Fwd: To AKK (From Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli)

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , ShankaraBharadwaj

Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:

>

> Sri AKK ji,

>

> "

> Simple: because they are identical. When the Sun is in tropical Mina

> or Mesha, the half-season on earth is Madhu c.q. Madhava. Different

> names from different traditions for the same objective entities, viz.

> the twelve slices of the seasonal year cycle. But that doesn't imply

> any predictive gimmickks, which are indeed totally alien to the Vedas. "

>

> You cannot bridge the fundamental differences between practitioner

and non-practitioner. To observation scholars Veda means samhita.

Practitioners of Hinduism do not delink Veda Samhita from their huge

corpus of literature for the simple reason that they understand the

relation and continuity. And you have taken the non-practitioner stance.

>

> When there is an irreconcilable difference, it is not nice to force

your opinions by trying to borrow authority from another

non-practitioner. I know bhramara keetaka nyaya and so do many other

members. Please do not apply it against Hindus - apply it against the

enemy if you can.

>

vedic_research_institute , " Koenraad Elst "

<koenraad.elst wrote:

 

vedic_research_institute , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved@> wrote:

>

> fact of the matter is that Vedic calendar is based on Madhu,

Madhava

> etc. seasonal months, which are totally unrelated to any type of

> Rashis and therefore any ayanamsha on the shoulders of precession!

> We could say that because Western Rashis like Aries, Taurus etc.

are

> aligned to seasons, as such, even the Vedic calendar is based on

> Western astrological signs. That is exactly what Rashtriya

Panchanga

> is doing even today. It calls Madhu as Vedic (Sayana) Mina and

> Madhava as Vedic (Sayana) Mesha etc. That is absolutely wrong!

> Firstly, because when there are no Mesha, Vrisha etc. Rashis in the

> Vedas, there is absolutely no dichotomy of so called Sayana or so

> called Nirayana. As such, how can the Rashtriya Panchanga align

> Western astrological Pisces with Madhu and Aries with Madhava and

so

> on?<

 

Simple: because they are identical. When the Sun is in tropical Mina

or Mesha, the half-season on earth is Madhu c.q. Madhava. Different

names from different traditions for the same objective entities, viz.

the twelve slices of the seasonal year cycle. But that doesn't imply

any predictive gimmickks, which are indeed totally alien to the Vedas.

 

> Secondly, if some how or the other without any rhyme or reason we

> agree with the Rashtirya Panchanga that Vedic months are Western

> astrological Rashis, it means that the so called nirayana whether

> Lahiri or Ramana etc. Aries, Taurus etc. rashis are actually non-

> Vedic and even anti-Vedic according to the Rashtriya Panchanga

itself

> since both i.e. nirayana and sayana cannot be Vedic simultaneously.

>

 

Before the discovery of the precession, there was no distinction

between sidereal/nirayana and tropical/sayana. Names were given to

stars on the asusmption that they had a fixed relation to the

seasons, e.g. the Egyptians thought for long that the star Sirius had

a fixed relation to the annual flooding of the Nile. But after enough

centuries of observation, the shift of the stars vis-à-vis the seaons

and seasonal events became undeniable. In that sense, it is likely

that for some time, the Vedic composers gave names to stars or

asterisms related to the seasonal phases with which they coincided

(through the Sun's position in them, or the Full Moon's, or the

asterism's heliacal rising).

 

So, they intended to use a tropical system, pointing to parts of the

heavens corresponding to earthly seasons and mistakenly using stars

as markers of those sectors of heaven. Once the mistake became clear,

they opted for the tropical system: even the ottherwise often

irrational Purana authors linked Capricorn/Makara to the winter

solstice rather than to the constellation, Aries/Mesha to the spring

equinox etc. But the " Vedic astrologers " didn't follow them, and

didn't follow their Hellenistic source either, which did opt for the

tropical Zodiac once the shift between the two conceptions of the

Zodiac became clear. So now the " Vedic astrologers " have saddled

Hindu society with celebrations pon wrong date, such as Winter

Solstice on 14 January and New Year / Spring Equinox on 14 April.

 

> What is most pathetic and tragic is that because of sinister

elements

> like late N. C. Lahiri in the Saha Calendar Reform Committee

(1955),

> that committee also recommended an Ayanamsha nearer to that of

> Grahalaghava---to be subtracted from Sayana longitudes which N. C.

> Lahiri named Chitra Ayanamsha euphemistically, when everybody

knows

> it as Lahiri Ayanamsha, since it has absolutely no connection with

> Chitra (Spica) Star actually!<

 

Well, it identifies its 180° point of the Zodiac with Spica/Chitra.

Which at once undemrines the whole concept of the Zodiac, for it

takes as marking star of Libra (= 180°, the opposite of 0° = Aries)

the chief star of Virgo.

 

Kind regards,

 

KE

 

 

> >

> > " They are irrelevant because

> > when all the Puranas and sidhantas tell us in one voice that

Makar

> > Sankranti is another name of Uttarayana, the shortest day of the

> > year, and Karkata Sankranti is a synonym of Dakshinayana, the

> longest

> > day of the year and so on, why should you come to the support

> > of " Vedic astrologers " when they advise us to celebrate Uttarayan-

> cum-

> > Makar Sankranti on January 14/15 instead of December 21/22 etc. "

> >

 

--- End forwarded message ---