Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Dear Krishnan Dada, The problem, if there is one, is simply what psychology has been experiencing and wrestling with over the last several scores or years? Many challenges have been posted Many Claims too Many Good Samaritans have aided and put their TAIL on live! NOW WE ALL AWAIT Patiently ... This time around, THOUGH, the 'following' has been educated to a certain extent and not exactly peasants as was the norm earlier! Evolution perhaps? I think it is real! RR , vattem krishnan <bursar_99 wrote: > > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > In your elaboration about validity of Ayanamsha concept you have mentioned that " bhachakra=ayanamsha " as could be understood from your views about your surya siddhanta as can be linked to jyotish sastra. > we also agree that jyotish sastra is a scienece and does not require any relation physical movements of astral body as studies in Astronomy > where as formula of precession(ayanamsha?) as per Bhaskra II already mentioned in Aagama,Surya siddhnta does not mention about any formula. > Some of these issues brought out mentioned also need some correlation to have proper perspective and a base to understand the mechanism of working of the planetes in relation to zodiacal system for any interpretation normally made by all of us > vrkrishnan > > --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 > Re: SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:24 AM > > 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_mrutyunj ay > > > Friday, April 24, 2009 2:15:04 PM > SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Krishnan Ji, You said : <<<your surya siddhanta>>> I quoted the text of Suryasiddhanata which makes it clear that ayanamsha was defined in terms of libration of bha-chakra. It is not " my " Suryasiddhanta. Ayanamsha re-defined in terms of precession of equinoxes is a non-Indian definition beginning from Colebrooke, who deliberately neglected or misinterpreted the exact computations of precession in Siddhanta Shiromani, in which Bhaskara-ii says this formula was Suryasiddhantic but was found by him in Aagama and not in extant version of Suryasiddhanta. Aagama is not any text, but revelation to enlightened souls. What Bhaskara-ii got from Aagama is true because his formula gives a true value of Drikpakshiya precession. Bhaskara-ii could have claimed this as his own " discovery " , but he attributed it to original Suryasiddhanta. -VJ ==================== ==================== ________________________________ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:59:27 AM Astro-psychology...! Dear Krishnan Dada, The problem, if there is one, is simply what psychology has been experiencing and wrestling with over the last several scores or years? Many challenges have been posted Many Claims too Many Good Samaritans have aided and put their TAIL on live! NOW WE ALL AWAIT Patiently ... This time around, THOUGH, the 'following' has been educated to a certain extent and not exactly peasants as was the norm earlier! Evolution perhaps? I think it is real! RR , vattem krishnan <bursar_99@. ..> wrote: > > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > In your elaboration about validity of Ayanamsha concept you have mentioned that " bhachakra= ayanamsha " as could be understood from your views about your surya siddhanta as can be linked to jyotish sastra. > we also agree that jyotish sastra is a scienece and does not require any relation physical movements of astral body as studies in Astronomy > where as formula of precession(ayanamsh a?) as per Bhaskra II already mentioned in Aagama,Surya siddhnta does not mention about any formula. > Some of these issues brought out mentioned also need some correlation to have proper perspective and a base to understand the mechanism of working of the planetes in relation to zodiacal system for any interpretation normally made by all of us > vrkrishnan > > --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:24 AM > > 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_ mrutyunj ay > > > Friday, April 24, 2009 2:15:04 PM > SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Shri Vinay Ji, Systematic study of study of siddhanta Siromani by Bhaskarii and his ability to correlate and give a formula in Agama certainly makes Surya Siddhanta as more undestandable.Westren views(in the absence of clarity in Indian Studies)regarding the precession of equinoxes are not entirely accepted and the cloud about constatnt factor continues to be debated giving liberty for some atleast to come up with different value for ayanamsa. Now the relation of ayanamsa and the value attributed to it has relation when we interpret interms of Vimsottari dasa system.It was the case even with Late BVR ayanmsa. As clarified by Shri Rohini ji,it is some what true that we make Astro Psychology approach for interpretation of results arising out of behaviour of planets.we,however in the inner circle of the holy science also try to ignore certain releveant factors for forecast and carry forward jyotish not exactly as what it was conveyed as Vedic Science but what we and our clientle have agreed to receive and understand the subject.But when questions/debate arises about the sanctity of jyotish we base our views on traditional and conventional jyotish but never would be mentioned as Astro Psychology.I feel this will continue but the only fear that looms large is whether the Vedic Science(for commercial use) is getting distorted.Any way fortunately we understand our limitation and contend to leave issues of controversy and try to go ahead with Vedic Astrology. It is now time also to experiment with new values of ayanamsha as per Surya Siddhanta and try how close/far off to realities to convince our clientele. vrkrishnan --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 Re: Astro-psychology...! Friday, April 24, 2009, 11:41 PM Krishnan Ji, You said : <<<your surya siddhanta>>> I quoted the text of Suryasiddhanata which makes it clear that ayanamsha was defined in terms of libration of bha-chakra. It is not " my " Suryasiddhanta. Ayanamsha re-defined in terms of precession of equinoxes is a non-Indian definition beginning from Colebrooke, who deliberately neglected or misinterpreted the exact computations of precession in Siddhanta Shiromani, in which Bhaskara-ii says this formula was Suryasiddhantic but was found by him in Aagama and not in extant version of Suryasiddhanta. Aagama is not any text, but revelation to enlightened souls. What Bhaskara-ii got from Aagama is true because his formula gives a true value of Drikpakshiya precession. Bhaskara-ii could have claimed this as his own " discovery " , but he attributed it to original Suryasiddhanta. -VJ ============ ======== ============ ======== ____________ _________ _________ __ Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan@ hotmail.com> Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:59:27 AM Astro-psychology. ..! Dear Krishnan Dada, The problem, if there is one, is simply what psychology has been experiencing and wrestling with over the last several scores or years? Many challenges have been posted Many Claims too Many Good Samaritans have aided and put their TAIL on live! NOW WE ALL AWAIT Patiently ... This time around, THOUGH, the 'following' has been educated to a certain extent and not exactly peasants as was the norm earlier! Evolution perhaps? I think it is real! RR , vattem krishnan <bursar_99@. ..> wrote: > > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > In your elaboration about validity of Ayanamsha concept you have mentioned that " bhachakra= ayanamsha " as could be understood from your views about your surya siddhanta as can be linked to jyotish sastra. > we also agree that jyotish sastra is a scienece and does not require any relation physical movements of astral body as studies in Astronomy > where as formula of precession(ayanamsh a?) as per Bhaskra II already mentioned in Aagama,Surya siddhnta does not mention about any formula. > Some of these issues brought out mentioned also need some correlation to have proper perspective and a base to understand the mechanism of working of the planetes in relation to zodiacal system for any interpretation normally made by all of us > vrkrishnan > > --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:24 AM > > 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_ mrutyunj ay > > > Friday, April 24, 2009 2:15:04 PM > SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Dear Rohini Dada, What You have mentioned is trade secret(but now made open) and is honest approach.What our seers thought about " Vedic " is no more as such.Since we try to extract from the science of Nine Planets many issues and try to find some order in the system this makes un easy f.So we also bring into Psychology for our enforcing our views. vrkrishnan --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan wrote: Rohiniranjan <rohini_ranjan Astro-psychology...! Friday, April 24, 2009, 11:29 PM Dear Krishnan Dada, The problem, if there is one, is simply what psychology has been experiencing and wrestling with over the last several scores or years? Many challenges have been posted Many Claims too Many Good Samaritans have aided and put their TAIL on live! NOW WE ALL AWAIT Patiently ... This time around, THOUGH, the 'following' has been educated to a certain extent and not exactly peasants as was the norm earlier! Evolution perhaps? I think it is real! RR , vattem krishnan <bursar_99@. ..> wrote: > > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > Dear Shri Vinay Ji > In your elaboration about validity of Ayanamsha concept you have mentioned that " bhachakra= ayanamsha " as could be understood from your views about your surya siddhanta as can be linked to jyotish sastra. > we also agree that jyotish sastra is a scienece and does not require any relation physical movements of astral body as studies in Astronomy > where as formula of precession(ayanamsh a?) as per Bhaskra II already mentioned in Aagama,Surya siddhnta does not mention about any formula. > Some of these issues brought out mentioned also need some correlation to have proper perspective and a base to understand the mechanism of working of the planetes in relation to zodiacal system for any interpretation normally made by all of us > vrkrishnan > > --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote: > > Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> > Re: SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:24 AM > > 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_ mrutyunj ay > > > Friday, April 24, 2009 2:15:04 PM > SIDDHANTA WERE NOT ASTRONOMICAL TREATIES ! > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.