Fwd: Between AKK and Anand M Sharan - about Ayanamsha

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Dr. Anand M. Sharanji,

Namaskar!

 

< We all know that equinox shifted from Aries to Pisces in 57 BC. >

 

You are really making a fool of yourself by such statemnts since

equinox did not shift from Aries astrological sign to Pisces

astrological sign but from Greek constellation Aries into Greek

constellation Pisces in around 61 BC and not 57 BC. Don't you know

even that much of astronomy that the Equinoxes or Solstices do not

shift into astrological signs of twelve imaginary equal divisions

since they are actually non-existent! Do you want me to teach you

like a school master even that much of rudimentary astronomy?

 

Let me do even that: If by Aries you mean Western astrologial sign

then you must also know that the Vernal Equinox is known as First

point of Aries because that is the start of the Western astrological

Rashi Aries -- it was so 2000 years back and will remain so even 2000

years after today! So what do you mean by " equinox shifted from

Aries to Pisces " ?

If by Aries you mean the so called Nirayana Mesha Rashi, then you

have to define as to where-from that Mesha Rashi starts/started and

and where it will end or ended and why! In other words, you have to

posit and prove an imaginary Ayanamsha to establish the veracity of

your choice Ayanamsha!

Though, according to you, like all the " Vedic astrologers " , Surya

Sidhanta is so called nirayana, but even then the Vernal Equinox was

in Aries at the time of the start of Satya Yuga/Tretayuga/Dwaparayuga

and even Kaliyuga and will remain so till the doomsday according to

the same Surya Sidhanta! But then that is exactly what Grecho-

Chaldean astrologers said in the past and what Western astrologers

are saying today! So what is the difference between the so called

nirayana and the so called sayana, actualy the so called

Western/Greek and the so called Indian Rashis as per the Surya

Sidhanta? Absolutely none! And that is why I say that the Surya

Sidhanta Rashis are a ditto copy of Grecho-Chaldean astrology!

 

Thus whichever way you look at it, you are confronted by the most

unpleasant fact that you are advocating Greco-Chaldean astrology on

the shoulders of Vikrami Era and " Guputa Era astronomers " .

 

It is also evident that you are absolutely bereft of any knowledge of

the Vedic lore or the Vedanga Jyotisha etc. because you do not even

know that in India the Solstices and Equinoxes were said to be

shifting from one nakshatra to another and not one so called nirayana

or so called sayana rashi to another! Pl. do read some Vedic

literature first and then enter into discussion.

On second thoughts, let me teach you some Vedic astronomy also like a

school master: It has been said in the Vedas, " krittikasu agnim

adadeeta... " i.e. " One must get consecrated in Krittikas, because

the krittikas never deviate from the East, though all the other

nakshatras do deviate " . It means the Vernal Equinox was in Krittika

nakshatra division at that time and that was in about 3000 BCE.

 

The VJ has said that the Winter Solstice (Uttarayana), the month of

Tapah and Magha start on one and the same date when the sun and the

moon are conjunct in Dhanishta. That was so around 1400 BCE and the

Witer Solstice was in exact conjunction with that nakshatra then!

 

So pl. do shift your gears from Greek constllations to Bharatiya

nakshatras!

 

<First of all, if, as you say, Burgess meant on page 120 - Bhaskara

II who was around 1114 AD ( Burgess does not explicitly say which

Bhaskara I or II ) , as opposed to Bhaskara I ( 600 AD ), then how

come Vikram Era was in use much before Bhaskara II's time ?>

 

For God's sake, my dear " scholar " , do read Burgess translation in

full! He has said it himself that all the ancient Indian astrologer

including Brahmagupta were unaware about any precession! Then the

details of the calculations of precession that he has quoted are from

Sidhanta Shiromani, which is certainly a work of Bhaskara-II and not

Bhaskara-I! But then I must not forget that you are discussing those

very sidhantas about which you have no knowledge!

I have also demonstrated to you in as detailed a manner as possible

as to how the shlokas of the Surya Sidhanta regarding the Ayanamsha

are absolutely wrong and an interpolation of a much later date. Even

Burgess has said the same thing! Why are you putting your ignorance

on public display by such statements?

 

< Do you imply that , it, the Vikram Era starting from 57 BC was the

deed of Grecho-Chaldeans in India ?>

 

Why are you trying to ascribe such statements to me as I never

intended? Even the Saha Calendar Reform Committee Report is not sure

as to when Vikrami Era started actually and who started it but it is

a much later " invention " than your cherished " Gupta era " ---omething

like Kali Era having been calculated by back calculations of

imaginary zero longitudes of all the planets!

 

<I do not present half truths, if you are implying that.>

I agree with you that you do not preent half-truths but you want that

we must recognize complete untruths as truths like the topsy-turvy

Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha being the corret one!

 

<Pl answer one and simple one question:

Should the Ayanamsha calculation of horoscopes refer back to 57 BC as

the beginning of Aries ?>

You are again harping on the same tune, in spite of the fact that I

have apprised you about my views several times that as far as the

real Hindu calendar goes, there is absolutely no need of any rashi

whether the so called sayana or the so called nirayana and therefore,

no Ayanamsha mess.

And what Ayanamsha which astrologer should use, that question can be

answered only by " Vedic astrologers " themselves.

Dhanyavad.

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

 

hinducivilization , " amsharanx " amsharanx@

wrote:

>

> Shree Kauljee:

>

> Thanks for your posting. I have mentioned two

> simultaneious things - ( 1 ) Burgess's statements on Page 120 which

> is after the pages 117, and 119 that you are citing.and Vikram Era

> Beginning in 57 BC.

>

> We all know that equinox shifted from Aries to Pisces in 57 BC.

>

> First of all, if, as you say, Burgess meant on page 120 - Bhaskara

> II who was around 1114 AD ( Burgess does not explicitly say which

> Bhaskara I or II ) , as opposed to Bhaskara I ( 600 AD ), then how

> come Vikram Era was in use much before Bhaskara II's time ?

>

> Do you imply that , it, the Vikram Era starting from 57 BC was the

> deed of Grecho-Chaldeans in India ?

>

> I would not have posted a part of page 120 which comes after pages

> 117 or 119 that you are mentioning - without added evidence of the

> starting of Vikram Era in 57 BC. I do not present half truths, if

you

> are implying that.

>

> Pl answer one and simple one question:

>

> Should the Ayanamsha calculation of horoscopes refer back to 57 BC

as

> the beginning of Aries ?

>

> Thanks.

>

> Anand M. Sharan

>

>

>

>

> -- In hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

> <jyotirved@> wrote:

> >

> > Dr. Anand M.Sharanji,

> > Namaskar!

> > <I have mentioned several times to you but some how - you do not

> pay

> > attention to the facts which contradict your thinking about the

> > knowledge of precession by our Hindus which even a Xtian

Missionary

> > admits here.>

> > The most unfortunat thing with a scholar like you is to go on

> arguing

> > about a work which he has not read himself at all, as per his own

> > admission! But then that is the real scholarship, to twist some

> > paragraph out of context of that very work that he has not read

at

> > all just to confuse everybody and to prove his unprovable stands!

> >

> > I had informed you already that I do a lot of homework before

> > replying any post since for me it is immaterial as to who is

saying

> > what but what is material is as to whether those statements are

> > correct or not! And that is why it takes me a lot of time to

reply

> > any post, which has any technical points (since, as a matter of

> > principle, I ignore any personal comments, including the ones

that

> I

> > am a Xtian or a Muslim convert and what not!)

> >

> > Why have you not quoted the following words of the same " Xtian

> > Missionary " about the knowledge of Ayanamsha/precession of

ancient

> > Indian astronomers from the same work, which you are arguing

about

> > without even having read it! Pl. open your eyes and ears and

read

> > the following statement very very carefully, " Nothing could well

be

> > more awkward and confused than this mode of stating the important

> > fact of the precession of the equinoxes, of describing its method

> and

> > rate, and of directing how its amount at any time is to be

found " .

> > Those are the comments of the same Brugess on page 114 of the

same

> > Surya Sidhanta that you are talking about!

> >

> > Further on page 117, this is what Burgess has said, " We have

> already

> > above (under ii 28) hinted our suspicion that the phenomenon of

> > precession was made no account of in the original composition of

> the

> > Surya Sidhanta, and that the notice taken of it by the treatise

as

> it

> > is at present is an afterthought: we will now proceed to expose

the

> > grounds of those supsicions.

> > " It is, in the first place, upon record that some of the earliest

> > Hindu astronomers were ignorant of, or ignored, the periodical

> motion

> > of the quinoxes; Brahmagupta himself is mentioned among those

whose

> > systems took no account of it; it is, then, not at all impossible

> > that the Surya Sidhanta, if an ancient work, may originally have

> done

> > the same (i.e. ignored precession). Among the positive evidence

to

> > that effect (i.e. being ignorant of precession) we would first

> > direct attention to the significant fact that if the verses at

the

> > head of this note were expunged, there would not be found, in the

> > whole body of the treatise besides, a single hint of the

> > precession....It (introduction of precession) has much more the

> > aspect of an afterthought, a correction found necessary at a

date

> > subsequent to the original composition, and therefore inserted,

> with

> > orders to 'apply it wherever it is required'.....It appears to us

> > even to admit of question whether the adoption of sidereal year

as

> > the unit of time does not imply a failure to recognize the fact

> that

> > the equinox was variable....The system having been first

> constructed

> > on the assumption of the equality of tropical and sidereal years,

> > when it began later to appear, too plainly to be disregarded,

that

> > the equinox had changed its place, the question was how to

> introduce

> > the new element " pages 117-18

> > This is how the " Xtian Missionary " has summarized his own views

> about

> > the knowledge (actually the lack of knowledge!) of precession in

> the

> > Surya Sidhanta on page 119, " There seems, accordingly, sufficient

> > ground for suspecting that in the Surya Sidhanta, as originally

> > constituted, no account was taken of the precession, that its

> > recognition is a later interpolation " .

> >

> > Now if you still want to go by the Surya Sidhanta " rate of

> > precession " let me explain to you your cherished ayanamsha as on

> date:

> > Ayanamsha, as per the SS, was zero at the start of Kaliyuga i.e.

> > February 18, 3102 BCE. As per the same SS, the Vernal Equinox

> > librates/oscillates (sic!)---as against being unidirectional

> actually-

> > --between 27 degrees plus and 27 degrees minus at the rate of 54

> arc

> > seconds per year. Thus it completes one-side of

> > oscillation/libration in 1800 years. As such, it was + (plus) 27

> > degrees in 3102 BCE + 1800 yrs = 1302 BCE. It started

oscillating,

> > as such, towards zero degrees from that date and was again zero

in

> > 1302 BCE (i.e. -1301 AD) + 1800 yrs = 499 AD. That is why Dr.

> Raman

> > used to say that as per the SS, 499 AD was the zero year instead

of

> > 285 AD of Lahiri! That can also be said to be the approximate

date

> of

> > composition of the current Surya Sidhanta available in the market

> at

> > present.

> > Since that date for another 1800 yrs. i.e. upto 499 + 1800 = 2299

> AD

> > it will go on increasing (instead of decreasing as per Lahirwalas

> and

> > Ramanawalas and even you!) up to 27 degrees. Therefore, as on

date

> > i.e. around February 18, 2009 the Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha will

be

> > 2009 minus 499 = 1510 (yrs) multiplied by 54 arcseconds = 81540

> > arcseconds i.e. 22 degrees 39 minutes plus (and not minus) which

> > means it is away by about 24 plus 22.6 = 46.6 degrees from Lahiri

> > Ayanamsha!

> > I hope you will not now hanker after Surya Sidhanta Ayanamsha!

> >

> > Since no other Sidhanta, till the time of Munjala's Karnagrantha

> viz.

> > Laghumanasa has talked anything even by mistake about any

> Ayanamsha,

> > obviously, they were unaware of that important phenomenon, and as

> > such, unaware of any difference between sidereal year and

tropical

> > year or the so called nirayana and sayana myth! That is what

> Alberuni

> > has lamented in his Alberuni's India that Varahamihira was an

> > ignorant fool that he had failed to see the difference due to

> > precession in his Brihat Samhita!

> >

> > <Ayanamshas which you rightly criticize to be unsound but when

> > presented with correct evidence ( 57 BC as a reference point in

> time

> > for Ayanamsha by Gupta Era Astronomers/Jyotishis )you start

calling

> > it far fetched. How contradictory you can be ?>

> >

> > Since I have proved it beyond all the reasonable doubts above

> > that " ancient Indian astronomers " did not know anything about

> > precession/ayanamsha, your " correct evidence " is anything but

> correct

> > and therefore no evidence at all. On the other hand, it goes

> against

> > the very grain of your wishful thinking of presuming that some

> Gupta

> > Era Indian astronomer had located the VE in some Mesha Rashi in

57

> > BCE, when it was actually in the Greek constellation Aries around

> > that time, and it was declared so by Hipparchus the Greek

> astronomer,

> > before hand, and not any Gupta Era astronomer! In other words,

you

> > are advocating Grecho-Chaldean astrology yourself on the

shoulders

> > of " Gupta Era astronomers " .

> > Regarding the statement of Burgess on page 120 of his work, which

> you

> > have quoted so fondly without verifying the facts, he is talking

> > about a post Bhaskara-II era, which he has discussed on page 119

in

> > the following words, " Bhaskara teaches the complete revolution of

> > equinoxes, giving the number of revolutions in an Aeon (of

> > 4,320,000,000 years) as 199,699; this makes the time of a single

> > revolution to be 21,635,8073 year, and the yearly rate of

> precession

> > 59 " .9007. " .

> > It is in regard to that rate of precession of 59 " .9 by Bhasskara

> vis-

> > a-vis the rate of precession of Hipparchus of 36 " a year that

> Burgess

> > has commented thus! And Bhaskara-II was an astronomer of 12th

> century

> > AD, and he has referred to Munjala's Ayanamsha in his Sidhanta

> > Shiromani! I hope, against hope, that you know that Munjala had

> > given a rate of Ayanamsha as 60 arc seconds per year in his

> > Laghumanasa---and Munjala was an astronomer of 10th century AD.

> And

> > it is actually the same Ayanamsha that Bhaskara-II has discussed!

> >

> > I hope (against hope, though!) you will now revise your baseless

> > assumptions which are without any shred of evidence that it was

> some

> > Gupta astronomer who had calculated Vikrami Era by dint of the

> > precession of Vernal Equinox!

> > The last laugh about your theory is that the VE did not enter

into

> > Aries constellation in around 58 BCE but it left that

constellation

> > and entered into Pisces constellation then! And it is that very

> > Pisces constellation which is known as Pisces astrological sign

in

> > Grecho-Chaldean astrology! The VE was in almost exact

conjunction

> > with Zeta Piscium in the first centuries of Christian Era!

> > Thanks for giving me an opportunity to show as to how baseless

your

> > theories and the theories of nirayana-walas (or even the so

called

> > sayana-walas, for that matter!)are.

> > A K Kaul

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

<amsharanx@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Shree Kauljee:

> > >

> > > I have the paragraph stating the knowledge of

> > > precession by Ancient Hindus at the following website:

> > >

> > > http://www.engr.mun.ca/~asharan/PRECESSION/HINDUS.pdf

> > >

> > > I have mentioned several times to you but some how - you do not

> pay

> > > attention to the facts which contradict your thinking about the

> > > knowledge of precession by our Hindus which even a Xtian

> Missionary

> > > admits here.

> > >

> > > You have been criticizing the Vedic Jyotishis for having all

> kinds

> > of

> > > Ayanamshas which you rightly criticize to be unsound but when

> > > presented with correct evidence ( 57 BC as a reference point in

> > time

> > > for Ayanamsha by Gupta Era Astronomers/Jyotishis )you start

> calling

> > > it far fetched. How contradictory you can be ?

> > >

> > > This evidence correctly points to the fact that the Modern

Hindus

> > > which include Vedic Jyotishis have lost the ancient and more

> > accurate

> > > knowledge the ancient astronomers /jyotishis had.

> > >

> > > Just knowing Sanskrit is not enough.

> > >

> > > Thanks.

> > >

> > > Anand M. Sharan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

> <amsharanx@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shree Kauljee:

> > > >

> > > > I quoted from the book by Burgess including the actual words

> from

> > > the

> > > > paragraphs, page number , publications etc. You never

responded

> > to

> > > > that. You are most welcome to refer to the book again.

> > > >

> > > > Most of the North India uses the Vikram Samvat. How can you

> deny

> > > the

> > > > truth behind setting up of this calendar ?

> > > >

> > > > Pl check again.

> > > >

> > > > In summary, the very existence of this calendar shows the

> > knowledge

> > > > of precession by astronomers of the Gupta Period.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks.

> > > >

> > > > Anand M. Sharan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen

Kaul "

> > > > <jyotirved@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Dr. Anand M. Sharan,

> > > > > Namaskar!

> > > > > Your post is very interesting, especially the following

> > > > > comment, " Actually, Shree Kauljee's inaccurate knowledge of

> the

> > > > > history of precession among Ancient Hindu Astronomers

causes

> a

> > > lot

> > > > > of confusion. "

> > > > > In one of your posts you had yourself said that you have

not

> > read

> > > > any

> > > > > of the sidhantas and as such, cannot quote the exact

shlokas

> > from

> > > > any

> > > > > of the sidhanta, which talks of precession! Then in one of

> > your

> > > > > another posts you had quoted chapter and verse from

Burgess'

> > > > > translation about the accuray of Hindu astronomers in

having

> > > > > determined the rate of precession correctly!

> > > > >

> > > > > However, unlike you, I have read quite a few sidhants,

> > especially

> > > > the

> > > > > Surya Sidhanta with Sanskrit commentary " Sudha Varshini " by

> Pt.

> > > > > Sudhakar Dwivedi, Hindi commentary by Mahavir Prasad

> Shrivastav

> > > and

> > > > > of course, the world famous Burgess translation! All the

> > > > > commentators have declared unequivocally that Maya the

> mlechha

> > > had

> > > > > absolutely no knowledge of precession. On the other hand,

> > > > the " world

> > > > > famous " shlokas " trimshat kritva yuge bhanam... " of the SS

> are

> > an

> > > > > interpolation of a much later date of about tenth century

> AD!

> > > That

> > > > > also has been admitted by all the comentators! If you take

> > these

> > > > > shlokas, which are supposed to be referring to

> > > precession/ayanamsha

> > > > > as authentic and from the original Surya Sidhanta, then for

> > your

> > > > > information, the current ayanamsha as per the Surya

Sidhanta

> is

> > > > not -

> > > > > 24 (minus twenty four) degrees as claimed by Lahirwalas nor

> > about

> > > > 23

> > > > > degrees as claimed by Shakuntala Devi but +47 (plus forty

> > seven)

> > > > > degrees!

> > > > > And for your further information, these very " trimshat

> > kritva... "

> > > > > shlokas have been quoted by Narada Rishi (sic!) in Narada

> > Purana,

> > > > > which is supposed to be an authority for " Vedic

astrologers "

> > but

> > > > > Gita Press Hindi translator/commentator has interpreted

those

> > > very

> > > > > shlokas in such a manner as to make the ayanamsha equal to

> that

> > > of

> > > > > Lahiri! I am keeping my fingers crossed as to whether it

was

> > > > because

> > > > > of the lack of knowledge of Sanskrit as well astronomy, or

> > > because

> > > > of

> > > > > his ulterior motives to propagate " Vedic astrology " with

> Lahiri

> > > > > Ayanamsha that the " Narada Rishi " as well as the Gita Press

> > > > > translator of Narada Purana had to resort to such a clumsy

> > > > > interpolation of the sholkas which are already interpolated

> in

> > a

> > > > > different work! Maybe you will be able to enlighten me

about

> > > that

> > > > > also!

> > > > > BTW, I did not expect anything else---except interpolating

> > > already

> > > > > interpolated shlokas---from " Vedic jyotishis " to prove

their

> > > > > nirayana, esecailly the Lahiri jyotisha!

> > > > > Then coming to Aryabhati, which carries a ditto copy of the

> > > > > fundamental arguments of the Surya Sidhanta of

> > Panchasidhantika,

> > > > that

> > > > > work also is conspicuously silent about any such phenomenon

> > like

> > > > > ayanamsha or precession just because poor Aryabhata too had

> no

> > > idea

> > > > > about it!

> > > > > Brahma Sphuta Sidhanta, Shishyadhivridhida etc. etc. also

are

> > > > sailing

> > > > > in the same boat!

> > > > > Some of the Sidhantas have even talked of Mesha Rashi as

> > Madhava

> > > > and

> > > > > Makara as Tapah!

> > > > > Will you now, for the sake of removing " Shree Kauljee's

> > > inaccurate

> > > > > knowledge " tell me exactly as to which ancient Hindu

> > astronomer,

> > > > > prior to Munjala's Laghumanasa (around 10th century AD),

has

> > > > > discussed even obliquely anything about ayanamsha on the

> > > shoulders

> > > > of

> > > > > precession?

> > > > > Ayanamsha is actually a myth created by confused Hindu

> > jyotishis

> > > of

> > > > > the past(who call themselves Vedic jyotishis these days!)

to

> > try

> > > to

> > > > > bridge the gap between the calculated positions of the

> Sun/Moon

> > > of

> > > > > the Surya Sidhanta and the observed positions!

> > > > > As clarified several times, Surya Sidhanta is based on

Greek

> > > > > astrology, which affiliated itself to twelve (unequal!)

> > > > > constellations of the name of Aries, Taurus etc. wrongly

and

> at

> > > the

> > > > > same time to seasons! The SS also has repeated time and

> > > > again " Bhanor

> > > > > Makar Sankranteh shanmasa uttarayanam, karkyades tathaiva

> syat

> > > > > shanmasa dakshinayanam " i.e. " With the ingress into Makara

> > Rashi,

> > > > the

> > > > > six months of Uttarayana start whereas with the ingress of

> the

> > > sun

> > > > > into Karkata Rashi, the six months of Dakshianayana

start " .

> > The

> > > > same

> > > > > SS has also said that Makar Sankranti is the shortest day

of

> > the

> > > > year

> > > > > and Karkata Sanknranti the longest day of the year! That

> means

> > > it

> > > > is

> > > > > talking of a seasonal solar year whch is known as Tropical

> > Solar

> > > > > year! But the duration of a year, as per calculations of

the

> > > same

> > > > SS

> > > > > are more by 3.5 seconds even than a sidereal year i.e more

by

> > > about

> > > > > 21 minutes from the Vedic solar year! That is exactly

what

> > > > created

> > > > > confusion among jyotishis!

> > > > > Since the SS was supposed to have been revealed by Surya

> > Bhagwan,

> > > > its

> > > > > calculations could not be wrong---that is what " HIndu

> > > astronomers "

> > > > of

> > > > > the past felt. And that is why they made all the efforts

to

> > > bridge

> > > > > the gap between the calculated Makara/Mesha/Karkata/Tula

> > > Sankranti

> > > > > and the observed ones by dint of " beeja corrections " which

> > became

> > > > > later known as Ayanamsha!

> > > > > That is what confused poor Varahamihira as well! And that

is

> > why

> > > > > there can never be any reconciliation of any astronomical

> data

> > > with

> > > > > any " Hindu sidhanta " in spite of using zillions of

Ayanamshas!

> > > > > That is a sad fact which has to be admitted by the entire

> Hindu

> > > > > community and it must come out of the stupor of nirayana

myth-

> --

> > > or

> > > > > even sayana myth, for that matter!

> > > > > Regarding your views, " I have felt that Shree Kauljee wants

> > > > Tropical

> > > > > Year and festivals observed based on Tropical Year. He is

> very

> > > > > focused. This, and only this, is is his objective " , you are

> > right

> > > > but

> > > > > only to some extent. For further clarifications about this

> > > point,

> > > > I

> > > > > will post a separate mail.

> > > > > With regards,

> > > > > A K Kaul

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > hinducivilization , " amsharanx "

> > > <amsharanx@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Actually, Shree Kauljee's inaccurate knowledge of the

> history

> > of

> > > > > > precession among Ancient Hindu Astronomers causes a lot

of

> > > > > confusion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > His intention to bring Makar Samkranti , presently

observed

> > on

> > > > Jan

> > > > > 14

> > > > > > to Dec. 21 has to be clearly spelt out. Dec. 21 is

> > Uttarayana ,

> > > > and

> > > > > it

> > > > > > should be said so explicitly. Why talk about Makar

> Samkranti

> > > when

> > > > > the

> > > > > > sideral Makar Samkranti is not there on Jan 14.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Secondly, the arbitrary selection of Ayanamshas by

various

> > > people

> > > > > > including Smt Shakuntala Devi - has also caused

confusion.

> > They

> > > > > should

> > > > > > have been using precession from 57 BC and not like Xtian

> > > calendar

> > > > of

> > > > > > 325 AD whose purpose was entirely different which suited

> the

> > > > needs

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the Pope and celebration of Easter. So, we see here that

> even

> > > > those

> > > > > > claiming to be devout Hindua ( Vedic Astrologers ) are

> > falling

> > > > into

> > > > > > Xtian Path.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have felt that Shree Kauljee wants Tropical Year and

> > festivals

> > > > > > observed based on Tropical Year. He is very focused.

This,

> > and

> > > > only

> > > > > > this, is is his objective.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If every one gives sufficient thought and write his or

her

> > > > comments

> > > > > in

> > > > > > brief then others can follow. Long postings are not

helpful

> > and

> > > > > often

> > > > > > misleading.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Anand M. Sharan

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > hinducivilization , " Bhalchandra

> > Thattey "

> > > > > > <tobhalgt@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Kindly enlighten us on CHALDEAN. What was their country

> and

> > > > where?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On 1/2/09, sreedhar.nambiar <sreedhar.nambiar@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---