Fwd: The Astronomical Basis of the Catur Yuga System

[Guest guest]

HinduCalendar , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Dear Jshwardas ji,

Nalika, Khatika are the same. In south india the same is known as

'Nazhika' now as well.

i.e. Nalika = Nazhika = Khatika = 1/60 th of a day.

The sexagesimal subdivision of the same is ,

Vinazhika = Vikhatika = 1/60 th of Khatika/Nazhika/Nalika

 

The instrument for measuring Nalika/Nazhika is known as Nazhika vatta

(circular hourglass like instrument for measuring Nazhika) in south

India. Exactly the same which is described by Vishnugupta in

Arthasastra.

 

P.S: Vishnugupta, Kautilya and Canakya are different individuals;

Vishnugupta wrote Arthasastra. Kautilya and Canakya are scholars of

Arthasastra and Neetisastra who lived prior to Vishnugupta and wrote

texts on the same as evident from Arthasastra itself.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

 

HinduCalendar , " Ishwardas "

<ishwardas.prakash173@> wrote:

>

> Shri A K Kaul ji,

>

> Namaskar!

>

> 1 Unfortunately, your reply does not appear to address the

important

> points which I raised in my message #2127 of July 13, 2007, in

reply

> to your objections.

>

> Moreover, what is the astronomical basis for the assertion that the

> Vedas were written in Kali Yuga?

>

> Are we to take the western view that the Vedas were composed a few

> thousand years ago or the Hindu view according to which the Vedas

are

> eternal?

>

> The fact is that, in Hindu tradition, the Vedas are a manifestation

> of Pranava which is Shabdabrahman. As such they are eternal. Thus

> there can be no question of the Vedas being written at a particular

> time.

>

> We must be careful not to confuse " written " in the sense of

> (a) " recorded in written form " with " written " in the sense of

> (b) " composed " .

>

> That the Vedas must have been written down in sense (a) at some

point

> in time is obvious. In sense (b), on the other hand, they were

never

> composed but perceived through their spiritual faculties by the

> Rishis and transmitted to mankind in the same way as, for example,

a

> distant star which is as old as the universe and normally invisible

> to the naked eye might be seen by an astronomer by means of a

> telescope and its existence subsequently communicated by him to

> others.

>

> 2 Regarding the beginning of Kali Yuga I would like to draw your

> attention to the fact that it is traditionally linked with certain

> planetary alignments as well as with Shri Krishna's departure from

> this world. On what basis are we to reject either the said

planetary

> alignments or Shri Krishna's departure?

>

> Until the above issue has been scholarly resolved, we may

> concentrate on the larger picture which is the measurement of time

in

> Yugas – to which you are objecting.

>

> Please see my reply to your objections in message #2127 of July 13,

> 2007, to which I would like to add the following observations.

>

> As far as I am aware there seems to be a rising interest among

> physicists and cosmologists in the theory of recurring or cyclical

> universes (see Ashtekar, Bojowald and others) – which, I may add,

is

> consistent with the conservation of energy and other accepted

> scientific facts regarding the physical world.

>

> Suppose in 10, 20 or 60 years from now this theory gains wide

> scientific acceptance. Who will then be the laughing stock of whom?

>

> The fact is that there is more to Hindu Dharma than astronomy.

> Therefore, we must be careful not to seek to reduce Hindu spiritual

> teachings to astronomical observations or make them conform to non-

> Hindu beliefs about the universe.

>

> You are asserting that references to the Catur Yuga system in the

> Puranas and other Shastras are later " interpolations " . Firstly, it

is

> difficult to see how such interpolations would have been inserted

in

> the Manu Smriti and other Shastras which predate Aryabhata.

>

> Secondly, even on the hypothesis that these references are actual

> interpolations, they could not have been the work of one man. If

> these interpolations found their way into our Shastras this could

> only have happened if they were accepted by the religious scholars

of

> the time. And if they accepted them, what reason do we have to

reject

> them? The teachings concerning the Catur Yugas are certainly not

> contrary to Hindu Dharma.

>

> The doubt as to why the Catur Yuga system is found in the Puranas

but

> not in the Vedas is understandable. However, I would like to

suggest

> a very simple answer.

>

> As per the Manu Smriti, I, 23, and other Shastras, the Vedas are

for

> the performance of yajnas. The Rig Veda, in particular, is for

> Brahmins who specialise in yajnas. It is not meant for the

> uninitiated masses. This is why, as per the Manu Smriti (IV, 99,

> etc.) the Vedas were not considered suitable for Shudras – who were

> uninitiated. Indeed, even today, it is difficult for outsiders to

> fully understand the Vedas without specialist guidance.

>

> Apart from the fact that the Yugas would naturally have been known

to

> Brahmins, no special mention of the same was required in the Vedas

> for the purpose of yajnas. Hence it ought to be obvious that there

> was no need for the Vedas to mention Yugas.

>

> In contrast, the Puranas had a totally different function. They

were

> meant for the instruction and enlightenment of the masses hence

they

> contain many details and narratives for that specific purpose which

> are not given in the Vedas. And this includes the Yugas. Thus it is

> self-evident that the Puranas in no way contradict the Vedas but

> complement them. Nor must we forget the fact that the Puranas are

> called " Puranas " precisely because they are ancient.

>

> To return to the sexagesimal system given in the Tantraloka and the

> Shiva Purana. It is beyond dispute that a sexagesimal system of

> timekeeping is in agreement with the Vedas where mention is made of

> six seasons (of sixty days each) and a year of 360 days (literally,

> 720 " sons " or day and nights: Rig Veda, I, 164, 11, etc.).

>

> This sexagesimal system is also found in the Arthashastra (2.20.29-

> 34, 36) where a Nalika is given as the basic unit of time.

>

> A Nalika is there defined (2.20.25) as " the time it takes for one

> adhaka (1.87kg or litres) of water to flow out of a pot through a

> hole of the same diameter as that of a wire 4 angulas long made out

> of 4 mashas of gold. This would be a hole approximately 0.6mm

> diameter (23 or 24 gauge wire). Kangle [The Kautiliya Arthashastra,

> 1966] gives the definition `Two nalikas make a muhurta' " (The

> Arthashastra, translated by L. N. Rangarajan, 1987, p.772).

> Evidently, a Nalika is identical to a Ghatika as defined in the

Surya-

> Siddhanta, Ch. XIII, v. 23, viz. as the 60th part of a day and

night.

>

> What is essential to bear in mind is that: (a) both units of time,

> that is, the Nalika and the Ghatika, amount to the 60th part of a

day

> and night, and as this is the basic unit of time, it follows that

we

> are dealing with a sexagesimal system of timekeeping; and (b) as

the

> Arthashastra is no later than 150 CE, the above system predates

> Aryabhata.

>

> Further on the evidence of the Arthashastra (20.20.37, 38) it is

> evident that Indian astronomers were aware of solstices and

equinoxes

> which indicates that they must have been aware of the precession of

> the equinoxes too.

>

> It follows that knowledge of the precessional lag combined with a

> sexagesimal number-system could easily have resulted in the concept

> of Catur Yuga or Maha Yuga of 4320000 years. For, 4320000 is

nothing

> but 4320 (the number of years required by the precessional lag to

> gain 60 degrees) multiplied by 1000 – a very simple mathematical

> calculation of which I am confident our Hindu ancestors must have

> been capable. I am equally confident that you will admit this much.

>

> In consequence, the concept of Catur Yuga or Maha Yuga need not

have

> been borrowed from the Babylonians or introduced by Aryabhata.

> Moreover, it is as valid a unit of time as the millennium which is

> nothing but one year (the time required by the sun's apparent

motion

> in relation to the earth to complete its journey and return to the

> starting point) multiplied by 1000.

>

> Here is an interesting piece of information of which you may

already

> be aware. The 7th century Syrian bishop Severus Sebokt, though

> a " mleccha " and a Christian, was an educated man – as many bishops

> were. He was familiar with Greek, Babylonian and Indian science.

> Irritated by the belief that Greek learning was superior to that of

> other civilisations, he wrote a short article in 662 CE for the

> purpose of refuting this belief. The following is an excerpt from

the

> manuscript published by F. Nau in " Notes d'astronomie indienne " . JA

> 10/16: pp. 209ff. Paris, 1910, quoted in Georges Ifrah, The

Universal

> History of Numbers, Volume II, p. 719:

>

> " `The Hindus who are not even Syrians, have made subtle discoveries

> in the field of astronomy which are even more ingenious than those

of

> the Greeks and the Babylonians; [….] their skillful methods of

> calculation and their computing belies description' " .

>

> In other words, while medieval " mlecchas " held Hindu science in

high

> regard, thirteen centuries on, we ourselves seem to have nothing

> better to do than dismiss our own tradition as " inventions borrowed

> from the Greeks " .

>

> My only concern is that, should this " progressive " trend be allowed

> to come to its natural conclusion, we shall soon discard our Hindu

> traditions altogether and celebrate Yugadi at Winter Solstice – or

> Christmas Eve.

>

> With regards,

>

> IP

>

> (Ishwardas Prakash)

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

HinduCalendar , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Please correct the following typo while reading - " Thus Nalika is

nothing but today's Nadika, 1/60 th of a sign " should be read

as " Thus Nalika is nothing but today's Nadika, 1/60 th of a DAY "

 

Love,

Sreenadh

 

HinduCalendar , " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote:

>

> Dear Ishwardas ji,

> * The mention of Yuga related number 4320000000 is present in the

> Vedas itself.

> * " Nalika/Nazhika/Ghatika " . It does not end there - the standard

> word used to indicate the same even in current day sanskrit

> is 'Nadika' and the 1/60th subdivision is termed 'Vinadika'.

Remember

> the Rigvedic sloka which could be read 'Agnimeele purohitam'

> or 'Agnimeede purohitam'. 'la-da yorabheda' (la and da are the same

> and is interchangable) is the vyakarana suggestion concerning the

> same. Thus Nalika is nothing but today's Nadika, 1/60 th of a sign.

> It is errornious even to compare the this word loaded with

tradition

> withe the new boran child of Hinidi language 'Ghatika'. Yes,

those

> who are viewing things superfluesly like Koul ji, and want to be

> satisfied with that may take 'Ghatika/Khatika' and discard

> the 'Nalika/Nadika' as of now value - possibly his view is blured,

> with pre-conceived notions.

> * Asuras lived at the other side of Sarasvati (Ghakkar-Hakkra)

> river. Sea lord Varuna was their major lord, and they worshiped

> Mitra, Siva, Azhura Medha (Ahur Mazda) etc as well. They used the

> word Deva to denote bad (devilish) people; and used the

> term 'Rakshasa' against them as well (as proved by archeological

> evidances). Adharva and Avaste could be part of their Vedas. This

is

> the Agama (the one which came) culture which came to the Kashmir

> vally and settled there for long (as evident from Harappan site),

and

> practiced Yoga and Tantra. This tradition gave importance to Yoga

> than Yaga; And covered a very vast region of earth including

> Babylonia, Asseria, Harappa, Kambodia etc for long - branching into

> various traditions and groups. Thus this culture covered

Afghanistan,

> Pakistan, Iran, Grease and many more countries in this region as

per

> current map.

> * Suras lived at this side of Sarasvati river, and thir land is

> known as Brahmavarta. Indra was their major lord, and they

worshiped

> Mitra, Vishnu etc as well. They used the word Asura to denote bad

> people; and used the term 'Rakshasa' against them as well. Trayi

veda

> (Rig, Yajur, Sama) was their Vedas. This is the Nigama (the one

which

> flowed out) culture which flowed out from the Sarasvati region to

the

> Ganges planes; especially to Nepal/Bihar. Khalibengan archeological

> site belongs to this culture, and they practiced Yaga. Unlike

asuras,

> this tradition usually avoided sea travel, but succeeded in

> preserving their sacred texts, language and knowledge through the

> Vedic literature.

> * Both the above cultures are very indian in nature. Apart from

them

> the Contributions of Budha religion originated around BC 1800 and

the

> Jain religion which has the same antiquity as Vedas (Rishba deva is

> mentioned in Vedas) should be valued; along with the contributions

of

> many other streams including Dravidians of south india.

> ==>

> > Indeed, if we consider that Ancient India included Pakistan and

> > Afghanistan, it is clear that the two cultures, India and Sumer,

> > were practically next-door neighbours. Perhaps the two cultures

> > developed a system of timekeeping jointly after which the

Sumerians

> > emphasised sexagesimal calculation with some decimal elements

> > whereas India emphasised decimal calculation with some

sexagesimal

> > elements, in particular, in timekeeping.

> <==

> I would better like to say Suras (Indians) and Asuras (Pakistan,

> Afghanistan, Babylonia, Asseria etc) shared many common elements of

> culture and great rivalry; even though they where next door

neighbors

> to each other; but one never destroyed the other, but rather merged

> into one another later in India at least. But sadly the major Asura

> cultural streams failed to preserve their ancient texts and

history,

> even though the Tantra and Yoga got preserved and handed over to us

> even to the current generation. The sexagesimal system, predictive

> astrology, signs such as Mesha, Surya sidhanta etc are all

> contributions of this culture. Even texts like Parasurama

Kalpasutra,

> Sulba sutra etc could be the contribution of this culture as well.

> Only the Egyptian culture could have more antiquity than these

> cultures. Note that the living tribes and people gains a mythical

> nature after much time only; the same happened with Suras and

Asuras

> by the time compilation of Vedas, Mahabharata etc; indicating that

> much time flowed below the bridge prior to that itself.

>

> P.S: Kaul ji, please note that there is nothing in the texts that

are

> attributed to Yavana Astrologers (Sphujidhwaja, Meenaraja etc) that

> indicates a greek origin. Gujarat is Zaourashtra; the land to which

> the people of Zourashtrar came; and the gods worshiped by Meenaraja

> in his text is Siva as the protector or Yamala!! – Is it not clear

> that it is Agama/Tantric culture with Afghanic/Ancient-

> Iranian/Harappan roots? The same goes true for Sphujidwaja who too

> reflects the vedic knowledge. Just based on the name, and the

> word `Yavana' please don't misinterpret them as Greeks; the

> word `yavana' has a long history and as per Sukraneeti the word

> means `Non-vedic theist/gnostic people'; i.e. people who don't

value

> the Vedas (Trayi veda – Rig, Yajur, Sama) but who believe in god.

Any

> individual who fits into this definition is Yavana. Yes,

> normally `Yavana' is a Mlechha (foreigner; Harappan; Individual

> living outside India, beyond the Sarasvati river). The names

> Sphujidhwaja and Meenaraja could be Zourashtrian names written in

> Sanskrit.

> Regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> HinduCalendar , " Ishwardas "

> <ishwardas.prakash173@> wrote:

> >

> > Shri A K Kaul ji,

> >

> > Namaskar!

> >

> > The arguments advanced in favour of a reformed Hindu calendar are

> > fairly convincing. The arguments for the abolishment of the Catur

> > Yuga system are not.

> >

> > For example, the fact that the term " Yuga " referred to a period

of

> > five years does not amount to proof that the Catur Yuga system

was

> a

> > late introduction.

> >

> > To begin with, the primary meaning of " Yuga "

> > is " yoke " , " team " , " group " . It refers to a plurality of things

and

> is

> > not intrinsically connected with the number five. Which is

> precisely

> > why it came to mean age or period of many years (see Atharva

Veda,

> > etc.).

> >

> > In the Gita (4:8), Shri Krishna says, " sambhavaami yuge yuge " (I

> take

> > birth in Age after Age). Obviously, " Yuga " here cannot be

> reasonably

> > interpreted as " five years " . On the contrary, it is evident that

it

> > refers to a large span of time and indicates that belief in Yugas

> in

> > the sense of recurring Ages was already prevalent in India long

> > before Aryabhatta.

> >

> > Indeed, the Buddhists also believe in Yugas but ascribe to them

> > different names (Kalpas) and numbers of years. Similarly, the

Jains

> > have not four but twelve ages (six of decline and six of

progress).

> > It is clear, therefore, that they did not borrow their system

from

> > Aryabhatta. If Jains and Buddhists did not borrow their ages from

> > Aryabhatta, why should we suspect the Hindus of doing it?

> >

> > A more plausible explanation is that the concept of Yugas or

Kalpas

> > formed part of established Indian culture which took different

> forms

> > in different traditions and different historical periods.

> Aryabhatta

> > himself may have calculated the beginning of Kali Yuga, length of

> > Maha Yuga, etc., in consonance with established Hindu tradition.

> >

> > In fact, you yourself are implicitly admitting this in your

> statement

> > that " Maya the mleccha, after having understood the ethos of the

> > Hindus " . In other words, Maya had knowledge of Hindu traditions.

> >

> > Nor can we escape the fact that 4320000 represents the number of

> > years covered by a precessional lag of 60 degrees, that is 4320,

> > multiplied by 1000.

> >

> > In summation, the following may be stated:

> >

> > 1 There is insufficient scientific evidence in support of the

view

> > that the belief in recurrent or cyclical universes is contrary to

> > fact.

> >

> > 2 The Catur Yuga system of timekeeping is as scientifically sound

> as

> > the conventional method. In addition, it is spiritually

meaningful.

> >

> > 3 There is no logical or scientific reason why we should not

> > calculate Kali Yuga as commencing 5109 years ago. Are the western

> > ages of CE (AD) and BCE (BC) any more scientific? Considering

that

> > Christ probably never existed, I think not.

> >

> > It follows from the above facts that there are insufficient

grounds

> > to reject either the Catur Yuga system or the Kali Samvat

calendar.

> >

> > Last but not least, I wish to thank Shri Sreenadh ji for the

> valuable

> > contribution regarding the " Nalika " and " Mleccha " . These are

valid

> > points which must be taken into consideration.

> >

> > The Indian tradition of " Nalika/Nazhika/Ghatika " in conjunction

> with

> > six seasons of 60 days each, 360-day year, etc. as found in the

Rig

> > Veda demonstrates the existence of sexagesimal timekeeping long

> > before Greek/Babylonian influence. This tradition is in harmony

> with

> > both the 360 degrees of the equinoctial precession and the Catur

> Yuga

> > system.

> >

> > Regarding the Arthashastra, irrespective of the author's or

> > commentator's name, the translator L. N. Rangarajan opines, on

the

> > internal evidence of the text itself, that it is " not later than

> 150

> > A. D. " which clearly places it before the time of Aryabhatta.

> >

> > As pointed out by the late Prof. Joseph Campbell (1962),

> > the " Mlecchas " were probably the Ancient Meluhhans with which

> Ancient

> > Mesopotamia traded ivory, wood and copper as far back as 2350 BC.

> > Thus mutual cultural exchange between India and Mesopotamia

(which

> > also had a sexagesimal number-system) seems to be demonstrated.

It

> > explains the many similarities scholars have noted between the

two

> > cultures and excludes the need of Babylonian influence on India

via

> > the Greeks.

> >

> > Indeed, if we consider that Ancient India included Pakistan and

> > Afghanistan, it is clear that the two cultures, India and Sumer,

> were

> > practically next-door neighbours. Perhaps the two cultures

> developed

> > a system of timekeeping jointly after which the Sumerians

> emphasised

> > sexagesimal calculation with some decimal elements whereas India

> > emphasised decimal calculation with some sexagesimal elements, in

> > particular, in timekeeping.

> >

> > With regards,

> >

> > Ishwardas

> >

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

HinduCalendar , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Dear Ishwardas ji,

Aryabhata was a Jain as is clear from the mention of Jain style

system of 'Yuga that is Apasarpini' in Aryabhateeya. His yuga is of

the proportion 1:1:1:1 and is is a deviation from the 4:3:2:1 style

of

the Indian system. Many tried hard to ascribe the knowledge of

Aryabhata (Note arya bhatta; but only bhata) to brahmins - even by

misinterpreting his words.

The circumference of earth provided by any astronomer would be

based

on the measurements made at his native place; and this clear logic

can

give the BT latitude of any astronomer who provided the circumference

of earth. Bye this logic Aryabhata lived in Kerala 10 deg 55 min.

I would say that in a way Kaul ji's retort against Aryabhata is

good

- because we should know that it based on the Aryabhata's yuga system

and reference to bharata that people derive the Mahabharata war year

to be 3102 BC!

* Bharata (a king's name; Brother of Bahubali) is misinterpreted to

Maha bhaarata war!

If this lone reference is gone - the year BC 3102 ascribed to

Mahabharta war becomes baseless!!

So I would suggest that Kaul ji should keep up his fight against

Aryabhatta; Yuga and what not! As an outcome of course new facts

will come up.

With the Devanagari script that came up and become popular just

around AD 200 - 400; and a made up books and history these brahimis

had made mess of indian histroy already! Ofcourse this mess would be

cleared at least to an extend and the real contributions of many

including Harappans;Jains;Buddists;Zourashtrians;Babylonians etc will

come up.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

HinduCalendar , " Ishwardas "

<ishwardas.prakash173@> wrote:

>

> Shri A K Kaul ji,

>

> Namaskar!

>

> It is imperative to understand that we cannot blame everything on

> Aryabhatta, nor can we re-invent Hindu tradition on the basis of

what

> we believe our ancestors to have borrowed from him, in particular,

in

> the absence of conclusive evidence.

>

> As pointed out by G. Ifrah in his Universal History of Numbers,

> Volume II, p. 1000, " from what is known today, it is impossible to

> establish whether there is any link between Aryabhatta's yugas and

> the cosmic periods of the Mediterranean world " or " whether it was

a

> spontaneous idea, or drawn from a revival of the Great Year

432,000

> years long of the Babylonian astronomer Berossus, or even inspired

by

> a wholly verbal, strictly arithmetical speculation. "

>

> In other words, from a scholarly viewpoint, the evidence is

> insufficient to conclusively attribute the Hindu Yugas to either

> Aryabhatta or the Babylonians. On strict logic, if the Sumerians

> discovered the precession of the equinoxes and the associated

Great

> Year, so could have their Indian neighbours.

>

> What is the evidence that Hindu Yugas are derived from

Aryabhatta's

> theories? Aryabhatta does equate 1 Maha Yuga with 4320000 years

which

> is the same as the traditional Hindu Maha Yuga (= Catur Yuga).

> However, as we shall presently see, this does not constitute proof

> for the purpose of the present discussion.

>

> For, we know from historical evidence that the Babylonians had a

> Great Year of 432000 years already at the time of the priest and

> astronomer Berossus (4th-3rd century BC). Thus the figure 432000

was

> not of Aryabhatta's own creation. Indeed, 4320 is the number of

years

> required by the precessional lag to cover 60 degrees.

>

> As Professors H. V. Hilprecht (1906) and J. Campbell (1962)

pointed

> out, the Sumerians had probably recognised the equinoctial

> precession " as early as the third or perhaps even fourth

millennium

> B. C. "

>

> Historical evidence also shows that Ancient Sumer and Ancient

India

> maintained trade links with each other in the third millennium BC.

> Apart from the geographical proximity to each other, especially

among

> neighbours like Sumer and India, trade links usually involve

> diplomatic and cultural links. Thus it cannot be claimed that

Sumer

> and India were culturally, scientifically and technologically

> completely isolated from each other.

>

> On the contrary, if the Sumerians had knowledge of the precession

of

> the equinoxes in the fourth or third millennium BC as Hilprecht

and

> Campbell suggested, then by the time of Aryabhatta Indians had had

> over two millennia time to either learn about the precession of

the

> equinoxes and related Great Year of 432000 years from their

Sumerian

> neighbours or discover it for themselves!

>

> On the evidence of astronomic monuments found in Europe (Goseck,

> Germany) and elsewhere, we know that prehistoric man had accurate

> knowledge of solstices and equinoxes as long ago as 5000 BC.

> Knowledge of equinoxes logically resulted in knowledge of the

> precession of the equinoxes. And knowledge of the precession of

the

> equinoxes logically resulted in the figure 4320 which is the

number

> of years required by the precessional lag to reach 60 degrees.

>

> Thus 4320 naturally became a unit of time which when multiplied by

> 100, resulted in 432000, that is the Babylonian Great Year and,

when

> multiplied by 1000, resulted in 4320000, that is the Hindu Maha

> Yuga.

>

> It is of course legitimate to raise the question as to what was so

> special about 60 degrees. The answer is that 60 was a special

number

> due to the fact that, for millennia, time had been measured in two-

> month spans of 60 days.

>

> One of the reasons for this was that a lunar day is shorter than

the

> standard day by 1/30th causing a loss of one day every two months.

To

> make up for this loss, one day would have been added every two

months

> to the total number of days counted. This resulted in the

> establishment of a two-month period (= 60 days) as a unit of time –

 

> hence also the Hindu year of 6 seasons of 60 days each.

>

> As G. Ifrah has shown, the sexagesimal number-system is also

linked

> with the non-literate form of finger-counting whereby the right

thumb

> is used to count the phalanxes of the four remaining fingers of

that

> hand. Discounting the thumb, there are four fingers of three

> phalanxes each, giving a total of twelve phalanxes representing

> twelve units of whatever it is that we are counting. The left hand

is

> then used to count twelve units for each of the five fingers

> resulting in the sum of sixty (12 x 5 = 60).

>

> 60 is also important due to the fact that 60 months equals 5 years

> (of 12 months each): 5 x 12 = 60. Thus 60 naturally lent itself to

> both finger-counting and timekeeping.

>

> Now, sexagesimal counting combined with knowledge of the

equinoctial

> precession naturally resulted in a time unit of 4320 years. It is

an

> accepted fact that the precessional lag is 1 degree in 72 years.

Thus

> 72 x 60 = 4320.

>

> As already observed, 4320 when multiplied by 100 results in 432000

> years (1 Babylonian Great Year = 1 Hindu Kali Yuga) and when

> multiplied by 1000 results in 4320000 years (1 Hindu Maha Yuga or

> Catur Yuga).

>

> Indeed, even without knowledge of the equinoctial precession, the

> figure 4320 may be arrived at as follows. It is common knowledge

that

> the Sumerians divided their year into 72 five-day weeks (to which

> they added five days at the end of the year). If we now multiply

72

> by the basic numeral 60, we obtain 4320, that is the number of

weeks

> comprised in a span of 60 years.

>

> More specifically, the question which must be asked is whether

there

> is any simple and obvious way in which 4320 may be arrived at on

the

> basis of numbers pertaining to Hindu tradition as given, for

example,

> in the Vedas. If the answer is in the affirmative, then there will

be

> no need to attribute it to Aryabhatta, Babylonians or any other

> extraneous source.

>

> The fact is that, in the Rig Veda, Mandala 1, 164:11-12, we find

the

> number 720 which evidently stands for 360 days and 360 nights of a

> year, as well as " six-spoked car " which refers to the six seasons.

> Multiplying six seasons by 720 we obtain 4320: 6 x 720 = 4320.

>

> The same may also be obtained by multiplying 360 (days of the

year)

> by 12 (months, etc.): 360 x 12 = 4320. We know that the Catur Yuga

is

> said to last 12000years of the Gods. If we multiply 12000 by 360

we

> obtain 4320000 years. Thus the number 4320000 may be obtained

through

> very simple arithmetical calculations in more than one way.

>

> In any case, these calculations are very easy to understand if we

> remember to apply the sexagesimal number-system. It is therefore

> unreasonable to claim that Indians who had created the Indus and

> Saraswati Civilisation millennia ago would have been incapable of

> making the same discoveries as their Sumerian neighbours and had

to

> wait for Maya, Aryabhatta and the Greeks to enlighten them!

>

> Considering that India has a long tradition of knowledge

transmitted

> orally from guru to shishya, I am personally inclined to the view

> that – as suggested by G. Ifrah – Aryabhatta himself must have

been

> influenced by certain strands of such oral tradition.

>

> The presence of such a tradition in India is suggested by two

facts:

>

> 1 the term " Yuga " is found in Hindu Shastras predating

Aryabhatta;

>

> 2 the Hindu Yugas are not the same as those of Aryabhatta; for

while

> the Hindu Yugas amount to 432000, 864000, 1296000 and 1728000

> respectively, Aryabhatta's are all equal in length, namely,

1080000

> years, hence the Hindu Yugas must have originated elsewhere.

>

> It is an established fact that one of the principal differences

> between Sumerian and Indian civilisations was that while the

former

> recorded everything in writing, the latter relied on oral

> communication. The very nature of oral tradition explains the

> apparent absence of the Yugas in written texts.

>

> However, as remarked earlier, a tradition revolving on Yugas as

long

> periods of time is already found in the Atharva Veda and the Gita.

> The Atharva Veda says: " A hundred years, ten thousand years, two,

> three, four Ages (Yugas) do we allot to you " (VIII.2.21).

>

> If we combine this with what we know about sexagesimal counting

and

> timekeeping it becomes apparent that the Catur Yuga system must

have

> formed part of Hindu tradition from the very beginning.

>

> I have thus demonstrated that: (a) far from being irrational

> invention, the Maha Yuga or Catur Yuga is natural, logical,

> scientific, and based on accurate astronomical observation; and

(b)

> it was not invented by Aryabhatta.

>

> What remains to be established is why Kali Yuga is said to have

begun

> on the traditional date of 18 February 3102 BC. Should a valid

> explication for this date be established, there would be no more

> reason to object to it than there is for objecting to the western

> A.D.-B.C. (or C.E.-B.C.E.) eras.

>

> With regards,

>

> Ishwardas

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

HinduCalendar , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

 

Dear Kaul ji,

Thanks for trying to protect Hugs.

 

As you rightly said I am not a Jain; and I took birth in Kerala;

and to add I am a Hindu Nair by caste as per society; but I don't

think I have neither a cast nor a religion. After seeing that

retort I wonder, why people are so much against Jains and why and

how they become this much fundamentalists! Every religion has its

merits - let is be Jain, Buddist, Hindu, Christian, Zorashtrian, or

anything else. It is not the religions but the enlightened people in

it and the beautiful concepts they put forward and the realization

they had is most important. While discussing knowledge input

generated by or part of these traditions - the name of religion is

used just for the name sake for classification purpose. By the

way I would love to be a true Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or

anything else ; or better a Mahaveera, Buddha, Krishna, Christ my

self. But alas! I don't think I have that much caliber or merit.

The point is every sect should get the merit they deserve - due to

their knowledge input or contributions they have given to the

society. Making everything brahmenian by theft or crook - is just

the nature of a malicious thief as it is. Be with the truth - and

don't be blinked by the caste and creeds - may be this is a point we

all should remember.

As Kaul ji rightly mentioned about the Hindu Calendar and Ancient

Indian Astrology - " Both these forums are un-moderated

for posts and any opinions expressed by anybody are usually debated

thoroughly even if it is just one member who responds to those

views " . People are unique (They should be! And that is what make

them real 'individuals') and usually so would be their views. We are

all friends presenting our own views based on our knowledge,

information, logic and convictions - some may accept it, some may

not. But it is the garden with various flowers that makes the garden

a beautiful one. Yes, the point is the individuals should be like

flowers spreading the fragments of their search, efforts, logic,

thoughts - and in essence the integrity of their own understanding

about the subject under discussion.

 

Kaul ji knows this I think, and I know I know. Dear Bhalchandra

(G. Thattey) ji, If you see Kaul ji's and my arguments you will see

that we are poles apart in our views regarding many things, but the

respect remains - for the efforts and contributions done by the

other. The respect I feel for Kaul ji is not for the person but for

the efforts he puts in pursuing his research, and the openness to

share the rewards with all (Eg. His software and knowledge sharing).

I think the concern of Kaul ji towards me also would be the same.

Yes, it is not the persons who matter but the subejct under

discussion - the common subjects of interest discussed are the

common threads that connect us. So be happy and enjoy!

Love,

Sreenadh

 

HinduCalendar , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved@> wrote:

>

> hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> <jyotirved@> wrote:

>

> Sarvashree Bhalachandra Thattey and Dr. Anand M. Sharan ji,

> Namaskar!

> The views about Aryabhata had been expressed by Shri Sreenadh at

> HinduCalendar forum. He is, to the best of my knowledge, not a

Jain

> himself and hails from Kerala! He is the owner/moderator of

> http://groups/yaho.com

> forum and is a member of

> HinduCalendar

> frorum. The latter one is " owned " by me, though just notionally!

> Both these forums, like hinducivilization, are un-moderated for

> posts and any opinions expressed by anybody are usually debated

> throughly even if it is just one member who responds to those

views.

> I am forwarding your views to Shri Sreenadh.

>

> In any case, it remains an undisputed fact that Aryabhata had

> purloined the fundamental arguments of all the planets from the

> original Surya Sidhanta as given in the Pancha Sidhantika and it

is

> that very system that is known as ardha-ratrika system, since the

> much debated yet elusive and non-existent Kaliyuga is suppoed to

> have started at " ardharatri " i.e. midnight, (that also Ujjain mean

> time!) on February 17/18, 3102 BC. Later, he manipulated these

very

> funamental arguments in his another book to make them yield zero

> degree longitudes for all the planets for 6-0 am of February 18,

> 3102 BC. This one is known as the Audayika system, since the

poor

> Aryabhata did not even know that the sun could not have risen at

> exact six o'clock, Ujjain Mean Time, on that date! In any case,

> Arybhata did play his role in making Hindus all the more dependent

> on and reverant towards the Surya Sidhanta of Maya the mlechha,

> instead of doing some independent research of his own to arrive at

> the correct duration of the year or to make the calculated results

> tally exactly with vedha i.e. practical observations! But then,

> that wa not the fate of India -- to make any worthwile progress

in

> astronomy since we had become complete phalit jyotishis by then

> instead of ganitajnyas, thanks to the Yavana (Greek!) influence!

>

> With regards,

> A K Kaul

>

>

>

> hinducivilization , " Bhalchandra Thattey "

> <bgthattey@> wrote:

> >

> > It is a well established trend amongst the Jains to claim all

the

> good

> > things and characters of India i.e. Bharat as their own. I have

> noticed it

> > many times. Following are a few examples ::

> > - Ramchandra is claimed to be a Jain.

> > - ChandraGupta maurya is claimed to be a Jain.

> > - Patanjali is claimed to be a Jain.

> > Another trend is that quite a few Jains take immence pleasure in

> > bad-mouthing the Sanskrit language although a lot of Jain

religious

> > litereature is Sanskrit and some Jains are great Sanskrit

scholars

> e.g.

> > Bimli who has compiled an authoratitve book called

DHATURATNAKARA.

> > Bhalchandra G. Thattey

> >

> >

> > On 7/22/07, amsharanx <amsharanx@> wrote:

> > >

> > > It is well known that Aryabhatt lived in Pataliputra at the

> time of

> > > Buddhagupta.

> > >

> > > The Kerala Mathematicians came later on after the migrations of

> > > scientists from Ujjain due to Muslim invasions. They receded

to

> deep

> > > south.

> > >

> > > Thanks.

> > >

> > > Anand M. Sharan

> > >

> > > hinducivilization <hinducivilization%

> 40>,

> > > " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > HinduCalendar <HinduCalendar%

> 40>,

> > > " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Ishwardas ji,

> > > > Aryabhata was a Jain as is clear from the mention of Jain

style

> > > > system of 'Yuga that is Apasarpini' in Aryabhateeya. His

yuga

> is of

> > > > the proportion 1:1:1:1 and is is a deviation from the

4:3:2:1

> style

> > > > of

> > > > the Indian system. Many tried hard to ascribe the knowledge

of

> > > > Aryabhata (Note arya bhatta; but only bhata) to brahmins -

> even by

> > > > misinterpreting his words.

> > > > The circumference of earth provided by any astronomer would

be

> > > > based

> > > > on the measurements made at his native place; and this clear

> logic

> > > > can

> > > > give the BT latitude of any astronomer who provided the

> > > circumference

> > > > of earth. Bye this logic Aryabhata lived in Kerala 10 deg 55

> min.

> > > > I would say that in a way Kaul ji's retort against Aryabhata

is

> > > > good

> > > > - because we should know that it based on the Aryabhata's

yuga

> > > system

> > > > and reference to bharata that people derive the Mahabharata

> war year

> > > > to be 3102 BC!

> > > > * Bharata (a king's name; Brother of Bahubali) is

> misinterpreted

> > > to

> > > > Maha bhaarata war!

> > > > If this lone reference is gone - the year BC 3102 ascribed to

> > > > Mahabharta war becomes baseless!!

> > > > So I would suggest that Kaul ji should keep up his fight

> against

> > > > Aryabhatta; Yuga and what not! As an outcome of course

new

> facts

> > > > will come up.

> > > > With the Devanagari script that came up and become popular

just

> > > > around AD 200 - 400; and a made up books and history these

> brahimis

> > > > had made mess of indian histroy already! Ofcourse this mess

> would be

> > > > cleared at least to an extend and the real contributions of

> many

> > > > including Harappans;Jains;Buddists;Zourashtrians;Babylonians

> etc

> > > will

> > > > come up.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > > HinduCalendar <HinduCalendar%

> 40>,

> > > " Ishwardas "

> > > > <ishwardas.prakash173@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri A K Kaul ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > >

> > > > > It is imperative to understand that we cannot blame

> everything on

> > > > > Aryabhatta, nor can we re-invent Hindu tradition on the

> basis of

> > > > what

> > > > > we believe our ancestors to have borrowed from him, in

> > > particular,

> > > > in

>

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Bhalchandra G. Thattey

> > Shubham Bhavatu

> > Svalpasya Yogasya Trayate Mahato Bhayat

> >

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---