[hc] The Astronomical Basis of the Catur Yuga System

[Guest guest]

Dr. Anand M. Sharan ji,

Namaskar!

Many thanks for pointing out the website regarding your article about

" Vikram Samvat " .

 

There are quite a few statements in your article which have raised more

questions than answered any! And these are:

1. You had said in your earlier post

< knowledge of precession was there amongst the Siddhantic astronomers.>

 

However, in your article " Understanding of periodic motions and utilization

of this knowledge in ancient India " , which you have published on the

relevant website, there is not a single reference to any sidhanta, much less

a sidhantic astronomer, who is supposed to have had the knowledge of

precession.

 

2. You have said yourself in the same article " Vikramditya has been widely

accepted as Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty who lived from 375 AD to 415

AD " Thus, as you have said yourself, it was only by back calculation that a

fictitious Vikrami Era was concocted from a much earlier date than the

existence of actual Vikramaditya! Is that not exactly like the concoction of

Kali Era of the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha? Don't you think that

that amounts manipulation of history, and of course, facts?

 

3. You have not given any idea as to who had arrived at the conclusion of

57 BC as the start of Vikrami Era by back calculation and why. All you have

done is to utilize your own presumption that someone at the time of

Chandragupta-II wanted to commemorate his monarch and establish some era,

that also in a different name, and that also from a period of time span of

five centuries prior to the actual event! Don't you think this presumption

is unscientific, to say the least?

 

4. You have said " precession phenomenon was known to astronomers in his

(Chandragupta-II) court " which era you say was of 375 to 425 AD. However,

you have not quoted even a single authority in support of your assumption! I

have shown it through several posts on this and other forums that no

astronomer in India, I repeat no astronomer in India, has talked about

precession till the time of Munjala in 854 Shaka i.e. in about 930 AD.

There also he has taken sixty arc-seconds per year as the rate of precession

instead of the actual rate of about 50.3 arc-seconds per year!

 

5. The mean longitude of Ashwini star at January 1, 57 BC was 5 degrees 23

minutes and that of Revati Star as 351-13. These are so called sayana

longitudes! Since you are talking of nakshatras in the same breath, which

are supposed to be nirayana i.e. unaffected by precession, then you cannot

take these (sayana)longitudes in to any account since the nirayana

longitudes will be entirely different as per Lahiri Ayanamsha and still

different as per Ramana Ayanamsha and so on! In any case, it could not be

said that Vernal Equinox was in exact conjunction with either of the stars

then even if we take the longitudes of stars as sayana! Besides, the

difference between the mean longitudes of these two stars is 14-18 and not

13.333333 degrees.

 

6> The Vernal Equinox left Aries constellation actually in 68 BC and not in

57 BC and is in Pisces constellation since then. As such, even on that

count, 57 BC has absolutely no validity.

 

7. You have also said, " The Vernal Equinox which is taking place on March

21 these days must be taking place in April in the past " . This statement is

again a presumption and a fallacious one at that since at least over the

past ten thousand years, the Vernal Equinox has been taking place in March.

To be exact, it took place on March 24/25 night even in 8001 BC (Dynamical

Time) and not in April! You can check it for yourself from " Ganesh "

program, which is available free of cost at

HinduCalendar

forum!

 

8. You have said further " (Tropical i.e. Western) Aries would mean the

beginning of Spring season always " . I do not know wherefrom you got the

notion that the so called Sayana Mesha is the beginning of the Vasanta Ritu

always! This month was known as Madhava in the Vedic and the Vedanga

Jyotisha period, and even in the puranas and has always been regarded as the

middle of the Vasanta Ritu which starts with the month of Madhu which our so

called Vedic astrologers call Sayana Mina these days!

 

In view of the above points, I do not find any substance in the hypotheses

that Vikrami year was fixed as 57 BC on the basis of the transit of Vernal

Equinox from the so called Sayana Mesha to so called Sayana Mina and that

" sidhantic astronomers " knew about precession in about 4th century AD!

 

With regards,

A K Kaul

hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

<amsharanx wrote:

 

Shree Kauljee:

 

Namste. Pl read the paper at the website:

 

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~asharan/VIKRAM/VIKRAM_SAMVAT.pdf

 

It has been published in the Advances in Vibration Engineering

journal.

 

Thanks.

 

Anand M. Sharan

 

hinducivilization , " jyotirved " <jyotirved@>

wrote:

>

> Dr. Anand M. Sharan ji,

> Namaskar!

>

> Would you kindly let me know as to which sidhantic astronomer has

referred

> to Vikram Samvat in which Sidhanta and in what context?

> Secondly, since the starting date of Vikrami Era, like the " world

famous "

> Kali Era, has been arrived at by back-calculation, how does it

prove

that

> sidhantic astronomers knew about precession? What is the basis of

such a

> conclusion?

> With regards,

> A K Kaul

> hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

> <amsharanx@> wrote:

>

> Dear Shree Kauljee:

>

> I do not know about Varahamihira but the

> knowledge

> of precession was there amongst the Siddhantic astronomers. This is

> because they came up with the Vikram Samvat - the beginning of

Aries in 57 BC due to this very precession.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Anand M. Sharan

>

>

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

<amsharanx wrote:

 

Namste Shree Kauljee:

 

I am going to answere below your question.

 

hinducivilization , " jyotirved " <jyotirved@>

wrote:

>

> Dr. Anand M. Sharan ji,

> Namaskar!

> Many thanks for pointing out the website regarding your article

about

> " Vikram Samvat " .

>

> There are quite a few statements in your article which have raised

more

> questions than answered any! And these are:

> 1. You had said in your earlier post

> < knowledge of precession was there amongst the Siddhantic

astronomers.>

>

> However, in your article " Understanding of periodic motions and

utilization

> of this knowledge in ancient India " , which you have published on

the

> relevant website, there is not a single reference to any sidhanta,

much less

> a sidhantic astronomer, who is supposed to have had the knowledge

of

> precession.

---------------------

First of all, the paper has gone through review process before being

published in the journal.

 

Let us set aside that fact, The Siddhantic period's begining is

considered to be 408 AD - the time of Chandragupta II - every one

knows it. It was not one astronomer but a collection to have given a

start to this era.

 

No one, even questions this fact.

 

------

>

> 2. You have said yourself in the same article " Vikramditya has

been

widely

> accepted as Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty who lived from 375 AD

to 415

> AD " Thus, as you have said yourself, it was only by back

calculation that a

> fictitious Vikrami Era was concocted from a much earlier date than

the

> existence of actual Vikramaditya! Is that not exactly like the

concoction of

> Kali Era of the Surya Sidhanta by Maya the mlechha? Don't you

think that

> that amounts manipulation of history, and of course, facts?

---------------------

 

Why do you say it is a manipulation ? I came up with an estimate of

the Date MBH War to be 2156 BC. Similarly, others have some other

dates. Are we manipulating here ? The event took place and finding

its

date by astronomical calculation is not a manipulation but an

accepted

scientific method.

 

Another example is finding the Year of Big Bang. Are scientists

manipulating ?

 

--------------

 

>

> 3. You have not given any idea as to who had arrived at the

conclusion of

> 57 BC as the start of Vikrami Era by back calculation and why. All

you have

> done is to utilize your own presumption that someone at the time of

> Chandragupta-II wanted to commemorate his monarch and establish

some

era,

> that also in a different name, and that also from a period of time

span of

> five centuries prior to the actual event! Don't you think this

presumption

> is unscientific, to say the least?

------------

Why it is unscientific ? Pl remember the paper has been published in

a

scientific journal. Do they publish unscientific papers in a

scientific journal ?

 

-----------------

 

>

> 4. You have said " precession phenomenon was known to astronomers

in his

> (Chandragupta-II) court " which era you say was of 375 to 425 AD.

However,

> you have not quoted even a single authority in support of your

assumption! I

> have shown it through several posts on this and other forums that

no

> astronomer in India, I repeat no astronomer in India, has talked

about

> precession till the time of Munjala in 854 Shaka i.e. in about 930

AD.

> There also he has taken sixty arc-seconds per year as the rate of

precession

> instead of the actual rate of about 50.3 arc-seconds per year!

----------------------------

Whether they explicitly say or not in those words is not the

important. For example, the Newton's Laws that we see in the books.

Did Newton state his laws in the form that we see written in the

books

? The answer is no.

 

From the Vikram Era starting in 57 BC - the importance is on 57 BC as

the event.

 

Who was the King Vikramaditya in Manjula's Time ?

 

Why unnecessarily confuse the issues ?

 

---------------------------

 

> 5. The mean longitude of Ashwini star at January 1, 57 BC was 5

degrees 23

> minutes and that of Revati Star as 351-13. These are so called

sayana

> longitudes! Since you are talking of nakshatras in the same breath,

which

> are supposed to be nirayana i.e. unaffected by precession, then you

cannot

> take these (sayana)longitudes in to any account since the nirayana

> longitudes will be entirely different as per Lahiri Ayanamsha and

still

> different as per Ramana Ayanamsha and so on! In any case, it

could

not be

> said that Vernal Equinox was in exact conjunction with either of

the

stars

> then even if we take the longitudes of stars as sayana! Besides,

the

> difference between the mean longitudes of these two stars is 14-18

and not

> 13.333333 degrees.

---------------

 

I have a reference of International Body that accepts 57 BC as the

date when this transition took place.

 

I also a picture in the paper of sky produced by modern software in

57 BC

 

--------------------------

 

 

> 6> The Vernal Equinox left Aries constellation actually in 68 BC

and not in

> 57 BC and is in Pisces constellation since then. As such, even

on that

> count, 57 BC has absolutely no validity.

--------------------

These are no specific points. Different people will differ but within

a short span - it is o.k.

 

---------

 

>

> 7. You have also said, " The Vernal Equinox which is taking place

on

March

> 21 these days must be taking place in April in the past " . This

statement is

> again a presumption and a fallacious one at that since at least

over the

> past ten thousand years, the Vernal Equinox has been taking place

in

March.

> To be exact, it took place on March 24/25 night even in 8001 BC

(Dynamical

> Time) and not in April! You can check it for yourself

from " Ganesh "

> program, which is available free of cost at

> HinduCalendar

> forum!

-------------

You are missing the very fundamental point. You have to define the

year first. Just have a look in scientific books.

-----------------------

 

> 8. You have said further " (Tropical i.e. Western) Aries would

mean the

> beginning of Spring season always " . I do not know wherefrom you

got the

> notion that the so called Sayana Mesha is the beginning of the

Vasanta Ritu

> always! This month was known as Madhava in the Vedic and the

Vedanga

> Jyotisha period, and even in the puranas and has always been

regarded as the

> middle of the Vasanta Ritu which starts with the month of Madhu

which our so

> called Vedic astrologers call Sayana Mina these days!

>

> In view of the above points, I do not find any substance in the

hypotheses

> that Vikrami year was fixed as 57 BC on the basis of the transit of

Vernal

> Equinox from the so called Sayana Mesha to so called Sayana Mina

and

that

> " sidhantic astronomers " knew about precession in about 4th century

AD!

-----------------------------

Shree Kauljee - You are missing the very scientific definition of a

year.

 

If you see the basis of change of definition - every thing will

become

clear to you.

 

Thanks

 

Anand M. Sharan

 

------------------

 

 

> With regards,

> A K Kaul

> hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

> <amsharanx@> wrote:

>

> Shree Kauljee:

>

> Namste. Pl read the paper at the website:

>

> http://www.engr.mun.ca/~asharan/VIKRAM/VIKRAM_SAMVAT.pdf

>

> It has been published in the Advances in Vibration Engineering

> journal.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Anand M. Sharan

>

> hinducivilization , " jyotirved " <jyotirved@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dr. Anand M. Sharan ji,

> > Namaskar!

> >

> > Would you kindly let me know as to which sidhantic astronomer has

> referred

> > to Vikram Samvat in which Sidhanta and in what context?

> > Secondly, since the starting date of Vikrami Era, like the " world

> famous "

> > Kali Era, has been arrived at by back-calculation, how does it

> prove

> that

> > sidhantic astronomers knew about precession? What is the basis

of

> such a

> > conclusion?

> > With regards,

> > A K Kaul

> > hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

> > <amsharanx@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shree Kauljee:

> >

> > I do not know about Varahamihira but the

> > knowledge

> > of precession was there amongst the Siddhantic astronomers. This

is

> > because they came up with the Vikram Samvat - the beginning of

> Aries in 57 BC due to this very precession.

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > Anand M. Sharan

> >

> >

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---