Learn to Compute Surya Siddhantic Ayanamsha before abusing it

January 6, 2009

I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a

supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At first,

I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A K

Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp about

Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but could

not digest.

I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul calls

Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel it

necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says :

" 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 Narad 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! "

Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here using

the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :

In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600 librations/trepidations

of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/- 27

degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga began

(mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)

90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of 600

librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have completed.

Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction

0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ?

Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is one

full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a

positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative half-cycle.

First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to

zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27 degrees

and again to zero. This is negative half cycle.

From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the positive

half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for

Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will attain

its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333 -

0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets of

27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is

equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06 " . it is negative.

Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God knows

where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a

" scholar " who boasts thus : " I have read quite a few sidhants,

especially the SS 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! "

Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like Reverend

Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand the

intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not

understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true

planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real

forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of

jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its " topsy turvy

ayanamsha " .

Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana

( " rahasyam brahma sammitam " , cf. last verse of SS) by means of

tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of Indian

culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped Vedic

god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE knowledge

about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).

It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.

Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions, otherwise

evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or visiting

a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things

which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c. Whether

SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha

jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of Reverend

Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.

Mr Kaul says : " 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! " He is either lying or

has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.

It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later

invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is the

fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of equinoxes.

The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient texts

like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,

because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas are

deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after tapasya.

Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive part :

phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the

existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get benefits of

jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use

physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in

Phalita, but such a " scientific " jyotisha is neither science nor jyotisha.

I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and test

its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by

testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are

destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which has

made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform Phlita

as well !

Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing from

yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest important

phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables of

Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of the

extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch. It is

not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero ayanamsha.

His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that real

jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see is

that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,

ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc.

SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the

mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with

physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to

uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its manuscripts

were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical

constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of Saurpakshiya

mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena. Salient

points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years ago,

but is now our of print. It is being translated.

Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.

Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in SS.

Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha ecliptic

planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees, and

then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya

declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48 " . Now-a-days, nutation

is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely accurate

value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet so

superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve this

divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?

But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology, otherwise we

will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all

followeres of Lahiri are doing today.

Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can ever

imagine. But not if he abuses its " topsy-turvy " things which he does

not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown above.

Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta before

abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.

Suryasiddanta is " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " , which has never been

given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong

brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya is

the first condition for getting " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " . However,

materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of

Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic

world of Noumena.

The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be dealt

with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke and

his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.

For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an

abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo some

penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul and

others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and sincerity.

-VJ

January 6, 2009

Hare ramakrishna

respected vinay ji

namaskar

many thanks for disclosing to us the intricasies of surya sidhantha and first time tho u r trying to teach a real mlecha with guru chandalatwa we got valuable lesson and we r thankful for u and if possible pls giv us more of ur ideas and knowledge abt it to us who r not much lucky to delve into secrets of bharatiya ganita sastra and gola sastras

kaul and team is outrightly taken contract to destroy hindu phalita jyotisha as it is givng obstacles to christian and semetic religions a gr8 threat and even after pumping billions and after 2 centuries they r still not in victory stand and which is a dilemma if u compare with other nations and cultures which was ruled by western countries ,within no matter of time including royal families got converted in many many countries ruled by them or even their own culture completely lost .so i hav strong doubts abt his real aim ,is it only celebrating festivals or celebrating the last rites of hinduism .

thanks and regrds sunil nair

om shreem mahalaxmai namah

, "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a> supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At first,> I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A K> Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp about> Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but could> not digest.> > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul calls> Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel it> necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says :> "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 Narad 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!"> > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here using> the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :> > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600 librations/trepidations> of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/- 27> degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga began> (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)> 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of 600> librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have completed.> Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ? > > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is one> full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a> positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative half-cycle.> First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to> zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27 degrees> and again to zero. This is negative half cycle. > > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the positive> half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for> Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will attain> its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333 -> 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets of> 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is> equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06". it is negative. > > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God knows> where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a> "scholar" who boasts thus : "I have read quite a few sidhants,> especially the SS 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!"> > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like Reverend> Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand the> intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not> understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true> planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real> forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of> jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its "topsy turvy> ayanamsha".> > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana> ("rahasyam brahma sammitam", cf. last verse of SS) by means of> tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of Indian> culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped Vedic> god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE knowledge> about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).> > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.> Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions, otherwise> evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or visiting> a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things> which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c. Whether> SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha> jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of Reverend> Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.> > Mr Kaul says :" 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!" He is either lying or> has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.> > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later> invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is the> fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of equinoxes.> The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient texts> like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,> because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas are> deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after tapasya.> Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive part :> phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the> existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get benefits of> jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use> physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in> Phalita, but such a "scientific" jyotisha is neither science nor jyotisha.> > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and test> its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by> testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are> destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which has> made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform Phlita> as well !> > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing from> yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest important> phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables of> Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of the> extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch. It is> not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero ayanamsha.> > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that real> jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see is> that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,> ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc. > > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the> mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with> physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to> uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its manuscripts> were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical> constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of Saurpakshiya> mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena. Salient> points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years ago,> but is now our of print. It is being translated. > > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.> Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in SS.> Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha ecliptic> planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees, and> then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya> declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48" . Now-a-days, nutation> is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely accurate> value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet so> superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve this> divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?> > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology, otherwise we> will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all> followeres of Lahiri are doing today.> > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can ever> imagine. But not if he abuses its "topsy-turvy" things which he does> not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown above.> > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta before> abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.> Suryasiddanta is "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam" , which has never been> given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong> brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya is> the first condition for getting "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam". However,> materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of> Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic> world of Noumena.> > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be dealt> with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke and> his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.> > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an> abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo some> penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul and> others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and sincerity.> > -VJ>

January 7, 2009

Regarding the discussion about ayanamsha, I would like to refer to one

of my previous posts at

/message/17045

which contains the following passage written by me :

RNI wrote " May God save Hinduism from Vedic Astrologers, who advocate

the Vedic Uttarayana Punyakala (known from medieval times as Makara

Sankranti)to be observed on 14th January. " Christian New Year

commenced from nirayana Makar Samkranti for sixteen centuries, before

tropicalists substracted 13 days and now Jan-1 comes 13 days before

Makar Samkranti. God saved Christians from this abominable Makar

Samkranti, and now RNI wishes " May God save Hinduism " too.

Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :

(1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning

ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu

scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of Hindus.

Both of them do not know the traditional definition of Ayanamsha, and

are misled by fools like Colebrooke and Burgess who confused Ayanamsha

with precession. Suryasiddhanta clearly defines that ayanamsha is

libration of the orbit of nakshatras like a pendulum, within a range

of +/- 27 degrees. This orbit of nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru

once in 60 years. all objects beyond this orbit are not grahas, like

Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. Graha of Vedic Jyotisha is defined in terms

of nakshatra-kakshaa and not in terms of their relation to the Sun.

Reverend Burgess & c had no interest in understanding and explaining

Suryasiddhanta. Such persons had another agenda : to poke fun at Hindu

astronomy. I will post the loopholes in the foolish commentaries of

Burgess and his chelas in a phased manner.

This nakshatra orbit cannot be directly perceived, because no material

oject lies there. But its existence has already been proven. Cf.

http://weatherindia.wetpaint.com/page/A+New+approach+to+Rain+Forecasting

I will explain it according to the level of curiosity in readers.

-VJ

==================== ======================== =================

, " sunil nair "

<astro_tellerkerala wrote:

>

> Hare ramakrishna

>

> respected vinay ji

>

> namaskar

>

> many thanks for disclosing to us the intricasies of surya sidhantha and

> first time tho u r trying to teach a real mlecha with guru chandalatwa

> we got valuable lesson and we r thankful for u and if possible pls giv

> us more of ur ideas and knowledge abt it to us who r not much lucky to

> delve into secrets of bharatiya ganita sastra and gola sastras

>

> kaul and team is outrightly taken contract to destroy hindu phalita

> jyotisha as it is givng obstacles to christian and semetic religions a

> gr8 threat and even after pumping billions and after 2 centuries they r

> still not in victory stand and which is a dilemma if u compare with

> other nations and cultures which was ruled by western countries ,within

> no matter of time including royal families got converted in many many

> countries ruled by them or even their own culture completely lost .so i

> hav strong doubts abt his real aim ,is it only celebrating festivals or

> celebrating the last rites of hinduism .

>

> thanks and regrds sunil nair

>

> om shreem mahalaxmai namah

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 "

> <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a

> > supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At first,

> > I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A K

> > Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp about

> > Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but could

> > not digest.

> >

> > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul calls

> > Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel it

> > necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says :

> > " 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 Narad 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! "

> >

> > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here using

> > the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :

> >

> > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600 librations/trepidations

> > of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/- 27

> > degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga began

> > (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)

> > 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of 600

> > librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have completed.

> > Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction

> > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ?

> >

> > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is one

> > full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a

> > positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative half-cycle.

> > First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to

> > zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27 degrees

> > and again to zero. This is negative half cycle.

> >

> > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the positive

> > half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for

> > Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will attain

> > its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333 -

> > 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets of

> > 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is

> > equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06 " . it is negative.

> >

> > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God knows

> > where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a

> > " scholar " who boasts thus : " I have read quite a few sidhants,

> > especially the SS 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! "

> >

> > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like Reverend

> > Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand the

> > intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not

> > understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true

> > planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real

> > forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of

> > jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its " topsy turvy

> > ayanamsha " .

> >

> > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana

> > ( " rahasyam brahma sammitam " , cf. last verse of SS) by means of

> > tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of Indian

> > culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped Vedic

> > god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE knowledge

> > about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).

> >

> > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.

> > Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions, otherwise

> > evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or visiting

> > a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things

> > which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c. Whether

> > SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha

> > jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of Reverend

> > Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.

> >

> > Mr Kaul says : " 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! " He is either lying or

> > has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.

> >

> > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later

> > invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is the

> > fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of equinoxes.

> > The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient texts

> > like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,

> > because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas are

> > deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after tapasya.

> > Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive part :

> > phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the

> > existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get benefits of

> > jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use

> > physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in

> > Phalita, but such a " scientific " jyotisha is neither science nor

> jyotisha.

> >

> > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and test

> > its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by

> > testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are

> > destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which has

> > made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform Phlita

> > as well !

> >

> > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing from

> > yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest important

> > phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables of

> > Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of the

> > extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch. It is

> > not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero ayanamsha.

> >

> > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that real

> > jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see is

> > that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,

> > ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc.

> >

> > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the

> > mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with

> > physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to

> > uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its manuscripts

> > were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical

> > constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of Saurpakshiya

> > mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena. Salient

> > points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years ago,

> > but is now our of print. It is being translated.

> >

> > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.

> > Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in SS.

> > Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha ecliptic

> > planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees, and

> > then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya

> > declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48 " . Now-a-days, nutation

> > is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely accurate

> > value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet so

> > superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve this

> > divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?

> >

> > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology, otherwise we

> > will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all

> > followeres of Lahiri are doing today.

> >

> > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can ever

> > imagine. But not if he abuses its " topsy-turvy " things which he does

> > not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown

> above.

> >

> > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta before

> > abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.

> > Suryasiddanta is " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " , which has never been

> > given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong

> > brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya is

> > the first condition for getting " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " . However,

> > materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of

> > Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic

> > world of Noumena.

> >

> > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be dealt

> > with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke and

> > his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.

> >

> > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an

> > abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo some

> > penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul and

> > others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and

> sincerity.

> >

> > -VJ

> >

>

January 7, 2009

Dear Vinay Jha ji, That was a beautiful article! Many of the points dealt within it were way beyond my comprehension - due to my limited knowledge. But a WoW certainly escaped my lips on reading such a real scholarly article. I don't merit to comment on such an article, since my understanding of Siddhantic astronomy is very limited. May be currently in this group, Chandrahari is the only individual who merit to comment on your words about Suryas Siddhanta and Siddhantic astronomy. Thanks a lot for sharing. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a> supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At first,> I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A K> Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp about> Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but could> not digest.> > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul calls> Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel it> necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says :> "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 Narad 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!"> > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here using> the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :> > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600 librations/trepidations> of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/- 27> degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga began> (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)> 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of 600> librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have completed.> Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ? > > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is one> full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a> positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative half-cycle.> First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to> zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27 degrees> and again to zero. This is negative half cycle. > > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the positive> half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for> Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will attain> its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333 -> 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets of> 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is> equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06". it is negative. > > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God knows> where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a> "scholar" who boasts thus : "I have read quite a few sidhants,> especially the SS 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!"> > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like Reverend> Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand the> intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not> understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true> planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real> forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of> jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its "topsy turvy> ayanamsha".> > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana> ("rahasyam brahma sammitam", cf. last verse of SS) by means of> tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of Indian> culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped Vedic> god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE knowledge> about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).> > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.> Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions, otherwise> evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or visiting> a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things> which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c. Whether> SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha> jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of Reverend> Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.> > Mr Kaul says :" 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!" He is either lying or> has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.> > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later> invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is the> fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of equinoxes.> The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient texts> like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,> because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas are> deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after tapasya.> Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive part :> phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the> existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get benefits of> jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use> physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in> Phalita, but such a "scientific" jyotisha is neither science nor jyotisha.> > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and test> its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by> testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are> destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which has> made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform Phlita> as well !> > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing from> yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest important> phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables of> Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of the> extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch. It is> not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero ayanamsha.> > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that real> jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see is> that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,> ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc. > > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the> mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with> physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to> uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its manuscripts> were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical> constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of Saurpakshiya> mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena. Salient> points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years ago,> but is now our of print. It is being translated. > > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.> Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in SS.> Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha ecliptic> planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees, and> then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya> declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48" . Now-a-days, nutation> is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely accurate> value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet so> superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve this> divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?> > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology, otherwise we> will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all> followeres of Lahiri are doing today.> > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can ever> imagine. But not if he abuses its "topsy-turvy" things which he does> not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown above.> > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta before> abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.> Suryasiddanta is "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam" , which has never been> given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong> brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya is> the first condition for getting "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam". However,> materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of> Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic> world of Noumena.> > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be dealt> with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke and> his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.> > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an> abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo some> penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul and> others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and sincerity.> > -VJ>

January 7, 2009

Dear Vinay ji, That was a curious and informative mail! Thanks for sharing. ==>> Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common : > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning> ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu> scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of Hindus.<== Good observation! That is completly true for Koul (AKK), but the 2nd point is a bit too harsh for RNI it seems - I don't think he is so. Coming to the Siddantic concepts and statements - I am no good to comment; and so helds back. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "vinayjhaa16" <vinayjhaa16 wrote:>> Regarding the discussion about ayanamsha, I would like to refer to one> of my previous posts at> /message/17045> which contains the following passage written by me :> > RNI wrote "May God save Hinduism from Vedic Astrologers, who advocate> the Vedic Uttarayana Punyakala (known from medieval times as Makara> Sankranti)to be observed on 14th January." Christian New Year> commenced from nirayana Makar Samkranti for sixteen centuries, before> tropicalists substracted 13 days and now Jan-1 comes 13 days before> Makar Samkranti. God saved Christians from this abominable Makar> Samkranti, and now RNI wishes "May God save Hinduism" too.> > Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :> > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning> ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu> scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of Hindus.> > Both of them do not know the traditional definition of Ayanamsha, and> are misled by fools like Colebrooke and Burgess who confused Ayanamsha> with precession. Suryasiddhanta clearly defines that ayanamsha is> libration of the orbit of nakshatras like a pendulum, within a range> of +/- 27 degrees. This orbit of nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru> once in 60 years. all objects beyond this orbit are not grahas, like> Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. Graha of Vedic Jyotisha is defined in terms> of nakshatra-kakshaa and not in terms of their relation to the Sun.> Reverend Burgess & c had no interest in understanding and explaining> Suryasiddhanta. Such persons had another agenda : to poke fun at Hindu> astronomy. I will post the loopholes in the foolish commentaries of> Burgess and his chelas in a phased manner.> > This nakshatra orbit cannot be directly perceived, because no material> oject lies there. But its existence has already been proven. Cf. > http://weatherindia.wetpaint.com/page/A+New+approach+to+Rain+Forecasting> > I will explain it according to the level of curiosity in readers.> > -VJ> ==================== ======================== =================> > , "sunil nair"> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:> >> > > > > > > > Hare ramakrishna> > > > > > > > respected vinay ji> > > > namaskar> > > > > > > > many thanks for disclosing to us the intricasies of surya sidhantha and> > first time tho u r trying to teach a real mlecha with guru chandalatwa> > we got valuable lesson and we r thankful for u and if possible pls giv> > us more of ur ideas and knowledge abt it to us who r not much lucky to > > delve into secrets of bharatiya ganita sastra and gola sastras> > > > > > > > kaul and team is outrightly taken contract to destroy hindu phalita> > jyotisha as it is givng obstacles to christian and semetic religions a> > gr8 threat and even after pumping billions and after 2 centuries they r> > still not in victory stand and which is a dilemma if u compare with> > other nations and cultures which was ruled by western countries ,within > > no matter of time including royal families got converted in many many> > countries ruled by them or even their own culture completely lost .so i> > hav strong doubts abt his real aim ,is it only celebrating festivals or> > celebrating the last rites of hinduism .> > > > > > > > thanks and regrds sunil nair> > > > > > > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah> > > > > > , "vinayjhaa16"> > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:> > >> > > I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a> > > supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At first,> > > I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A K> > > Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp about> > > Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but could> > > not digest.> > >> > > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul calls> > > Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel it> > > necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says :> > > "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 Narad 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!"> > >> > > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here using> > > the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :> > >> > > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600 librations/trepidations> > > of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/- 27> > > degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga began> > > (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)> > > 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of 600> > > librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have completed.> > > Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction> > > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ?> > >> > > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is one> > > full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a> > > positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative half-cycle.> > > First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to> > > zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27 degrees> > > and again to zero. This is negative half cycle.> > >> > > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the positive> > > half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for> > > Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will attain> > > its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333 -> > > 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets of> > > 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is> > > equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06". it is negative.> > >> > > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God knows> > > where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a> > > "scholar" who boasts thus : "I have read quite a few sidhants,> > > especially the SS 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!"> > >> > > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like Reverend> > > Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand the> > > intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not> > > understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true> > > planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real> > > forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of> > > jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its "topsy turvy> > > ayanamsha".> > >> > > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana> > > ("rahasyam brahma sammitam", cf. last verse of SS) by means of> > > tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of Indian> > > culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped Vedic> > > god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE knowledge> > > about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).> > >> > > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.> > > Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions, otherwise> > > evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or visiting> > > a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things> > > which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c. Whether> > > SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha> > > jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of Reverend> > > Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.> > >> > > Mr Kaul says :" 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!" He is either lying or> > > has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.> > >> > > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later> > > invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is the> > > fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of equinoxes.> > > The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient texts> > > like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,> > > because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas are> > > deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after tapasya.> > > Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive part :> > > phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the> > > existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get benefits of> > > jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use> > > physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in> > > Phalita, but such a "scientific" jyotisha is neither science nor> > jyotisha.> > >> > > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and test> > > its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by> > > testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are> > > destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which has> > > made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform Phlita> > > as well !> > >> > > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing from> > > yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest important> > > phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables of> > > Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of the> > > extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch. It is> > > not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero ayanamsha.> > >> > > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that real> > > jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see is> > > that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,> > > ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc.> > >> > > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the> > > mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with> > > physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to> > > uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its manuscripts> > > were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical> > > constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of Saurpakshiya> > > mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena. Salient> > > points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years ago,> > > but is now our of print. It is being translated.> > >> > > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.> > > Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in SS.> > > Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha ecliptic> > > planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees, and> > > then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya> > > declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48" . Now-a-days, nutation> > > is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely accurate> > > value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet so> > > superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve this> > > divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?> > >> > > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology, otherwise we> > > will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all> > > followeres of Lahiri are doing today.> > >> > > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can ever> > > imagine. But not if he abuses its "topsy-turvy" things which he does> > > not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown> > above.> > >> > > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta before> > > abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.> > > Suryasiddanta is "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam" , which has never been> > > given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong> > > brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya is> > > the first condition for getting "RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam". However,> > > materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of> > > Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic> > > world of Noumena.> > >> > > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be dealt> > > with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke and> > > his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.> > >> > > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an> > > abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo some> > > penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul and> > > others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and> > sincerity.> > >> > > -VJ> > >> >>

January 7, 2009

Dear Sreenadhji,

I too agree wth Vinayji on the assessment of these two persons, but with a

slight difference.

A.K.Kaul's actions are more like an anti- Hindu person and his knowledge of

Sanskrit is as good as zero as he has misinterpreted so many verses, unless he

had done so wilfully. You might have seen that on several occasions when I

caught him in his misinterpretations, in another forum and he immediately left

those topics. He did not know the difference between Sakendra-kala of

Varahamihira and the Sakanta-kala of Brahmagupta and he got the date of

Varahamihira all wrong. Because of his not being aware of the true date of

Varahamihira he thought Varahamihira copied entirely from the Greeks and called

Varahamihira a charalatan, in almost all his mails. He does have a point about

Makara Sankranti but he does not appear to know the genesis of the problem

correctly. You are aware that Winter solstice occurred in the Makara rashi, for

about two thousand years. Around 450 BCE the Winter solstice in the Makar rashi

and the Vernal equinox at the beginning of

Ashwin coincided. Due to precession such coincidence do not occur now. That

Mesharambha calendar went to the west at that time and that is the basis of the

western calendar and corrections including those of Pope Gregory were applied

later. Though Jesus Christ was born in September it was decoided in the 4th

century to observe Jesus Christ's birthday on that auspicious day. The Makar

sankraman ie. when the Sun enters the Makar rashi has shifted and how canthen

one observe Makar sankraman in a rashi other than Makar rashi. He wants us to

observe Makar sankraman in another rashi. What he should have probably said is

that such being the case let us observe the Winter solstice separately on the

day the Winter solstice actually occurs and let the Makar Sankranti be observed

when the Sun enters the Makar rashi. But he behaves like an anti- Hindu person.

Please tell me if I am wrong.

On the other hand Prof. Iyengar dioes not know astrology at all and he

criticises it as he thinks that it is unscientific. He has reduced the antiquity

of the Mahabharata war by misinterpreting the data given by Vedavyasa. In that

his action is like Rajesh Kocchar and the Marxist scholar Romila Thapar, who too

revel in lowering the antiquity of the ancient Hindu chronology. Kindly tell me

if I am wrong.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:

Sreenadh <sreesog

Re: Learn to Compute Surya Siddhantic

Ayanamsha before abusing it

Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 1:13 AM

Dear Vinay ji,

That was a curious and informative mail! Thanks for sharing.

==>

> Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :

> (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning

> ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu

> scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of Hindus.

<==

Good observation! That is completly true for Koul (AKK), but the 2nd point is

a bit too harsh for RNI it seems - I don't think he is so.

Coming to the Siddantic concepts and statements - I am no good to comment; and

so helds back.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

ancient_indian_ astrology, " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@

....> wrote:

>

> Regarding the discussion about ayanamsha, I would like to refer to one

> of my previous posts at

> http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology /message/ 17045

> which contains the following passage written by me :

>

> RNI wrote " May God save Hinduism from Vedic Astrologers, who advocate

> the Vedic Uttarayana Punyakala (known from medieval times as Makara

> Sankranti)to be observed on 14th January. " Christian New Year

> commenced from nirayana Makar Samkranti for sixteen centuries, before

> tropicalists substracted 13 days and now Jan-1 comes 13 days before

> Makar Samkranti. God saved Christians from this abominable Makar

> Samkranti, and now RNI wishes " May God save Hinduism " too.

>

> Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :

>

> (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning

> ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu

> scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of Hindus.

>

> Both of them do not know the traditional definition of Ayanamsha, and

> are misled by fools like Colebrooke and Burgess who confused Ayanamsha

> with precession. Suryasiddhanta clearly defines that ayanamsha is

> libration of the orbit of nakshatras like a pendulum, within a range

> of +/- 27 degrees. This orbit of nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru

> once in 60 years. all objects beyond this orbit are not grahas, like

> Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. Graha of Vedic Jyotisha is defined in terms

> of nakshatra-kakshaa and not in terms of their relation to the Sun.

> Reverend Burgess & c had no interest in understanding and explaining

> Suryasiddhanta. Such persons had another agenda : to poke fun at Hindu

> astronomy. I will post the loopholes in the foolish commentaries of

> Burgess and his chelas in a phased manner.

>

> This nakshatra orbit cannot be directly perceived, because no material

> oject lies there. But its existence has already been proven. Cf.

> http://weatherindia .wetpaint. com/page/ A+New+approach+ to+Rain+Forecast ing

>

> I will explain it according to the level of curiosity in readers.

>

> -VJ

> ============ ======== ============ ========= === ============ =====

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, " sunil nair "

> astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> >

> > Hare ramakrishna

> >

> > respected vinay ji

> >

> > namaskar

> >

> > many thanks for disclosing to us the intricasies of surya sidhantha and

> > first time tho u r trying to teach a real mlecha with guru chandalatwa

> > we got valuable lesson and we r thankful for u and if possible pls giv

> > us more of ur ideas and knowledge abt it to us who r not much lucky to

> > delve into secrets of bharatiya ganita sastra and gola sastras

> >

> > kaul and team is outrightly taken contract to destroy hindu phalita

> > jyotisha as it is givng obstacles to christian and semetic religions a

> > gr8 threat and even after pumping billions and after 2 centuries they r

> > still not in victory stand and which is a dilemma if u compare with

> > other nations and cultures which was ruled by western countries ,within

> > no matter of time including royal families got converted in many many

> > countries ruled by them or even their own culture completely lost .so i

> > hav strong doubts abt his real aim ,is it only celebrating festivals or

> > celebrating the last rites of hinduism .

> >

> > thanks and regrds sunil nair

> >

> > om shreem mahalaxmai namah

> >

> > ancient_indian_ astrology, " vinayjhaa16 "

> > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a

> > > supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At first,

> > > I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A K

> > > Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp about

> > > Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but could

> > > not digest.

> > >

> > > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul calls

> > > Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel it

> > > necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says :

> > > " If you take these shlokas , which are supposed to be referring to

> > > precession/ayanamsh a 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 Narad Purana,which is supposed to be an authority for " Vedic

> > > astrologers " but Gita Press Hindi translator/commenta tor has

> > > interpreted those very shlokas in such a manner as to make the

> > > ayanamsha equal to that of Lahiri! "

> > >

> > > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here using

> > > the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :

> > >

> > > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600 librations/trepidat ions

> > > of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/- 27

> > > degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga began

> > > (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)

> > > 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of 600

> > > librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have completed.

> > > Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction

> > > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ?

> > >

> > > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is one

> > > full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a

> > > positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative half-cycle.

> > > First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to

> > > zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27 degrees

> > > and again to zero. This is negative half cycle.

> > >

> > > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the positive

> > > half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for

> > > Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will attain

> > > its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333 -

> > > 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets of

> > > 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is

> > > equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06 " . it is negative.

> > >

> > > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God knows

> > > where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a

> > > " scholar " who boasts thus : " I have read quite a few sidhants,

> > > especially the SS 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! "

> > >

> > > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like Reverend

> > > Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand the

> > > intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not

> > > understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true

> > > planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real

> > > forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of

> > > jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its " topsy turvy

> > > ayanamsha " .

> > >

> > > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana

> > > ( " rahasyam brahma sammitam " , cf. last verse of SS) by means of

> > > tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of Indian

> > > culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped Vedic

> > > god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE knowledge

> > > about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).

> > >

> > > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.

> > > Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions, otherwise

> > > evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or visiting

> > > a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things

> > > which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c. Whether

> > > SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha

> > > jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of Reverend

> > > Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.

> > >

> > > Mr Kaul says : " 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! " He is either lying or

> > > has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.

> > >

> > > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later

> > > invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is the

> > > fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of equinoxes.

> > > The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient texts

> > > like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,

> > > because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas are

> > > deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after tapasya.

> > > Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive part :

> > > phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the

> > > existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get benefits of

> > > jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use

> > > physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in

> > > Phalita, but such a " scientific " jyotisha is neither science nor

> > jyotisha.

> > >

> > > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and test

> > > its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by

> > > testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are

> > > destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which has

> > > made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform Phlita

> > > as well !

> > >

> > > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing from

> > > yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest important

> > > phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables of

> > > Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of the

> > > extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch. It is

> > > not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero ayanamsha.

> > >

> > > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that real

> > > jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see is

> > > that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,

> > > ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc.

> > >

> > > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the

> > > mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with

> > > physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to

> > > uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its manuscripts

> > > were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical

> > > constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of Saurpakshiya

> > > mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena. Salient

> > > points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years ago,

> > > but is now our of print. It is being translated.

> > >

> > > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.

> > > Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in SS.

> > > Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha ecliptic

> > > planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees, and

> > > then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya

> > > declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48 " . Now-a-days, nutation

> > > is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely accurate

> > > value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet so

> > > superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve this

> > > divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?

> > >

> > > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology, otherwise we

> > > will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all

> > > followeres of Lahiri are doing today.

> > >

> > > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can ever

> > > imagine. But not if he abuses its " topsy-turvy " things which he does

> > > not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown

> > above.

> > >

> > > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta before

> > > abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.

> > > Suryasiddanta is " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " , which has never been

> > > given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong

> > > brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya is

> > > the first condition for getting " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " . However,

> > > materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of

> > > Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic

> > > world of Noumena.

> > >

> > > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be dealt

> > > with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke and

> > > his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.

> > >

> > > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an

> > > abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo some

> > > penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul and

> > > others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and

> > sincerity.

> > >

> > > -VJ

> > >

> >

>

January 7, 2009

Sreenadh jee,

I do not use harsh words for anyone unless I am convinced it is my

bounden duty to do so. I try to neglect personal insults, but it was

hard for me to neglect the foul words used by RNI against all Vedic

Jyotishis. Maybe he did so innocently, I am not sure.

If RNI is really interested in ancient astronomy, why he avoids a

discussion with me on this topic? I will apologize for my remarks if

he proves me wrong.

-VJ

=========== =========== ===========

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Vinay ji,

> That was a curious and informative mail! Thanks for sharing.

> ==>

> > Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :

> > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning

> > ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu

> > scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of

> Hindus.

> <==

> Good observation! That is completly true for Koul (AKK), but the 2nd

> point is a bit too harsh for RNI it seems - I don't think he is so.

> Coming to the Siddantic concepts and statements - I am no good to

> comment; and so helds back.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " vinayjhaa16 "

> <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> >

> > Regarding the discussion about ayanamsha, I would like to refer to one

> > of my previous posts at

> > /message/17045

> > which contains the following passage written by me :

> >

> > RNI wrote " May God save Hinduism from Vedic Astrologers, who advocate

> > the Vedic Uttarayana Punyakala (known from medieval times as Makara

> > Sankranti)to be observed on 14th January. " Christian New Year

> > commenced from nirayana Makar Samkranti for sixteen centuries, before

> > tropicalists substracted 13 days and now Jan-1 comes 13 days before

> > Makar Samkranti. God saved Christians from this abominable Makar

> > Samkranti, and now RNI wishes " May God save Hinduism " too.

> >

> > Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :

> >

> > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning

> > ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu

> > scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of

> Hindus.

> >

> > Both of them do not know the traditional definition of Ayanamsha, and

> > are misled by fools like Colebrooke and Burgess who confused Ayanamsha

> > with precession. Suryasiddhanta clearly defines that ayanamsha is

> > libration of the orbit of nakshatras like a pendulum, within a range

> > of +/- 27 degrees. This orbit of nakshatras revolves round Mt Meru

> > once in 60 years. all objects beyond this orbit are not grahas, like

> > Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. Graha of Vedic Jyotisha is defined in terms

> > of nakshatra-kakshaa and not in terms of their relation to the Sun.

> > Reverend Burgess & c had no interest in understanding and explaining

> > Suryasiddhanta. Such persons had another agenda : to poke fun at Hindu

> > astronomy. I will post the loopholes in the foolish commentaries of

> > Burgess and his chelas in a phased manner.

> >

> > This nakshatra orbit cannot be directly perceived, because no material

> > oject lies there. But its existence has already been proven. Cf.

> >

> http://weatherindia.wetpaint.com/page/A+New+approach+to+Rain+Forecasting

> >

> > I will explain it according to the level of curiosity in readers.

> >

> > -VJ

> > ==================== ======================== =================

> >

> > , " sunil nair "

> > astro_tellerkerala@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Hare ramakrishna

> > >

> > > respected vinay ji

> > >

> > > namaskar

> > >

> > > many thanks for disclosing to us the intricasies of surya sidhantha

> and

> > > first time tho u r trying to teach a real mlecha with guru

> chandalatwa

> > > we got valuable lesson and we r thankful for u and if possible pls

> giv

> > > us more of ur ideas and knowledge abt it to us who r not much lucky

> to

> > > delve into secrets of bharatiya ganita sastra and gola sastras

> > >

> > > kaul and team is outrightly taken contract to destroy hindu phalita

> > > jyotisha as it is givng obstacles to christian and semetic religions

> a

> > > gr8 threat and even after pumping billions and after 2 centuries

> they r

> > > still not in victory stand and which is a dilemma if u compare with

> > > other nations and cultures which was ruled by western countries

> ,within

> > > no matter of time including royal families got converted in many

> many

> > > countries ruled by them or even their own culture completely lost

> .so i

> > > hav strong doubts abt his real aim ,is it only celebrating festivals

> or

> > > celebrating the last rites of hinduism .

> > >

> > > thanks and regrds sunil nair

> > >

> > > om shreem mahalaxmai namah

> > >

> > > , " vinayjhaa16 "

> > > <vinayjhaa16@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I read the heated debate about ayanamsha, and was sorry to find a

> > > > supposedly scholarly debated stooping to such low standards. At

> first,

> > > > I tried to keep away due to the foul language of Mr Kaul, but Mr A

> K

> > > > Kaul is determined to create a fuss about Vedic Jyotisha, esp

> about

> > > > Suryasiddhanta (SS henceforth), which he claims to have read but

> could

> > > > not digest.

> > > >

> > > > I beg apology for my harsh words, but I am helpless. Mr A K Kaul

> calls

> > > > Mr Sharan and all adherents of Vedic Jyotisha fools. Hence, I feel

> it

> > > > necessary to bring to light the quality of his erudition. He says

> :

> > > > " 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 Narad 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! "

> > > >

> > > > Mr Kaul would not value commentaries by pandits, hence I am here

> using

> > > > the commentary of Christian priest E Burgess :

> > > >

> > > > In a mahayuga of 4320000 years, there are 600

> librations/trepidations

> > > > of bha-chakra, one libration in 7200 years, upto a maximum of +/-

> 27

> > > > degrees. Nearly 3893109 years have passed since this mahayuga

> began

> > > > (mean mesha samkranti of 2009 AD). Hence, (3893109 / 4320000 =)

> > > > 90.11826263888889 % of a mahayuga has passed. Therefore, out of

> 600

> > > > librations in a mahayuga, 540.7095833333 librations have

> completed.

> > > > Leaving aside 540 complete librations, we are left with a fraction

> > > > 0.7095833333, which must be converted into degrees. How ?

> > > >

> > > > Multiply a full cycle with 3/10, you will get 108 degrees. It is

> one

> > > > full libration. It resembles a sinewave crudely, ie, having a

> > > > positive half cycle of 3600 years and an equal negative

> half-cycle.

> > > > First, ayanamsha rises from zero to +27 degrees, then gets down to

> > > > zero again. It is positive half-cycle. Then it moves to -27

> degrees

> > > > and again to zero. This is negative half cycle.

> > > >

> > > > From the fraction 0.7095833333, let us substract 0.5 for the

> positive

> > > > half cycle which ended in 499 AD, which was the zero date for

> > > > Aryabhatiya. Thereafter, negative half-cycle behan, which will

> attain

> > > > its nadir of -27 degrees in AD 2299. We are left with 0.7095833333

> -

> > > > 0.5 = 0.2095833333. Since one libration is equal to four quartets

> of

> > > > 27 degrees each, a total of 108 degrees, 0.2095833333 libration is

> > > > equal to - 22.635 degrees, or 22:38':06 " . it is negative.

> > > >

> > > > Surprisingly, Mr Kaul gets +47 instead of -23 degrees from God

> knows

> > > > where! An error of merely 70 degrees. No mean achievement by a

> > > > " scholar " who boasts thus : " I have read quite a few sidhants,

> > > > especially the SS 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! "

> > > >

> > > > Mr Kaul is being deluded by wrong headed commentators like

> Reverend

> > > > Burgess or Mahavir Prasad. These commentators could not understand

> the

> > > > intricate mathematics of SS. Burgess admitted that he could not

> > > > understand the logic behind four samskaras needed to make a true

> > > > planet out of mean. No commentator has ever published the real

> > > > forlulas. Non-believers in SS are denied this supreme knowledge of

> > > > jyotisha. Let Mr Kaul study SS before abusing its " topsy turvy

> > > > ayanamsha " .

> > > >

> > > > Maya was not a mlechchha, but an asura who attained brahma-jnana

> > > > ( " rahasyam brahma sammitam " , cf. last verse of SS) by means of

> > > > tapasya and taught Jyotisha to rishis. Asuras were also part of

> Indian

> > > > culture, only their religion was anti-Vedic. But Maya worshipped

> Vedic

> > > > god Surya and obtained, among other shastras, the ULTIMATE

> knowledge

> > > > about Jyotisha (brahma jnana).

> > > >

> > > > It is not my view, but the initial and final shlokas of SS say so.

> > > > Brahma jnana is not a mere knowledge of planetary positions,

> otherwise

> > > > evry fool would obtain brahmajana by sitting at a computer or

> visiting

> > > > a planetarium. Jyotisha is a non-physical science of hidden things

> > > > which guide destinies of men and nations, besodes weather & c.

> Whether

> > > > SS is a text of brahma jnana or not can be tested only by a braha

> > > > jnani, not by a fool dependent on erroneous commentaries of

> Reverend

> > > > Burgess or his brown chelas like Mahavie Prasad.

> > > >

> > > > Mr Kaul says : " 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! " He is either lying

> or

> > > > has no access to the meaning of SS and its commentaries.

> > > >

> > > > It is foolish to believe that the concept of ayanamsha is a later

> > > > invention. What modern commentators are failing to recognize is

> the

> > > > fact that ayanamsha has nothing to do with precession of

> equinoxes.

> > > > The latter has no relevance in Vedic Jyotisha based upon ancient

> texts

> > > > like SS. Manjula wrote about precession. But SS has no use of it,

> > > > because SS has nothing to do with the material world. Its grahas

> are

> > > > deities of bhuvaloka, which could be seen by Maya only after

> tapasya.

> > > > Proof of Vedic Jyotisha lies in the efficacy of its predictive

> part :

> > > > phalita. Unfortunately, materialists are refusing to accept the

> > > > existence of a bhuvaloka of deities, and are hoping to get

> benefits of

> > > > jyotisha at the same time! There are a lot of persons who use

> > > > physical astronomy in Ganita-Jyotisha, and Parashara of Jaimini in

> > > > Phalita, but such a " scientific " jyotisha is neither science nor

> > > jyotisha.

> > > >

> > > > I request Mr Kaul and others to stop abusing Surya Siddhanta and

> test

> > > > its efficacy not by comparing it with physical astronomy but by

> > > > testing the predictive results according to BPHS & c. Lahirians are

> > > > destroying Vedic Jyotisha by killing its original Ganita, which

> has

> > > > made Phalita a gambling, resulting in a supposed need to reform

> Phlita

> > > > as well !

> > > >

> > > > Aryabhatiya is a special text mixing tantra method of computing

> from

> > > > yuga's start with karana method of computing from nearest

> important

> > > > phenomena, which was zero ayanamsha in 499 AD. The karana tables

> of

> > > > Aryabhatiya have been lost, hence computing merely on the basis of

> the

> > > > extant Aryabhatiya gives highly inaccurate values for any epoch.

> It is

> > > > not a coincidence that Aryabhatiya uses the year of zero

> ayanamsha.

> > > >

> > > > His insistence that ayanamsha was a medieval invention means that

> real

> > > > jyotisha started in medieval period. What Mr Kaul refuses to see

> is

> > > > that without ayanamsha, it will be impossible to compute sunrise,

> > > > ishtakaal, lagna (ascendant) and twelve bhaavas, declension, etc.

> > > >

> > > > SS has two aspects : Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha. First is the

> > > > mathematics of bhuvaloka needed in astrology, second deals with

> > > > physical world. Both aspects of SS were in full bloom, but due to

> > > > uselessness of Drikpaksha (ie, physical astronomy), its

> manuscripts

> > > > were not preserved. But all is not lost. All major astronomical

> > > > constants of modern astronomy can be deduced by means of

> Saurpakshiya

> > > > mathematics, without any obcervation of heavenly phenomena.

> Salient

> > > > points of this Vedic Science was published in Hindi three years

> ago,

> > > > but is now our of print. It is being translated.

> > > >

> > > > Here, I am giving a simple instance of the magic of Suryasiddanta.

> > > > Paramkranti (max. declension) has a value of 24 degrees exactly in

> SS.

> > > > Due to a 12 degree shift between Saurpaksha and Drikpaksha

> ecliptic

> > > > planes, you need to multiply Sine24 with Cos12 (or Sin78) degrees,

> and

> > > > then take the arc of resultant, which is the maximum Drikpakshiya

> > > > declension of modern astronomy , 23:26':37.48 " . Now-a-days,

> nutation

> > > > is negative. Substract nutation, and you will get absolutely

> accurate

> > > > value of declension of modern physical astronomy. So simple, yet

> so

> > > > superb a science. Does the present generation of mankind deserve

> this

> > > > divine gift (Suryasiddanta) ?

> > > >

> > > > But we must not use this drikpakshiya value in astrology,

> otherwise we

> > > > will get wrong results in Phalita. That is what the likes of all

> > > > followeres of Lahiri are doing today.

> > > >

> > > > Suryasiddanta is infinite. It can give Mr Kaul more than he can

> ever

> > > > imagine. But not if he abuses its " topsy-turvy " things which he

> does

> > > > not understand, as is clear from his errors in computations shown

> > > above.

> > > >

> > > > Please take my words in a positive manner. Learn Suryasiddanta

> before

> > > > abusing it. The published text is merely a tip of the iceberg.

> > > > Suryasiddanta is " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " , which has never been

> > > > given to a person who is not under an oath to observe lifelong

> > > > brahmacharya. There are other conditions as well, but brahmacharya

> is

> > > > the first condition for getting " RAHASYAM brahma-sammitam " .

> However,

> > > > materialists believe in nothing beyond this material world of

> > > > Phenomena (of five senses), they are blind to the Suryasiddhantic

> > > > world of Noumena.

> > > >

> > > > The Vedanga Jyotisha dating of 1400 BCE cited by Mr Kaul will be

> dealt

> > > > with separately, to show the mathematical ineptitude of Colebrooke

> and

> > > > his chelas. There is no real basis for 1400 BC, whatsoever.

> > > >

> > > > For the first time in my life, I have taught some Jyotisha to an

> > > > abuser of this divine science, for which I will have to undergo

> some

> > > > penance. That penance will come in the form of abuses from Mr Kaul

> and

> > > > others, for which I am eagerly waiting, with a lot of love and

> > > sincerity.

> > > >

> > > > -VJ

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 7, 2009

Sunil jee says : " Prof. Iyengar does not know astrology at all and he

criticises it as he thinks that it is unscientific... " .

One should not criticize astrology unless one learns it and then finds

it to be wrong. Misusing one's credentials of a professor for

ridiculing a discipline publicly, without knowing its basics, is

neither scholarship not gentleman-like behaviour, to put it mildly.

Sunil jee further says : " Around 450 BCE the Winter solstice in the

Makar rashi and the Vernal equinox at the beginning of Ashwin

coincided. Due to precession such coincidence do not occur now. "

Since I am supposed to be unaware of such things, I would like to

request Sunil jee to teach me how precession can be attributed to

explain things which Indians used in terms of ayanamsha. Equating

precession with ayanamsha has a two centuries of colonial history

beginning from Colebrooke & c. Even today, a majority of modernized

guys hold such a conception.

But ayanamsha is not a modern or western concept. Please show me

evidences from ancient texts for equating ayanamsha with precession.

It is a modern hoax created by materialists who distorted data from

original texts to deduce what they believed to be " scientific "

explanation of ancient Indian astronomy. I have already explained

ancient definition of ayanamsha, but Sunil jee gladly overlooks the

real definition and supports the modern myths about ayanamsha.

Astrology is a practical discipline, and wrong definitions of

ayanamsha are resulting in wrong astrological softwares giving false

predictions. Why ancient methods cannot be even tested, before being

didcarded ?

-VJ

============= ============= =============

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadhji,

>

> I too agree wth Vinayji on the assessment of these two persons, but

with a slight difference.

>

> A.K.Kaul's actions are more like an anti- Hindu person and his

knowledge of Sanskrit is as good as zero as he has misinterpreted so

many verses, unless he had done so wilfully. You might have seen that

on several occasions when I caught him in his misinterpretations, in

another forum and he immediately left those topics. He did not know

the difference between Sakendra-kala of Varahamihira and the

Sakanta-kala of Brahmagupta and he got the date of Varahamihira all

wrong. Because of his not being aware of the true date of Varahamihira

he thought Varahamihira copied entirely from the Greeks and called

Varahamihira a charalatan, in almost all his mails. He does have a

point about Makara Sankranti but he does not appear to know the

genesis of the problem correctly. You are aware that Winter solstice

occurred in the Makara rashi, for about two thousand years. Around 450

BCE the Winter solstice in the Makar rashi and the Vernal equinox at

the beginning of

> Ashwin coincided. Due to precession such coincidence do not occur

now. That Mesharambha calendar went to the west at that time and that

is the basis of the western calendar and corrections including those

of Pope Gregory were applied later. Though Jesus Christ was born in

September it was decoided in the 4th century to observe Jesus Christ's

birthday on that auspicious day. The Makar sankraman ie. when the Sun

enters the Makar rashi has shifted and how canthen one observe Makar

sankraman in a rashi other than Makar rashi. He wants us to observe

Makar sankraman in another rashi. What he should have probably said is

that such being the case let us observe the Winter solstice separately

on the day the Winter solstice actually occurs and let the Makar

Sankranti be observed when the Sun enters the Makar rashi. But he

behaves like an anti- Hindu person. Please tell me if I am wrong.

>

> On the other hand Prof. Iyengar dioes not know astrology at all and

he criticises it as he thinks that it is unscientific. He has reduced

the antiquity of the Mahabharata war by misinterpreting the data given

by Vedavyasa. In that his action is like Rajesh Kocchar and the

Marxist scholar Romila Thapar, who too revel in lowering the antiquity

of the ancient Hindu chronology. Kindly tell me if I am wrong.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

> --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:

> Sreenadh <sreesog

> Re: Learn to Compute Surya

Siddhantic Ayanamsha before abusing it

>

> Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 1:13 AM

>

> Dear Vinay ji,

> That was a curious and informative mail! Thanks for sharing.

> ==>

> > Mr Kaul and Mr RNI have three things in common :

> > (1) They are ignorant of basic skills in mathematics concerning

> > ancient Indian astrology, and (2) they do not respect Hindu

> > scriptures, (3) yet they want to change the religious festivals of

Hindus.

> <==

> Good observation! That is completly true for Koul (AKK), but the

2nd point is a bit too harsh for RNI it seems - I don't think he is so.

> Coming to the Siddantic concepts and statements - I am no good to

comment; and so helds back.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, " vinayjhaa16 "

<vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Regarding the discussion about ayanamsha, I would like to refer to one

> > of my previous posts at

> > http://groups. / group/ancient_ indian_astrology

/message/ 17045