Guest guest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Dear All, Given below is a write-up by Vinay Jha ji on Ayanamsha. URL: http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha Love and Regards,Sreenadh===========================================Ayanamsha ---- Written by Vinay Jha Ayanamsha is defined as the difference between tropical and sidereal longitudes of heavenly bodies (See below for definitions of tropical and sidereal).This definition is perfectly true, but there are two divergent views since ancient times. According to the older view ayanamsha can increase from 0° to +27°, after which it starts decreasing to 0° and further to -27°. Then it begins rising again, to 0° and further to +27°. This type of ayanamsha is known as Oscillation (dolan in Sanskrit). Surya-siddhanta supports this view. Another view is of continuous cyclic change in a circle (actually along the solar ellipse or ecliptic), known as chakrayana to ancient astronomers of India like Manjula. Traditional astrology rejected this cyclic notion. Europe accepted this cyclic theory only at the beginning of Renaissance. Before that, Indians, Arabs and Europeans used the oscillating type of ayanamsha which was called trepidation in Europe. Its earliest mention in Europe dates back to Theon of Alexandria (in his Small Commentary to the Handy Tables) in 4th century AD. Before that, we have no direct proof of whether tropical or sidereal system was used by Western astrologers or whether they believed in cyclic or oscillating type of ayanamsha , but there are ample evidences which suggest that Suryasiddhantic sidereal system and Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha was prevalent in Europe and in other countries, a fact not recognized by modern scholars.Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha is computed by multiplying the full cycle of 360° with 0.3, which gives a total range of 108° for one cycle of ayanamsha, comprising of four stages of 0° to +27°, 27° to +0°,0° to -27° and -27° to 0°. Theon's trepidation had a limit of only ±8° instead of ±27° for Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha. Therefore, Theon or his unknown predecessor multiplied 108° again with 0.3, not possessing the whole theory. Suryasiddhanta is a much earlier text than Theon or even Ptolemy, which is evident when we compare the Ptolemaic system with Suryasiddhantic one.Modern science is a product of Renaissance, when humanism started replacing religion from all walks of life and society. Sunrise is defined as the first ray of Sun viewed by man. Scientists know well that this "scientific" sunrise contains two serious errors : refraction in the atmosphere, and difference in time between rays coming from Sun's upper limb and centre. Astrology needs real position of Sun's centre for defining sunrise and other phenomena. But scientists are not concerned with needs of astrology. It is wrong to impose the true planets of modern science upon astrology. Science records a phenomena when man sees it. In astrology it is not man but a planet which influence the course of events. Hence the true position of planets are needed in astrology, and not what is viewed by man after undergoing refraction and other distortions.'Tropical' position of planets is what appears to the onlooker, and 'sidereal' position is what is recorded with reference to fixed stars. Modern science starts from observation. Hence scientists are perfectly right in recording what they observe. But even scientists need true positions when they launch missiles and rockets. It is wrong to impose the refracted sunrise upon astrology, as computer programmers are doing now-a-days. The rules of Phalita Jyotisha were formulated according to sidereal system. These rules have withstood the test of time over millenia. Tropical signs (rashis) and houses (bhavas) now differ from sidereal ones by nearly 23°, increasing at the rate of over 50" per year. The rules of Phalita Jyotisha cannot be rewritten according to the tropical system. At around 499 AD according to Indian system and around 285 AD according to modern science the value of ayanamsha was zero, after which it began rising. Therefore tropical and sidereal positions of planets coincided. As a result many astrologers began using tropical system in succeeding ages. We have ample proof of the fact that sidereal system was used by Europeans before 300-400 AD, after which confusion arose due to negligible difference between tropical and sidereal. This problem was componded by the ignorant astrologers of Europe during Dark Ages. Western tropical astrology is a product of Dark Ages and scientists are not wrong in declaring it pseudo-science.But Vedic Astrology is not a pseudo-science, because it produces true results. Now let us define the term 'tropical' (sayana in Sanskrit) according to modern science. Due to tilt of Earth's axis, Earth's equatorial plane makes an angle with Sun's ecliptic plane. There are two points at which Earth's equatorial plane intersects Sun's ecliptic plane. These two points are called equinoxes. When tropical Sun reaches the equinoxes, its apparent path of revolution (ecliptic) with reference to the Earth coincides with Earth's equatorial plane. Day is equal to night then. When Sun reaches to its northernmost declination upto Cancer or southernmost declination upto Capricorn, points on its ecliptic plane are called solstices : summer solstice and winter solstice. Regions between these two latitudes,Cancer and capricorn, are called tropics. Due to oscillation of Earth's axis, its equatorial plane oscillates with respect to Sun's ecliptic plane. Earth's axis rotates in a circle once in 25771.5 years. Therefore the intersecting point of Earth's equatorial plane also rotates with respect to the ecliptic once in 25771.5 years. These two equinoctial points, vernal and autumnal, precess with respect to fixed stars due to gyration of Earth's axis. As a result the timing to Sun's maximum shift (i.e., declination or Kranti) northward upto cancer and southward upto capricorn also precesses.Due to this precession of the equinoxes, constellations of stars appear to shift with respect to the equinoxes over time, at the rate of 360° in 25771.5 years or one Sign of 30° in 2148 years. In 285 AD, sidereal signs of Jyotisha are believed to coincide with tropical signs. Hence ayanamsha was zero. This is the measurement of N. C. Lahiri, hence it is called Lahiri ayanamsha, although this method of defining ayanamsha was initiated long ago by persons like Colebrooke.During 17 centuries after 285 AD, equinox has shifted away by over 23°. Hence present value of ayanamsha is held to be over 23°. It will continue to increase due to continuous shift in equinox, and there is no question of oscillation of equinox within ±27°. So far modern view seems flawless. But this is not ayanamsha at all. What these "scientific" persons miss is that ayanamsha is not a concept of modern science. A professional astronomer does not know anything about ayanamsha. Astronomers work with tropical system. The problem with tropical system is that present tropical position of heavenly bodies cannot be compared with past tropical position of heavenly bodies, because the difference will also contain precession. Sidereal system is more suited for scientific purposes. But modern science arose out of mediaeval astrology of Europe. Tropical system is what appears to us. Sidereal system records the actual motions of bodies. Like the refracted Sunrise, everything in modern science in centered around Man. If we accept the views of persons like Lahiri and impose modern astronomy upon astrology, the ancient treatises of Phalita would also need to be revised. Many enthusiasts are already engaged in this job, which was reserved only for the enlightened Rishis in ancient times. Material planets have no power over destinies of living creatures. Gravitational or magnetic forces have no power to define our future. It is also not possible to propitiate material bodies by chanting hymns. Materialist Astrology is not only a pseudo-science, it is also a pseudo-religion.Test of the pudding lies in tasting it. We offer the perfect software of astrology which is the only software in the world capable of giving Vimshottari dashas matching with actual happenings in our lives. Our method has been well tested over past decade in various fields. Thousands of horoscopes, 135 years of rain data, 55 years of national income and a large number of notable events of thousands of years have been tested, with 100% success.====================================================================== At present, Ayanamsha's value at 22:38':44.5'' gives correct results on all fronts of Vedic Astrology (for end of 2008 AD). Major reason of mismatch in timing of events is not Ayanamsha alone, but a mix of myriads of factors. Even 360 days' savana year for Vimshottari is not correct. Chhandogya Upasishada clearly states that the full age of a human being is 116 years. If 120 Vimshottari years are divided with 1.0307, we get 116.4, which can be rounded off to get the Vedic value stated in Chhandogya Upasishada. This factor 1.0307 is the ratio of solar and lunar years. Secondly,Vimshottari is made from Moon's longitudes, hence its year ought to be based upon moon. Thirdly, this value of Vimshottari year (equal to 354.367 solar days) has been found to work perfectly well in thousands of horoscopes without a single exception, down to sukshma dasha and Prana dasha. Slight uncertainties in Prana dasha is due to a few seconds or even a few minutes error in almost all horoscopes which can be rectified with the help of principal good or bad events in the lives of natives. After correcting Ayanamsha and Vimshottari year, the main problem that remains is Drikpakshiya versus Saurpakshiya longitudes of planets. it is the most tricky problem in Vedic Astrology. If it is resolved, Vedic Astrology will become very very easy even for beginners. Its solution lies readymade, but there is a great psychological barrier. I've seen some other softwares in which one gets an option to change the length of Vimshottari year and magnitude of ayanamsha. But the problem of Vedic offsets required in longitudes of planets remains unsolved (this is the main problem, which I termed as "psychological barrier", because some persons refuse to even test its validity, because they believe material planets to be Vedic deities, requiring no offsets. There is only one software in the world (named Kundalee, not Kundli) which contains all these offsets and one has merely to enter native's data. This software can be procured freely from following persons, among others (no one has a right to sell it, it was developed by a monk with the help of many top-ranked scholars) : (1)Dr Radhakant Mishra, Head of Dept of Jyotisha of KSD Sanskrit University (Darbhanga, Bihar,India, PIN-846008). (2)Dr Nagendra Pandey, Head of Dept of Jyotisha in Sampoornanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, India (3)Dr Girija Shankar Shastri, (HOD of Sanskrit at Allahabad, and was recently invited by Himalayan Institute in Pennsylvania for teaching astrology). (4)Dr Kameshwar Upadhyaya, former editor of world famous Vishva Panchanga of BHU(Varanasi) and now general secretary of Kashi Vidvat Parishada. (4) The best way is to download it from this site or send me a message at the thread on Software Download page. A software should not be tested only for a single native. In the case of Amitabh Bachchan, I found popular softwares and Kundalee software had negligible difference in Vimshottari timings for the maing part of his acting career due to a negative offset in his birthtime Moon's longitude, which resulted in a zero offset when he was nearly 40 years old. In such rare cases, popular softwares also seem to be correct. But in no case Kundalee software can be found to be in the wrong. I can discuss all secret algorithms of Vedic astrology only with those persons who are sincerely willing to test this Kundalee software, because without a proper tool for testing, all discussion is futile and may even lead to acrimony. I again accept that Shri KN Rao works intuitively. But his school of astrology is WRONG. He makes a hotch-potch of all sorts of mutually incompatible methods. His wrong eclecticism is GOOD in his able and intuitive hands, because he is blessed by his own horoscope to do wonders, but intuition cannot be taught in classrooms. I hope my words will be taken in good spirit : what I advocate is lucid and logical methodology that must work 100%. There cannot be two different variants of correct methodology in Vedic Astrology. Shri KN Rao's method cannot prove true in ALL cases. What I term Vedic Astrology of ancient sages is perfect for ALL cases : it is 100% canonical without an iota of change by moderns, and it is 100% accurate in predictions if birthtime is correct. Ganita of Newton/Einstein and Phalita of Parashara is neither science nor astrology ; it is a pseudo-science which works here but not there. Such things are nothing more than gambling. Real Vedic Astrology is more scientific than modern physical science, provided we remain true to the original sages and do not try to become Rishis by modifying Vedic Astrology. If the old system works 100%, WHY it should be reformed. Instead of reforming the Vedas and Vedangas, one should reform himself/herself. People driven by Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Ahamkara, etc have no right to even study Jyotisha (it is not my personal view, it is mentioned by ancients), leave alone reform it !=================== ================== =================== Some astrologers are perplexed with myriads of varieties of ayanamsha cropping up every now and then. Questions about ayanamsha have been raised countless of times ever since a difference between traditional Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha with so-called Lahiri ayanamsha was recognized.Jhora software of PVR Narasimha Rao gives an option of choice among 18 types of ayanamshas. Sadly, traditional value of ayanamsha (Suryasiddhantic, adopted by Aryabhatta too) does not find a place among these 18 choices ! Among these 18, the value given by J N Bhasin comes closest to traditional value which this country believed in ever since Jyotisha was discovered, and even today majority of pandits adopt this traditional value. Why this traditional value should not be given even as a choice among 18 alternatives in jhora is beyond comprehension. Ayanamsha is not a modern (Western concept), and to give a modern meaning to a traditional concept without even citing the traditional views and values is not good. Traditional value of ayanamsha is zero for AD 499 with an annual rate of change at +54" per year after this date. This annual rate is different from the modern value of precession of equinoxes at 50.253" per year. But traditional definition of ayanamsha is quite different from modern view about precession of equinoxes . This is where Lahiri erred, he accepted the medieval view of Manjul which equated the definition of ayanamsha with precession, although Manjul's views were never accepted by mainstream astrologers of medieval India. Traditional view is based upon Suyrasiddhanta, which regards ayanamsha as a cyclic phenomema, its value gyrating between +27 and -27 degrees as max and min limits, whereas precession results in a difference of +90 and -90 degrees between tropical and sidereal. The root of modern (Lahiri's) view is equating nirayana with sidereal, while traditional view was nirayana as fixed Aakaash (Sky) and not as Spica or any other star. Suryasiddhantic theory views nirayana universe (Bhuvaloka) as fixed, while the material universe (Bhooloka) is rotating on its axis vis-a-vis the fixed universe (Bhuvaloka) at a rate of once 42000 year. Its mathematics is highly complicated. It is wrong to use traditiotional ayanamsha without traditional definition and theory. Either one should discard the very notion of ayanamsha and stick to tropical system which is the only choice for all modern scientists, or we must rehabilitate ancient notion of ayanamsha, at least as a choice.=================== ================== =================== In the case of Mercury, an error was noticed in the longitude of Mercury which could not be explained with the help of Newtonian formulas. This error was equal to 1.75" per century. Other planets did not show appreciable errors, but Mercury was near to the Sun. Einstein explained this error in Newtonian physics by means of his new theory of Space (actually "space-time continuum" according to his new theory), in which Space (and its fourth dimension Time) was defined not as void but as a property of matter. It implied that there was no space or time where matter was totally absent ! Conversely, there should be too much space and time where there is too much matter! In practice, it means that the space becomes curved in regions near large masses, and light has to travel in curved paths in such regions, although light has no mass and should not be affected by gravity according to Newtonian theory. Mercury, being very near to the Sun, is in a region of somewhat curved space. Hence, Mercury's position with respect to fixed stars is different from that predicted by Newtonial mechanics. Mathematical value of this difference as predicted by Einstein matched with the observed value of error in Mercury's position. Hence, Einstein's theory was accepted. Mercury's absolute and relative distances from Sun or Earth, therefore, will be different, by very small amounts. For other planets, differences will be smaller.If such small values are neglected, there is no problem in using Newtonian formulas in planetary equations for periods of few centuries. But for longer periods Newtonian formulas become useless, as the errors accumulate to gigantic proportions. Modern planetarium softwares are not built for Tretayuga or Dvaparyuga. Hence, it is wrong to use them for remote ages. Even Newtonian formulas for planetary orbits are highly complicated, due to influence of all planets upon each other.Another problem is the fact that non-scientists believe that scientists are omniscient. No real scientist claims that science has discovered everything. Around the beginning of 2000 AD, some cosmic phenomena were discovered which prove that this material universe is finite, although Einstein had predicted it to be infinite. Proofs in favour of Big Bang Theory (backgound radiation) have been awarded with Nobel Prize. Hence, the steady state theory of an infinite universe, supported by Hoyle and J V Narlikar, has been discarded. Gigantic cosmic tornadoes of energy have been observed to rotate around an axis, which is possible only in a closed space-time. Hence, the universe is finite in space and time; it has a beginning and an end. Thus, evidence against Einstein's notion of universe have surfaced. It does not prove Einstein's theory was incorrect, it merely proves some of applications of this theory were incorrect due to lack of proper data. Rotating cosmic matter/energy gives rise to a scenario of a rotating universe. All known solar systems, galaxies and individual bodies in the universe are rotating on their axes, why the universe should not rotate on its axis ? And if the universe is rotating, then it is wrong to assume stars to be fixed in relation to the background sky outside this material universe. In such a case, the modern view of ayanamsha, propounded by Lahiri, proves to be wrong. Nirayana meant in reference to the fixed sky, which should not be translated as sidereal, because sidereal means in reference to the stars which are actually not fixed. Even Lahiri knew that stars are changing their positions, due to intergalactic motions as well as due to rotation of our own Milky Way.I am merely pointing towards some limitations of modern science. Science is constantly evolving, and maybe we will get better answers in future.Modern science does not know anything absolute in this material world, excepting "human stupidity which is the only absolute thing"(-Einstein). If anything Absolute is somewhere, it must be outside the sensory world (ie, material/physical universe). Many scientists imagine an anti-universe, but even this imaginary anti-world is conceived in terms of material properties, because materialists cannot imagine anything non-material. For them, even soul is matter, and deities of Jyotisha become material planets of this material universe!=========================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 A VERY GOOD POSTING. regards/Bhaskar. , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear All, > Given below is a write-up by Vinay Jha ji on Ayanamsha. URL: > http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha > <http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha> > Love and Regards, > Sreenadh > > =========================================== > Ayanamsha ---- Written by Vinay Jha > > Ayanamsha is defined as the difference between tropical and > sidereal longitudes of heavenly bodies (See below for definitions of > tropical and sidereal). > > This definition is perfectly true, but there are two divergent views > since ancient times. According to the older view ayanamsha can > increase from 0° to +27°, after which it starts decreasing to > 0° and further to -27°. Then it begins rising again, to 0° and > further to +27°. This type of ayanamsha is known as Oscillation > (dolan in Sanskrit). Surya-siddhanta supports this view. Another > view is of continuous cyclic change in a circle (actually along the > solar ellipse or ecliptic), known as chakrayana to ancient > astronomers of India like Manjula. Traditional astrology rejected this > cyclic notion. Europe accepted this cyclic theory only at the beginning > of Renaissance. Before that, Indians, Arabs and Europeans used the > oscillating type of ayanamsha which was called trepidation in > Europe. Its earliest mention in Europe dates back to Theon of Alexandria > (in his Small Commentary to the Handy Tables) in 4th century AD. Before > that, we have no direct proof of whether tropical or sidereal system was > used by Western astrologers or whether they believed in cyclic or > oscillating type of ayanamsha , but there are ample evidences which > suggest that Suryasiddhantic sidereal system and > Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha was prevalent in Europe and in other > countries, a fact not recognized by modern scholars. > > Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha is computed by multiplying the full > cycle of 360° with 0.3, which gives a total range of 108° for one > cycle of ayanamsha, comprising of four stages of 0° to +27°, > 27° to +0°,0° to -27° and -27° to 0°. Theon's > trepidation had a limit of only ±8° instead of ±27° for > Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha. Therefore, Theon or his unknown > predecessor multiplied 108° again with 0.3, not possessing the whole > theory. Suryasiddhanta is a much earlier text than Theon or even > Ptolemy, which is evident when we compare the Ptolemaic system with > Suryasiddhantic one. > > Modern science is a product of Renaissance, when humanism started > replacing religion from all walks of life and society. Sunrise is > defined as the first ray of Sun viewed by man. Scientists know well that > this " scientific " sunrise contains two serious errors : refraction in > the atmosphere, and difference in time between rays coming from Sun's > upper limb and centre. Astrology needs real position of Sun's centre for > defining sunrise and other phenomena. But scientists are not concerned > with needs of astrology. It is wrong to impose the true planets of > modern science upon astrology. Science records a phenomena when man sees > it. In astrology it is not man but a planet which influence the course > of events. Hence the true position of planets are needed in astrology, > and not what is viewed by man after undergoing refraction and other > distortions. > > 'Tropical' position of planets is what appears to the onlooker, and > 'sidereal' position is what is recorded with reference to fixed stars. > Modern science starts from observation. Hence scientists are perfectly > right in recording what they observe. But even scientists need true > positions when they launch missiles and rockets. It is wrong to impose > the refracted sunrise upon astrology, as computer programmers are doing > now-a-days. > > The rules of Phalita Jyotisha were formulated according to sidereal > system. These rules have withstood the test of time over millenia. > Tropical signs (rashis) and houses (bhavas) now differ from > sidereal ones by nearly 23°, increasing at the rate of over 50 " per > year. The rules of Phalita Jyotisha cannot be rewritten according to the > tropical system. > > At around 499 AD according to Indian system and around 285 AD according > to modern science the value of ayanamsha was zero, after which it > began rising. Therefore tropical and sidereal positions of planets > coincided. As a result many astrologers began using tropical system in > succeeding ages. We have ample proof of the fact that sidereal system > was used by Europeans before 300-400 AD, after which confusion arose due > to negligible difference between tropical and sidereal. This problem was > componded by the ignorant astrologers of Europe during Dark Ages. > Western tropical astrology is a product of Dark Ages and scientists are > not wrong in declaring it pseudo-science.But Vedic Astrology is not a > pseudo-science, because it produces true results. > > Now let us define the term 'tropical' (sayana in Sanskrit) > according to modern science. Due to tilt of Earth's axis, Earth's > equatorial plane makes an angle with Sun's ecliptic plane. There are two > points at which Earth's equatorial plane intersects Sun's ecliptic > plane. These two points are called equinoxes. When tropical Sun reaches > the equinoxes, its apparent path of revolution (ecliptic) with reference > to the Earth coincides with Earth's equatorial plane. Day is equal to > night then. When Sun reaches to its northernmost declination upto Cancer > or southernmost declination upto Capricorn, points on its ecliptic plane > are called solstices : summer solstice and winter solstice. Regions > between these two latitudes,Cancer and capricorn, are called tropics. > > Due to oscillation of Earth's axis, its equatorial plane oscillates with > respect to Sun's ecliptic plane. Earth's axis rotates in a circle once > in 25771.5 years. Therefore the intersecting point of Earth's equatorial > plane also rotates with respect to the ecliptic once in 25771.5 years. > These two equinoctial points, vernal and autumnal, precess with respect > to fixed stars due to gyration of Earth's axis. As a result the timing > to Sun's maximum shift (i.e., declination or Kranti) northward upto > cancer and southward upto capricorn also precesses. > > Due to this precession of the equinoxes, constellations of stars appear > to shift with respect to the equinoxes over time, at the rate of 360° > in 25771.5 years or one Sign of 30° in 2148 years. In 285 AD, > sidereal signs of Jyotisha are believed to coincide with tropical signs. > Hence ayanamsha was zero. This is the measurement of N. C. Lahiri, > hence it is called Lahiri ayanamsha, although this method of > defining ayanamsha was initiated long ago by persons like > Colebrooke. > > During 17 centuries after 285 AD, equinox has shifted away by over > 23°. Hence present value of ayanamsha is held to be over 23°. > It will continue to increase due to continuous shift in equinox, and > there is no question of oscillation of equinox within ±27°. So far > modern view seems flawless. But this is not ayanamsha at all. What > these " scientific " persons miss is that ayanamsha is not a concept > of modern science. A professional astronomer does not know anything > about ayanamsha. Astronomers work with tropical system. The problem > with tropical system is that present tropical position of heavenly > bodies cannot be compared with past tropical position of heavenly > bodies, because the difference will also contain precession. Sidereal > system is more suited for scientific purposes. But modern science arose > out of mediaeval astrology of Europe. Tropical system is what appears to > us. Sidereal system records the actual motions of bodies. Like the > refracted Sunrise, everything in modern science in centered around Man. > > If we accept the views of persons like Lahiri and impose modern > astronomy upon astrology, the ancient treatises of Phalita would also > need to be revised. Many enthusiasts are already engaged in this job, > which was reserved only for the enlightened Rishis in ancient times. > Material planets have no power over destinies of living creatures. > Gravitational or magnetic forces have no power to define our future. It > is also not possible to propitiate material bodies by chanting hymns. > Materialist Astrology is not only a pseudo-science, it is also a > pseudo-religion. > > Test of the pudding lies in tasting it. We offer the perfect software of > astrology which is the only software in the world capable of giving > Vimshottari dashas matching with actual happenings in our lives. > Our method has been well tested over past decade in various fields. > Thousands of horoscopes, 135 years of rain data, 55 years of national > income and a large number of notable events of thousands of years have > been tested, with 100% success. > ====================================================================== > At present, Ayanamsha's value at 22:38':44.5'' gives correct > results on all fronts of Vedic Astrology (for end of 2008 AD). > > Major reason of mismatch in timing of events is not Ayanamsha alone, but > a mix of myriads of factors. Even 360 days' savana year for Vimshottari > is not correct. Chhandogya Upasishada clearly states that the full > age of a human being is 116 years. If 120 Vimshottari years are divided > with 1.0307, we get 116.4, which can be rounded off to get the Vedic > value stated in Chhandogya Upasishada. > > This factor 1.0307 is the ratio of solar and lunar years. > > Secondly,Vimshottari is made from Moon's longitudes, hence its year > ought to be based upon moon. > > Thirdly, this value of Vimshottari year (equal to 354.367 solar days) > has been found to work perfectly well in thousands of horoscopes without > a single exception, down to sukshma dasha and Prana > dasha. Slight uncertainties in Prana dasha is due to a > few seconds or even a few minutes error in almost all horoscopes which > can be rectified with the help of principal good or bad events in the > lives of natives. > > After correcting Ayanamsha and Vimshottari year, the main problem that > remains is Drikpakshiya versus Saurpakshiya longitudes of planets. it is > the most tricky problem in Vedic Astrology. If it is resolved, Vedic > Astrology will become very very easy even for beginners. Its solution > lies readymade, but there is a great psychological barrier. > > I've seen some other softwares in which one gets an option to change the > length of Vimshottari year and magnitude of ayanamsha. But the > problem of Vedic offsets required in longitudes of planets remains > unsolved (this is the main problem, which I termed as " psychological > barrier " , because some persons refuse to even test its validity, because > they believe material planets to be Vedic deities, requiring no offsets. > > There is only one software in the world (named Kundalee, not Kundli) > which contains all these offsets and one has merely to enter native's > data. This software can be procured freely from following persons, among > others (no one has a right to sell it, it was developed by a monk with > the help of many top-ranked scholars) : > > (1)Dr Radhakant Mishra, Head of Dept of Jyotisha of KSD Sanskrit > University (Darbhanga, Bihar,India, PIN-846008). > (2)Dr Nagendra Pandey, Head of Dept of Jyotisha in Sampoornanand > Sanskrit University, Varanasi, India > (3)Dr Girija Shankar Shastri, (HOD of Sanskrit at Allahabad, and was > recently invited by Himalayan Institute in Pennsylvania for teaching > astrology). > (4)Dr Kameshwar Upadhyaya, former editor of world famous Vishva > Panchanga of BHU(Varanasi) and now general secretary of Kashi Vidvat > Parishada. > (4) The best way is to download it from this site or send me a message > at the thread on Software Download page. > > A software should not be tested only for a single native. In the case of > Amitabh Bachchan, I found popular softwares and Kundalee software had > negligible difference in Vimshottari timings for the maing part of his > acting career due to a negative offset in his birthtime Moon's > longitude, which resulted in a zero offset when he was nearly 40 years > old. In such rare cases, popular softwares also seem to be correct. But > in no case Kundalee software can be found to be in the wrong. > > I can discuss all secret algorithms of Vedic astrology only with those > persons who are sincerely willing to test this Kundalee software, > because without a proper tool for testing, all discussion is futile and > may even lead to acrimony. > > I again accept that Shri KN Rao works intuitively. But his school of > astrology is WRONG. He makes a hotch-potch of all sorts of mutually > incompatible methods. His wrong eclecticism is GOOD in his able and > intuitive hands, because he is blessed by his own horoscope to do > wonders, but intuition cannot be taught in classrooms. I hope my words > will be taken in good spirit : what I advocate is lucid and logical > methodology that must work 100%. There cannot be two different variants > of correct methodology in Vedic Astrology. Shri KN Rao's method cannot > prove true in ALL cases. What I term Vedic Astrology of ancient sages is > perfect for ALL cases : it is 100% canonical without an iota of change > by moderns, and it is 100% accurate in predictions if birthtime is > correct. > > Ganita of Newton/Einstein and Phalita of Parashara is neither science > nor astrology ; it is a pseudo-science which works here but not there. > Such things are nothing more than gambling. > > Real Vedic Astrology is more scientific than modern physical science, > provided we remain true to the original sages and do not try to become > Rishis by modifying Vedic Astrology. If the old system works 100%, WHY > it should be reformed. > > Instead of reforming the Vedas and Vedangas, one should reform > himself/herself. People driven by Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, > Ahamkara, etc have no right to even study Jyotisha (it is not my > personal view, it is mentioned by ancients), leave alone reform it ! > =================== ================== =================== > Some astrologers are perplexed with myriads of varieties of ayanamsha > cropping up every now and then. Questions about ayanamsha have been > raised countless of times ever since a difference between traditional > Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha with so-called Lahiri ayanamsha was > recognized. > > Jhora software of PVR Narasimha Rao gives an option of choice among 18 > types of ayanamshas. Sadly, traditional value of ayanamsha > (Suryasiddhantic, adopted by Aryabhatta too) does not find a place among > these 18 choices ! Among these 18, the value given by J N Bhasin comes > closest to traditional value which this country believed in ever since > Jyotisha was discovered, and even today majority of pandits adopt this > traditional value. Why this traditional value should not be given even > as a choice among 18 alternatives in jhora is beyond comprehension. > > Ayanamsha is not a modern (Western concept), and to give a modern > meaning to a traditional concept without even citing the traditional > views and values is not good. > > Traditional value of ayanamsha is zero for AD 499 with an annual rate of > change at +54 " per year after this date. This annual rate is different > from the modern value of precession of equinoxes at 50.253 " per year. > But traditional definition of ayanamsha is quite different from modern > view about precession of equinoxes . This is where Lahiri erred, he > accepted the medieval view of Manjul which equated the definition of > ayanamsha with precession, although Manjul's views were never accepted > by mainstream astrologers of medieval India. Traditional view is based > upon Suyrasiddhanta, which regards ayanamsha as a cyclic phenomema, its > value gyrating between +27 and -27 degrees as max and min limits, > whereas precession results in a difference of +90 and -90 degrees > between tropical and sidereal. The root of modern (Lahiri's) view is > equating nirayana with sidereal, while traditional view was nirayana as > fixed Aakaash (Sky) and not as Spica or any other star. Suryasiddhantic > theory views nirayana universe (Bhuvaloka) as fixed, while the material > universe (Bhooloka) is rotating on its axis vis-a-vis the fixed universe > (Bhuvaloka) at a rate of once 42000 year. Its mathematics is highly > complicated. It is wrong to use traditiotional ayanamsha without > traditional definition and theory. Either one should discard the very > notion of ayanamsha and stick to tropical system which is the only > choice for all modern scientists, or we must rehabilitate ancient notion > of ayanamsha, at least as a choice. > =================== ================== =================== > In the case of Mercury, an error was noticed in the longitude of Mercury > which could not be explained with the help of Newtonian formulas. This > error was equal to 1.75 " per century. Other planets did not show > appreciable errors, but Mercury was near to the Sun. Einstein explained > this error in Newtonian physics by means of his new theory of Space > (actually " space-time continuum " according to his new theory), in which > Space (and its fourth dimension Time) was defined not as void but as a > property of matter. It implied that there was no space or time where > matter was totally absent ! Conversely, there should be too much space > and time where there is too much matter! In practice, it means that the > space becomes curved in regions near large masses, and light has to > travel in curved paths in such regions, although light has no mass and > should not be affected by gravity according to Newtonian theory. > Mercury, being very near to the Sun, is in a region of somewhat curved > space. Hence, Mercury's position with respect to fixed stars is > different from that predicted by Newtonial mechanics. Mathematical value > of this difference as predicted by Einstein matched with the observed > value of error in Mercury's position. Hence, Einstein's theory was > accepted. Mercury's absolute and relative distances from Sun or Earth, > therefore, will be different, by very small amounts. For other planets, > differences will be smaller. > > If such small values are neglected, there is no problem in using > Newtonian formulas in planetary equations for periods of few centuries. > But for longer periods Newtonian formulas become useless, as the > errors accumulate to gigantic proportions. Modern planetarium softwares > are not built for Tretayuga or Dvaparyuga. Hence, it is wrong to use > them for remote ages. Even Newtonian formulas for planetary orbits > are highly complicated, due to influence of all planets upon each other. > > Another problem is the fact that non-scientists believe that scientists > are omniscient. No real scientist claims that science has discovered > everything. Around the beginning of 2000 AD, some cosmic phenomena were > discovered which prove that this material universe is finite, although > Einstein had predicted it to be infinite. Proofs in favour of Big Bang > Theory (backgound radiation) have been awarded with Nobel Prize. Hence, > the steady state theory of an infinite universe, supported by Hoyle and > J V Narlikar, has been discarded. Gigantic cosmic tornadoes of energy > have been observed to rotate around an axis, which is possible only in a > closed space-time. Hence, the universe is finite in space and time; it > has a beginning and an end. Thus, evidence against Einstein's notion of > universe have surfaced. It does not prove Einstein's theory was > incorrect, it merely proves some of applications of this theory were > incorrect due to lack of proper data. Rotating cosmic matter/energy > gives rise to a scenario of a rotating universe. All known solar > systems, galaxies and individual bodies in the universe are rotating on > their axes, why the universe should not rotate on its axis ? And if the > universe is rotating, then it is wrong to assume stars to be fixed in > relation to the background sky outside this material universe. In such a > case, the modern view of ayanamsha, propounded by Lahiri, proves to be > wrong. Nirayana meant in reference to the fixed sky, which should not be > translated as sidereal, because sidereal means in reference to the stars > which are actually not fixed. Even Lahiri knew that stars are changing > their positions, due to intergalactic motions as well as due to rotation > of our own Milky Way. > > I am merely pointing towards some limitations of modern science. Science > is constantly evolving, and maybe we will get better answers in future. > > Modern science does not know anything absolute in this material world, > excepting " human stupidity which is the only absolute thing " (-Einstein). > If anything Absolute is somewhere, it must be outside the sensory world > (ie, material/physical universe). Many scientists imagine an > anti-universe, but even this imaginary anti-world is conceived in terms > of material properties, because materialists cannot imagine anything > non-material. For them, even soul is matter, and deities of Jyotisha > become material planets of this material universe! > > =========================================== > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Dear Sreenadhji, Great discussion is taking place. How much I must congratulate you for that? I am undecided and will let you know in due course. Enjoy the "Chicken" and be under the grace of Bhavani. And for study: Could you understand from the essay as to how the ayanamsa is computed as per Suryasiddhanta? What is the zero epoch of ayanamsa as per Suryasiddhanta? By the computation method given in Suryasiddhanta what is the value of ayanamsa in say AD 200, AD 285, AD 500, at the time of Munjala (Manjula)? Which commentary on Suryasiddhanta is authentic? And when did it originally take shape? Where in Suryasiddhanta (please quote the verse) it is stated that the ayanamsa oscillates between -27 deg to +27 deg? If this so when was the ayana zero? How the + and - oscillation of the equatorial plane was explained? And then why the Suryasiddhanta places the vishus at the beginnings of Mesha and Tula and ayanas at Kataka and Makara beginnings? What are the positions of the zero point at the beginning of the Yugas? Where was it at the beginning of Kaliyuga and at the beginning of the Mahayuga etc. Why Munjala chose to have a different conception on ayanamsa? What about the predecessors? chandra hari , "Sreenadh" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear All,> Given below is a write-up by Vinay Jha ji on Ayanamsha. URL:> http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha> <http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/Ayanamsha>> Love and Regards,> Sreenadh> > ===========================================> Ayanamsha ---- Written by Vinay Jha> > Ayanamsha is defined as the difference between tropical and> sidereal longitudes of heavenly bodies (See below for definitions of> tropical and sidereal).> > This definition is perfectly true, but there are two divergent views> since ancient times. According to the older view ayanamsha can> increase from 0° to +27°, after which it starts decreasing to> 0° and further to -27°. Then it begins rising again, to 0° and> further to +27°. This type of ayanamsha is known as Oscillation> (dolan in Sanskrit). Surya-siddhanta supports this view. Another> view is of continuous cyclic change in a circle (actually along the> solar ellipse or ecliptic), known as chakrayana to ancient> astronomers of India like Manjula. Traditional astrology rejected this> cyclic notion. Europe accepted this cyclic theory only at the beginning> of Renaissance. Before that, Indians, Arabs and Europeans used the> oscillating type of ayanamsha which was called trepidation in> Europe. Its earliest mention in Europe dates back to Theon of Alexandria> (in his Small Commentary to the Handy Tables) in 4th century AD. Before> that, we have no direct proof of whether tropical or sidereal system was> used by Western astrologers or whether they believed in cyclic or> oscillating type of ayanamsha , but there are ample evidences which> suggest that Suryasiddhantic sidereal system and> Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha was prevalent in Europe and in other> countries, a fact not recognized by modern scholars.> > Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha is computed by multiplying the full> cycle of 360° with 0.3, which gives a total range of 108° for one> cycle of ayanamsha, comprising of four stages of 0° to +27°,> 27° to +0°,0° to -27° and -27° to 0°. Theon's> trepidation had a limit of only ±8° instead of ±27° for> Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha. Therefore, Theon or his unknown> predecessor multiplied 108° again with 0.3, not possessing the whole> theory. Suryasiddhanta is a much earlier text than Theon or even> Ptolemy, which is evident when we compare the Ptolemaic system with> Suryasiddhantic one.> > Modern science is a product of Renaissance, when humanism started> replacing religion from all walks of life and society. Sunrise is> defined as the first ray of Sun viewed by man. Scientists know well that> this "scientific" sunrise contains two serious errors : refraction in> the atmosphere, and difference in time between rays coming from Sun's> upper limb and centre. Astrology needs real position of Sun's centre for> defining sunrise and other phenomena. But scientists are not concerned> with needs of astrology. It is wrong to impose the true planets of> modern science upon astrology. Science records a phenomena when man sees> it. In astrology it is not man but a planet which influence the course> of events. Hence the true position of planets are needed in astrology,> and not what is viewed by man after undergoing refraction and other> distortions.> > 'Tropical' position of planets is what appears to the onlooker, and> 'sidereal' position is what is recorded with reference to fixed stars.> Modern science starts from observation. Hence scientists are perfectly> right in recording what they observe. But even scientists need true> positions when they launch missiles and rockets. It is wrong to impose> the refracted sunrise upon astrology, as computer programmers are doing> now-a-days.> > The rules of Phalita Jyotisha were formulated according to sidereal> system. These rules have withstood the test of time over millenia.> Tropical signs (rashis) and houses (bhavas) now differ from> sidereal ones by nearly 23°, increasing at the rate of over 50" per> year. The rules of Phalita Jyotisha cannot be rewritten according to the> tropical system.> > At around 499 AD according to Indian system and around 285 AD according> to modern science the value of ayanamsha was zero, after which it> began rising. Therefore tropical and sidereal positions of planets> coincided. As a result many astrologers began using tropical system in> succeeding ages. We have ample proof of the fact that sidereal system> was used by Europeans before 300-400 AD, after which confusion arose due> to negligible difference between tropical and sidereal. This problem was> componded by the ignorant astrologers of Europe during Dark Ages.> Western tropical astrology is a product of Dark Ages and scientists are> not wrong in declaring it pseudo-science.But Vedic Astrology is not a> pseudo-science, because it produces true results.> > Now let us define the term 'tropical' (sayana in Sanskrit)> according to modern science. Due to tilt of Earth's axis, Earth's> equatorial plane makes an angle with Sun's ecliptic plane. There are two> points at which Earth's equatorial plane intersects Sun's ecliptic> plane. These two points are called equinoxes. When tropical Sun reaches> the equinoxes, its apparent path of revolution (ecliptic) with reference> to the Earth coincides with Earth's equatorial plane. Day is equal to> night then. When Sun reaches to its northernmost declination upto Cancer> or southernmost declination upto Capricorn, points on its ecliptic plane> are called solstices : summer solstice and winter solstice. Regions> between these two latitudes,Cancer and capricorn, are called tropics.> > Due to oscillation of Earth's axis, its equatorial plane oscillates with> respect to Sun's ecliptic plane. Earth's axis rotates in a circle once> in 25771.5 years. Therefore the intersecting point of Earth's equatorial> plane also rotates with respect to the ecliptic once in 25771.5 years.> These two equinoctial points, vernal and autumnal, precess with respect> to fixed stars due to gyration of Earth's axis. As a result the timing> to Sun's maximum shift (i.e., declination or Kranti) northward upto> cancer and southward upto capricorn also precesses.> > Due to this precession of the equinoxes, constellations of stars appear> to shift with respect to the equinoxes over time, at the rate of 360°> in 25771.5 years or one Sign of 30° in 2148 years. In 285 AD,> sidereal signs of Jyotisha are believed to coincide with tropical signs.> Hence ayanamsha was zero. This is the measurement of N. C. Lahiri,> hence it is called Lahiri ayanamsha, although this method of> defining ayanamsha was initiated long ago by persons like> Colebrooke.> > During 17 centuries after 285 AD, equinox has shifted away by over> 23°. Hence present value of ayanamsha is held to be over 23°.> It will continue to increase due to continuous shift in equinox, and> there is no question of oscillation of equinox within ±27°. So far> modern view seems flawless. But this is not ayanamsha at all. What> these "scientific" persons miss is that ayanamsha is not a concept> of modern science. A professional astronomer does not know anything> about ayanamsha. Astronomers work with tropical system. The problem> with tropical system is that present tropical position of heavenly> bodies cannot be compared with past tropical position of heavenly> bodies, because the difference will also contain precession. Sidereal> system is more suited for scientific purposes. But modern science arose> out of mediaeval astrology of Europe. Tropical system is what appears to> us. Sidereal system records the actual motions of bodies. Like the> refracted Sunrise, everything in modern science in centered around Man.> > If we accept the views of persons like Lahiri and impose modern> astronomy upon astrology, the ancient treatises of Phalita would also> need to be revised. Many enthusiasts are already engaged in this job,> which was reserved only for the enlightened Rishis in ancient times.> Material planets have no power over destinies of living creatures.> Gravitational or magnetic forces have no power to define our future. It> is also not possible to propitiate material bodies by chanting hymns.> Materialist Astrology is not only a pseudo-science, it is also a> pseudo-religion.> > Test of the pudding lies in tasting it. We offer the perfect software of> astrology which is the only software in the world capable of giving> Vimshottari dashas matching with actual happenings in our lives.> Our method has been well tested over past decade in various fields.> Thousands of horoscopes, 135 years of rain data, 55 years of national> income and a large number of notable events of thousands of years have> been tested, with 100% success.> ======================================================================> At present, Ayanamsha's value at 22:38':44.5'' gives correct> results on all fronts of Vedic Astrology (for end of 2008 AD).> > Major reason of mismatch in timing of events is not Ayanamsha alone, but> a mix of myriads of factors. Even 360 days' savana year for Vimshottari> is not correct. Chhandogya Upasishada clearly states that the full> age of a human being is 116 years. If 120 Vimshottari years are divided> with 1.0307, we get 116.4, which can be rounded off to get the Vedic> value stated in Chhandogya Upasishada.> > This factor 1.0307 is the ratio of solar and lunar years.> > Secondly,Vimshottari is made from Moon's longitudes, hence its year> ought to be based upon moon.> > Thirdly, this value of Vimshottari year (equal to 354.367 solar days)> has been found to work perfectly well in thousands of horoscopes without> a single exception, down to sukshma dasha and Prana> dasha. Slight uncertainties in Prana dasha is due to a> few seconds or even a few minutes error in almost all horoscopes which> can be rectified with the help of principal good or bad events in the> lives of natives.> > After correcting Ayanamsha and Vimshottari year, the main problem that> remains is Drikpakshiya versus Saurpakshiya longitudes of planets. it is> the most tricky problem in Vedic Astrology. If it is resolved, Vedic> Astrology will become very very easy even for beginners. Its solution> lies readymade, but there is a great psychological barrier.> > I've seen some other softwares in which one gets an option to change the> length of Vimshottari year and magnitude of ayanamsha. But the> problem of Vedic offsets required in longitudes of planets remains> unsolved (this is the main problem, which I termed as "psychological> barrier", because some persons refuse to even test its validity, because> they believe material planets to be Vedic deities, requiring no offsets.> > There is only one software in the world (named Kundalee, not Kundli)> which contains all these offsets and one has merely to enter native's> data. This software can be procured freely from following persons, among> others (no one has a right to sell it, it was developed by a monk with> the help of many top-ranked scholars) :> > (1)Dr Radhakant Mishra, Head of Dept of Jyotisha of KSD Sanskrit> University (Darbhanga, Bihar,India, PIN-846008).> (2)Dr Nagendra Pandey, Head of Dept of Jyotisha in Sampoornanand> Sanskrit University, Varanasi, India> (3)Dr Girija Shankar Shastri, (HOD of Sanskrit at Allahabad, and was> recently invited by Himalayan Institute in Pennsylvania for teaching> astrology).> (4)Dr Kameshwar Upadhyaya, former editor of world famous Vishva> Panchanga of BHU(Varanasi) and now general secretary of Kashi Vidvat> Parishada.> (4) The best way is to download it from this site or send me a message> at the thread on Software Download page.> > A software should not be tested only for a single native. In the case of> Amitabh Bachchan, I found popular softwares and Kundalee software had> negligible difference in Vimshottari timings for the maing part of his> acting career due to a negative offset in his birthtime Moon's> longitude, which resulted in a zero offset when he was nearly 40 years> old. In such rare cases, popular softwares also seem to be correct. But> in no case Kundalee software can be found to be in the wrong.> > I can discuss all secret algorithms of Vedic astrology only with those> persons who are sincerely willing to test this Kundalee software,> because without a proper tool for testing, all discussion is futile and> may even lead to acrimony.> > I again accept that Shri KN Rao works intuitively. But his school of> astrology is WRONG. He makes a hotch-potch of all sorts of mutually> incompatible methods. His wrong eclecticism is GOOD in his able and> intuitive hands, because he is blessed by his own horoscope to do> wonders, but intuition cannot be taught in classrooms. I hope my words> will be taken in good spirit : what I advocate is lucid and logical> methodology that must work 100%. There cannot be two different variants> of correct methodology in Vedic Astrology. Shri KN Rao's method cannot> prove true in ALL cases. What I term Vedic Astrology of ancient sages is> perfect for ALL cases : it is 100% canonical without an iota of change> by moderns, and it is 100% accurate in predictions if birthtime is> correct.> > Ganita of Newton/Einstein and Phalita of Parashara is neither science> nor astrology ; it is a pseudo-science which works here but not there.> Such things are nothing more than gambling.> > Real Vedic Astrology is more scientific than modern physical science,> provided we remain true to the original sages and do not try to become> Rishis by modifying Vedic Astrology. If the old system works 100%, WHY> it should be reformed.> > Instead of reforming the Vedas and Vedangas, one should reform> himself/herself. People driven by Kama, Krodha, Lobha, Moha,> Ahamkara, etc have no right to even study Jyotisha (it is not my> personal view, it is mentioned by ancients), leave alone reform it !> =================== ================== ===================> Some astrologers are perplexed with myriads of varieties of ayanamsha> cropping up every now and then. Questions about ayanamsha have been> raised countless of times ever since a difference between traditional> Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha with so-called Lahiri ayanamsha was> recognized.> > Jhora software of PVR Narasimha Rao gives an option of choice among 18> types of ayanamshas. Sadly, traditional value of ayanamsha> (Suryasiddhantic, adopted by Aryabhatta too) does not find a place among> these 18 choices ! Among these 18, the value given by J N Bhasin comes> closest to traditional value which this country believed in ever since> Jyotisha was discovered, and even today majority of pandits adopt this> traditional value. Why this traditional value should not be given even> as a choice among 18 alternatives in jhora is beyond comprehension.> > Ayanamsha is not a modern (Western concept), and to give a modern> meaning to a traditional concept without even citing the traditional> views and values is not good.> > Traditional value of ayanamsha is zero for AD 499 with an annual rate of> change at +54" per year after this date. This annual rate is different> from the modern value of precession of equinoxes at 50.253" per year.> But traditional definition of ayanamsha is quite different from modern> view about precession of equinoxes . This is where Lahiri erred, he> accepted the medieval view of Manjul which equated the definition of> ayanamsha with precession, although Manjul's views were never accepted> by mainstream astrologers of medieval India. Traditional view is based> upon Suyrasiddhanta, which regards ayanamsha as a cyclic phenomema, its> value gyrating between +27 and -27 degrees as max and min limits,> whereas precession results in a difference of +90 and -90 degrees> between tropical and sidereal. The root of modern (Lahiri's) view is> equating nirayana with sidereal, while traditional view was nirayana as> fixed Aakaash (Sky) and not as Spica or any other star. Suryasiddhantic> theory views nirayana universe (Bhuvaloka) as fixed, while the material> universe (Bhooloka) is rotating on its axis vis-a-vis the fixed universe> (Bhuvaloka) at a rate of once 42000 year. Its mathematics is highly> complicated. It is wrong to use traditiotional ayanamsha without> traditional definition and theory. Either one should discard the very> notion of ayanamsha and stick to tropical system which is the only> choice for all modern scientists, or we must rehabilitate ancient notion> of ayanamsha, at least as a choice.> =================== ================== ===================> In the case of Mercury, an error was noticed in the longitude of Mercury> which could not be explained with the help of Newtonian formulas. This> error was equal to 1.75" per century. Other planets did not show> appreciable errors, but Mercury was near to the Sun. Einstein explained> this error in Newtonian physics by means of his new theory of Space> (actually "space-time continuum" according to his new theory), in which> Space (and its fourth dimension Time) was defined not as void but as a> property of matter. It implied that there was no space or time where> matter was totally absent ! Conversely, there should be too much space> and time where there is too much matter! In practice, it means that the> space becomes curved in regions near large masses, and light has to> travel in curved paths in such regions, although light has no mass and> should not be affected by gravity according to Newtonian theory.> Mercury, being very near to the Sun, is in a region of somewhat curved> space. Hence, Mercury's position with respect to fixed stars is> different from that predicted by Newtonial mechanics. Mathematical value> of this difference as predicted by Einstein matched with the observed> value of error in Mercury's position. Hence, Einstein's theory was> accepted. Mercury's absolute and relative distances from Sun or Earth,> therefore, will be different, by very small amounts. For other planets,> differences will be smaller.> > If such small values are neglected, there is no problem in using> Newtonian formulas in planetary equations for periods of few centuries.> But for longer periods Newtonian formulas become useless, as the> errors accumulate to gigantic proportions. Modern planetarium softwares> are not built for Tretayuga or Dvaparyuga. Hence, it is wrong to use> them for remote ages. Even Newtonian formulas for planetary orbits> are highly complicated, due to influence of all planets upon each other.> > Another problem is the fact that non-scientists believe that scientists> are omniscient. No real scientist claims that science has discovered> everything. Around the beginning of 2000 AD, some cosmic phenomena were> discovered which prove that this material universe is finite, although> Einstein had predicted it to be infinite. Proofs in favour of Big Bang> Theory (backgound radiation) have been awarded with Nobel Prize. Hence,> the steady state theory of an infinite universe, supported by Hoyle and> J V Narlikar, has been discarded. Gigantic cosmic tornadoes of energy> have been observed to rotate around an axis, which is possible only in a> closed space-time. Hence, the universe is finite in space and time; it> has a beginning and an end. Thus, evidence against Einstein's notion of> universe have surfaced. It does not prove Einstein's theory was> incorrect, it merely proves some of applications of this theory were> incorrect due to lack of proper data. Rotating cosmic matter/energy> gives rise to a scenario of a rotating universe. All known solar> systems, galaxies and individual bodies in the universe are rotating on> their axes, why the universe should not rotate on its axis ? And if the> universe is rotating, then it is wrong to assume stars to be fixed in> relation to the background sky outside this material universe. In such a> case, the modern view of ayanamsha, propounded by Lahiri, proves to be> wrong. Nirayana meant in reference to the fixed sky, which should not be> translated as sidereal, because sidereal means in reference to the stars> which are actually not fixed. Even Lahiri knew that stars are changing> their positions, due to intergalactic motions as well as due to rotation> of our own Milky Way.> > I am merely pointing towards some limitations of modern science. Science> is constantly evolving, and maybe we will get better answers in future.> > Modern science does not know anything absolute in this material world,> excepting "human stupidity which is the only absolute thing"(-Einstein).> If anything Absolute is somewhere, it must be outside the sensory world> (ie, material/physical universe). Many scientists imagine an> anti-universe, but even this imaginary anti-world is conceived in terms> of material properties, because materialists cannot imagine anything> non-material. For them, even soul is matter, and deities of Jyotisha> become material planets of this material universe!> > ===========================================> 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.