH POLE CAN SWAP THEIR PLACES IN THE SPACE WITH REFERENCE TO FIXED SET OF

STARS ( BHA CHAKRA)?

Certainly a good news for the bored Penguins at the South Pole.

With regards and best wishes to all,

Mrutyunjay Tripathy

, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> AYANAMSHA : Original Definition

>

> Classical texts are NOT silent on ayanamsha. It is a topic of Siddhanta

Jyotisha and not Phalita, and is well defined in ancient Sidhhanta, although

that definition is knowingly or unknowingly being neglected by many astrologers

now.

>

> Ayanamsha is originally a Suryasiddhantic concept, in which it is defined as

libration of the " bhachakra " (orbit of lunar asterisms) within a maximum range

of 27 degrees, full cycle being of 108 degrees which is derived by multiplying

360 with 0.3 ; someone multiplied again and got a maximum value of 8 degrees

which is found in the oldest Western record in Theon of Alexandria (~4th century

AD). Later Islamic astrologers put its value aound 9 -10 degrees. Copernicus

also used this librating ayanamsha.

>

> Physical astronomy found there is no such thing as libration of the equinoxes,

and therefore removed the very notion of libration / trepidation. They were

right. Ayanamsha is not a phenomenon of physical world.

>

> Later, Colebrooke & c imposed the physical concept of precession on Indian

concept of ayanamsha. Burgess also followed this line , as did Lahiri and all

those who wrongly believe Suryasiddhanta to be a work of physical astronomy.

Unfortunately, these socalled experts did not even care to translate the

original verses of Suryasiddhanta honestly, in which ayanamsha has no relation

with movement of equinoxes, but is defined as to and fro libration of the

bhachakra. There is no means in physical astronomy through which we can test the

validity of this Suryasiddhantic claim, because there is no physical entity at

the orbit of 60 years which is said to be the orbit of bhachakra in

Suryasiddhanta, and beyond which all objects are deemed to be non-planets,

includeing Uranus, Neptune, etc.

>

> Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. This he

declared to be the zero date of ayanamsha, which was slavishly accepted by

" supporters " of physical astronomy, whio forgot that Chitra was never reference

point in any system of astrology or astronomy. The reference point is first

point of Ashvini in most cases (and Krittika in some cases like Vimshottari or

koorma Chakra), but never Chitra. This prompted Chandrahari to propound his

alternative concept of ayanamsha. Chandrahari' s view was conceptually better

than Lahiri's, but he followed the false reasonimg of Burgess who deliberately

mis-translated relevant verses of Suryasiddhanta and cited some portions of

Siddhanta Shiromani to im[pose modern concept

> of precession on Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha, because Burgess could not believe

in the existence of a trepidating equinox and guessed that the verses were

mutilated which was the duty of Burgess to rectify. In his zeal, Burgess quoted

a verse from Siddhanta Shiromani in which it was said that sampaat point has a

periodicity of once revolution per 144000 years. Burgess omitted the whole

context, which gives a formula for computing precession of the equinoxes. It was

the most accurate formula for preccession till modern times. Hipparchus had a

much crude computation, but Bhaskar's accurate formula ( ClickHere ) is never

cited by these enthusiasts.

>

> It is noteworthy that while giving an accurate period of precession,

Bhaskar-II cites Suryasiddhanta as a source of this ancient formula. This

formula of physical or Drikpakshiya worls was known to ancient experts, but they

never caleed it ayanamsha. All of them believed in the Suryasiddhantic notion of

librating ayanamsha, from India to Europe. Had they no knowledge of actual

precession, we could believe in false propaganda of Colebrooke, Burgess,

Whitney, Lahiri & c about the mistake of ancients in believing in a vibrating

equinox. But Bhaskar makes it clear that chakraayana or circular motion of

equinox in ~25500 years was known to Indians since Vedic times, he makes it

amply clear by referring to Shruti for his source of Suryasiddhantic formula of

precession of equinoxes.

>

> Before Colebrooke, Burgess, Whitney, Lahiri & c , all Indians believed in

trepidating ayanamsa, ie ayanamsha as a trepidation of bhachakra and not as

precession of equinoxes. Precession of equinox takes place along the full circle

which is known as chakraayana in ancient terminilogy, while ayanamsha moves like

a pendulum within a maximum range of +27 and -27 degrees which was known as

dolaayana. When Suryasiddhantic planetary positions and ayanamsha had great

differences with planets of physical world, Suryasiddhanta was universally

acclaimed as the best of all siddhantas. Other siddhantas were not even

preserved, while astrologically most essential portions of Suryasiddhanta have

been preserved. Suryasiddhanta deals with non-physical world or Bhuva-loka on

which deities like Surya Deva and Chandra Deva reside, whom we cannot see

sensorily, while physical planets reside in the physical world which is open to

sense perception. Hence, the only proof of

> Suryasiddhanta is its astrological test, for which Suryasiddhantic software

of horoscope can be freely downloaded from Kundalee and messages posted at

Support .

>

> -VJ

> ==================== =================

>

> ________________________________

> <gaurav.ghosh

>

> Friday, April 24, 2009 10:33:57 AM

> Re: Lahiri Ayanamsha or Raman Ayanamsha

>

> ||Jai Ramakrishna| |

> Dear Chandan,

> Like you even I also wonder, the classical works are based on which

Ayanamsha?Almost all classical texts, are silent in this issue--as they have

been interested in predictive purposes only, while hardly few works on Samhita &

Ganita areas of Astrology.

> Panchasiddhantika has been composed by Shree Mihira Acharya aka Shree Varaha

Mihira.

> However, without Sayana Values are nothing but the so-called Tropical

Ayanamsha.

> In Tropical Ayanamsha, the position of Sun is given prime importance & is in

relation with the movement of the Sun, which is again dependent on the English

Calendar, whilst in Nirayana Ayanamsha(Sidereal) is not dependent either on

English Calendar nor on the movement. Here movement of Moon is of importance,

then the calculation of distance between Sun to calculate tithis & then

calculate months & finally apply it for lunar months & solar months as well.

> Thats why you will find " Indian Sun Sign " & " Tropical Sun Sign " or " Zodiac

sign " will not match everytime.

> Thank you,

> .

> http://gauravastro.150m.com

> , " chandan486 " <wavelogix+jyotishr

emedies@ ..> wrote:

> >

> > ok .. very nice explanation . but ever tried doing a reading without

ayanamsa ? Sayana values ? even there is no mention of ayanamsa in any classical

texts such as BPHS or Jaimini Sutras , then i wonder , why so much the hype with

this ayanamsa .. ? also , i have experienced personal gains in life on dates

which are seemingly contradictory to the laws of transits based on ayanamsa but

absolutely fair based on Sayana ..

> >

> > humble regards,

> > chandan s sabarwal.

> >

>

April 24, 2009

Siddhaanta = Siddha + anta ( not Siddhi + anta) = " Proven conclusively "

<the planetary positions of SURYA SIDDHANTA has nothing to do with astronomical

planetary positions or ASTRONOMY.> Yes. Imposing PHYSICAL astronomy of material

bodies upon astrology kills astrology, and converts a perfect super-science into

a pseudo-science. Those ASTROLOGERS who looked up towards physical obejcts were

called Nakshatra-soochakas.

Aryabhatta did not compile Suryasiddhanta.

There is no proof that any Siddhanta preceded Suryasiddhanta.

Golbandhaadhikaara in Golaadhyaaya of Siddhaanta Shiromani (verses 17-19) give

the formula of precession, with explanation in Vaasanaa-bhaashya by same author

(Bhaskar-II) who ascribed this formula to Aagama and said extant text of

Suryasiddhanta does not contain this Suryasiddhantic formula.

Bhachakra is not fixed set of stars , Suryasiddhanta says bhachakra trepidates

at the rate of 54 " per year which is ayanamsha.

<Certainly a good news for the bored Penguins at the South Pole.> Thanks for the

sarcasm. The only proof of Suryasiddhanta is its astrological verification, but

some people are bored at the very mention of Suryasiddhanta. Let the Penguins

" use " it, they will at least not abuse it.

-VJ

=================== ======================

________________________________

Mrutyunjay Tripathy <astrologer_mrutyunjay

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:15:04 PM