Fundamental question

[Guest guest]

Dear learned members:Whenever I am looking at a chart and trying to apply what ancient rishis and not-so ancient people like Dr. B.V. Raman have said, I have this lingering doubt in my mind. What ayanamsa were they using? We know that Raman was using his peculiar number and when he says.. based on my experience.. I wonder based on the ayanamsa he was using. How can that be true when we are using a different ayanamsa ( at least in some cases, some it may not matter). The ayanamsa is the tool that brings all the charts to the same datum-vernal equinox to 0 deg Aries. Mr. Sreenadh has previously indicated hat ancient sages including Parasura have known about the percussion of the equinoxes. But have they applied in their charts when they wrote their slokas?. If they lived in 900 BC, they should have moved the vernal equinox forwards. Or did they just use

the tropical charts.May be we will never have a complete answer to this.Thanks for reading my mail and would appreciate your input.Regardsananha krishnan--- On Fri, 3/6/09, Sreenadh <sreesog wrote:Sreenadh <sreesog Re:An Important Matter Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 1:52 PM

 

Dear ShankaraBharadwaj ji,==>> Is it likely to be just a typical difference between observational

and calculative astronomy? "Unequal" has to do with the actual sign as

it is visible, and therefore assumes importance in observational

astronomy. The moment it becomes computational or mathematical, it

would immediately assume a mathematical notion of equal divisions of an

imaginary ellipse.<== Absolutely agree! This is the most important point to note and understand. Ancient Indian Astrologia (meaning Jyotisastra; it seems that this word is better to denote astronomy and astrology together) knowledge knew excellent use of computational astronomy with a unique beauty! This is well reflected in Surya Siddhanta, Arya bhateeya and other siddhantic texts. The lack of texts or available texts does not denote a discontinuity of tradition or knowledge. For example there is not even a single text available till date on 'Kavati Kriya' (Advanced Pati ganita done using shells or stones), but still this great tradition of ancient indian computation system (which was used to do the calculations related to astronomy as well) was prevalent in India from the time of Bhaskaracharya and before and is present till date - available in its full beauty in Kerala

even today. The point is - We may not have ancient datable texts on computational astronomy (except Surya Siddhanta, Pancha Siddhantika and Aryabhateeya) to show. But that DOES NOT deny the possibility of exceptional development and usage of a unique system of mathematical astronomy coupled with normal amount of observational astronomy present in ancient India. When the computational astronomy becomes exceptionally good and beautiful, the need for too much tabulated observational astronomical readings becomes less important. The use of - * NIRAYANA fixed Frame work * Polar Longitude (Only the greeks ignored Hipparchus, is the other scholar who uses this) * Exceptional understanding about the spherical nature of planets (astronomy is called Gola, 'the science of spheres'), and the sun centric nature of planetary movements, belief in the beauty and

perfection of astronomical mathematics, the past historical knowledge and tradition that goes back to thousands of years. * Observational astronomy - as required, especially as a correction and verification tool for the results arrived at by computational astronomy. All these factors might have contributed to the development of an excellent system of Astrologia in India. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh ji,> > "May be this 3rd point needs a revision. Of course the> initial concept and trend must be of associating Rashi or Naksharas with a> "group of stars", especially when the span of Rashis and Nakshatras> were UNEQUAL. But this must have ended and got redefined when the mathematical> concept of EQUAL span for Nakshatras

and Rashis came into place. "> > Is it likely to be just a typical difference between observational and calculative astronomy? "Unequal" has to do with the actual sign as it is visible, and therefore assumes importance in observational astronomy. The moment it becomes computational or mathematical, it would immediately assume a mathematical notion of equal divisions of an imaginary ellipse. > > What say?