Guest guest Report post Posted March 27, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji, As someone interested in the history of Hindu Astronomy may I add a bit on the history of Suryasiddhanta. Original work of Mayasura (of Pragjyotishpura, ie. the earliest place where astrology was developed and practised)) had one hundred thousand verses. In Mahabharata you must have found that Narakasura's son Bhagadatta led a group of Yavanas. This shows that the Asuras of Pragjyotishpura were also known as Yavana and Mayasura was none other than the Yavanacharya. Mayasura learnt astrology from Surya. This Surya could be the name of a rishi or Mayasura might have made direct observation on the Sun and the solar system like the modern-day naked-eye astronomer of Orissa, Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. Aryabhatta made a concise version of Mayasura's work and this concise treatise was known as the Aryasiddhanta. It is generally said that the Aryasiddhanta is lost. But it need not be so. This Aryasiddhanta of Aryabhatta has been called the Suryasiddhanta by Varahamihira and that is also called the Yavana jataka of Yavanacharya by Sphuridhvaja Aryabhatta said that he was 23 years of age in "Sashtyaabdaanaam Sashtyaardha (ie. sixty multiplied by half of sixty) from the start of Kali yuga". This means he was born in 3102 - (60 X 60 / 2) + 23 = 1325 BCE. Aryabhatta did not mention any other kala as the other kalas such as mentioned by Varahamihira and Brahmagupta were not there during his time. So he had to express in terms of the Kali era. In his time the 60- year Brihaspati-chakra was used in place of centuries. On the otherhand at a much later date Varahamihira mentioned Sakendrakala starting from 551 BCE and Brahmagupta mentioned Sakanta kala starting from 78 BCE. I will like to hear your opinion as well as that of the other learned scholars regarding the above. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacjarjya ps. From the above one can also see that Varahamihira was born much before the advent of the Sakanta kala (popularly called Saka kala or Shalivahana Saka, which king Shalivahana popularised some centuries later). Further we know that during Varahamihira's time the Winter solstice began to occur in Uttarashadha, which was around 500 BCE and that Winter solstice stopped occurring in Uttaraashadha around 500 CE. Thus Varahamihira was born near 500 BCE and not near 500 CE, as the western scholars make out to be. I understand that Vinay Jhaji has written a book on Suryasiddhanta and he also claims to have some of the lost portions of the Suryasiddhanta but I have not seen his book so far to offer any comment on Jhaji's work and cannot comment on his claims. It seems that an American professor Charles hartley calculated and found that the time of Solar eclipses can be calculated accurately by using the methods of Suryasiddhanta. --- On Thu, 3/26/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Is This possible ? Yes with our Ancient knowledge, it is. Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM Dear friends, Do You know that with our Andcient indian Knowledge of"Surya Siddhanta " we can calculate the position of the planets on anygiven date,of any year in the past or future (Any date after ChaitraShukla Pratipada Shake 1826), without use of telescope, or moving outof a closed room, and without the use of ephemeris, or any external (OrInternal) means of locating or mapping the planetary positions in thesky. The planetary position for any planet can be calculated within 15minutes without referring to any Ephemeris, Data, Computer or Book withclosed eyes and a assistant who can use a calculator and note down on apiece of paper what is being mentioned . This position thus calculatedshould be similiar to the Rapheals ephemeris or any more accurate onewithin just 1-2 minutes difference (Not degrees). is this possible ? Yesthis is. With our ancient knowledge applied, with help of few shlokasand formulas, one can blind folded with help of a assistant (Anyone whoknows how to use a scientific calculator) calculate the planetarypositions of any date after Shake 1826. Those who are interested insame, may take an appointment with me in Bombay, in advance, and theywill be shown a method how to do this, alongwith illustrations andformulas of the same. But they should be well versed in the Indianknowledge of Hindu Lunar months, adhika maas etc. regards/Bhaskar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 27, 2009 Dear Sunilji, I am not an authority on history to comment, neither knowledgable on this, and have never spent much time on research work or on searching for the origins of what we came to know in course of time, or what is known as facts today. But I could agree with almost all of what you have written except that Surya could have been a Rishi or a Mayasura. What I am talking about is much nearer to our existence. The method of computing which I have talked about, is from " Sarvanand Laghava " (Karana Granth). This great work is created by Shri RaoSaheb Apte in 1936 AD from Jiwajee Observatory He has written about 314 shlokas and if one just memorises 135 of them, one could calculate planets positions without use of Nautical Almanacs. the best part of this Grantha is that one need not make use of Decimals or Logarithms, or Trignometrical calculations for calculating the ahargana but just the buttons minus, plus, multiplication and division will suffice. (Shri Sadashiv Apte was born in Shake 1792 Satara, and was a Professor of Science,Mathematics and Chemistry. He had a scholarship in Sanskrit and remained a Suprintendent of Observatory at Ujjain, among his various other duties. He has written book non Astrological Mathematics -Chitra Paksha , and Sarvanand Karan, based on Maths. He was honoured as Ganak Chudamani in Shake 1837. He was referred by Banaras Hindu University for Title of Acharya. He has also prepared a Table " PanchangChintamani " to help Panchang makers to prepare Panchang . Etc.) regards, Bhaskar. , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > > Dear Bhaskarji, > > As someone interested in the history of Hindu Astronomy may I add a bit on the history of Suryasiddhanta. Original work of Mayasura (of Pragjyotishpura, ie. the earliest place where astrology was developed and practised)) had one hundred thousand verses. In Mahabharata you must have found that Narakasura's son Bhagadatta led a group of Yavanas. This shows that the Asuras of Pragjyotishpura were also known as Yavana and Mayasura was none other than the Yavanacharya. Mayasura learnt astrology from Surya. This Surya could be the name of a rishi or Mayasura might have made direct observation on the Sun and the solar system like the modern-day naked-eye astronomer of Orissa, Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. Aryabhatta made a concise version of Mayasura's work and this concise treatise was known as the Aryasiddhanta. It is generally said that the Aryasiddhanta is lost. But it need not be so. This Aryasiddhanta of Aryabhatta has been called the > Suryasiddhanta by Varahamihira and that is also called the Yavana jataka of Yavanacharya by Sphuridhvaja > > Aryabhatta said that he was 23 years of age in " Sashtyaabdaanaam Sashtyaardha (ie. sixty multiplied by half of sixty) from the start of Kali yuga " . This means he was born in 3102 - (60 X 60 / 2) + 23 = 1325 BCE. Aryabhatta did not mention any other kala as the other kalas such as mentioned by Varahamihira and Brahmagupta were not there during his time. So he had to express in terms of the Kali era. In his time the 60- year Brihaspati-chakra was used in place of centuries. On the otherhand at a much later date Varahamihira mentioned Sakendrakala starting from 551 BCE and Brahmagupta mentioned Sakanta kala starting from 78 BCE. > > I will like to hear your opinion as well as that of the other learned scholars regarding the above. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacjarjya > > ps. > From the above one can also see that Varahamihira was born much before the advent of the Sakanta kala (popularly called Saka kala or Shalivahana Saka, which king Shalivahana popularised some centuries later). Further we know that during Varahamihira's time the Winter solstice began to occur in Uttarashadha, which was around 500 BCE and that Winter solstice stopped occurring in Uttaraashadha around 500 CE. Thus Varahamihira was born near 500 BCE and not near 500 CE, as the western scholars make out to be. > > > I understand that Vinay Jhaji has written a book on Suryasiddhanta and he also claims to have some of the lost portions of the Suryasiddhanta but I have not seen his book > so far to offer any comment on Jhaji's work and cannot comment on his claims. It seems that an American professor Charles hartley calculated and found that the time of Solar eclipses can be calculated accurately by using the methods of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > --- On Thu, 3/26/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Is This possible ? Yes with our Ancient knowledge, it is. > > Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM Dear friends, Do You know that with our Andcient indian Knowledge of > " Surya Siddhanta " we can calculate the position of the planets on any > given date,of any year in the past or future (Any date after Chaitra > Shukla Pratipada Shake 1826), without use of telescope, or moving out > of a closed room, and without the use of ephemeris, or any external (Or > Internal) means of locating or mapping the planetary positions in the > sky. The planetary position for any planet can be calculated within 15 > minutes without referring to any Ephemeris, Data, Computer or Book with > closed eyes and a assistant who can use a calculator and note down on a > piece of paper what is being mentioned . This position thus calculated > should be similiar to the Rapheals ephemeris or any more accurate one > within just 1-2 minutes difference (Not degrees). is this possible ? Yes > this is. With our ancient knowledge applied, with help of few shlokas > and formulas, one can blind folded with help of a assistant (Anyone who > knows how to use a scientific calculator) calculate the planetary > positions of any date after Shake 1826. Those who are interested in > same, may take an appointment with me in Bombay, in advance, and they > will be shown a method how to do this, alongwith illustrations and > formulas of the same. But they should be well versed in the Indian > knowledge of Hindu Lunar months, adhika maas etc. regards/Bhaskar. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 27, 2009 Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Pragjyotishpura is thought to be Guwahati, Assam. Mayasura of Pragjyotishpura has Astrological, Vastu and Tantric connections. The early Tantric culture of Kambojas of central asia (Asura culture?) has strong connections to Assam, Cambodia, and Central India. It seems to me that, there is a strong possibility for a strong connection between these Tantric/Asura/Astrological connection thread and cultural flow. The original central Asian connection and the Mitra (Sun god) worship can explain the Deva-Asura (Vedic-Tantric) fight between the cultures of the same place (central Asia) - both having good amount of knowledge but following contrasting cultures and belief systems. Mayasura must be a product of this ancient Asura/Tantric tradition, with the roots of his tradition going to the original Mitra worship (Sun worship), and excellent knowledge of astrology, vastu and copper works (The same trend as we see in Mohanjadaro, Harappa etc as well). Any way this is all arm-chair history. The following is an article that may be of interest to many of us.Love and regards,Sreenadh===================================(Source: http://oldcontent.northeastplus.in/10853.html ) Does Pragjyotishpur lay under Guwahati? November 1, 2000 Source / copyright: Press Trust of India / The Assam Tribune Sections: Society / Assam GUWAHATI, October 31: Dig a metre into the ground in any place in Guwahati, the ancient Pragjyotishpur, and you are most likely to come across pieces of a pottery, beautifully decorated stone blocks or even a broken antique stone image. This prompted an anthropologist, in the city to undertake a research work, the outcome of which only strengthened his conviction that the ancient city of Pragjyotishpur lay under present-day Guwahati. Like the Indus Valley civilisation, a civilisation flourished in Brahmaputra Valley in the east and excavations by the authorities have proved existence of the city of Pragjyotishpur, claims anthropologist Dilip Medhi of Gauhati University in one of his research papers. The archaeological ruins at Ambari area of the city, first found in 1969, provided the initial clue of an urban centre and this spurred Medhi into his project. "People of Assam then knew about the city of Pragjyotishpur from their knowledge in the great Indian epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata," Medhi says. A huge number of stone idols and icons including pottery were discovered from inside the brick. Walled compartment at Ambari which speaks of the urban life, he said. Most of the archaeologists believe an ancient city by the name of Pragjyotishpur Pragjyotisha meaning eastern astrology and pur meaning place) mentioned frequently in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and the Kalki Purana did exist in Assam, Medhi says in the paper. The city could be possibly situated either in Guwahati or at Tezpur or even at Phulbari. Guwahati is the most probable site as everywhere Kaolin pottery remains are available at a few strokes of a spade, he says. In addition to the Kaolin wares, the geographical position of the river Brahmaputra (narrow valley bordered by hills) at Guwahati is much suitable for the growth of an urban centre, Medhi writes. "Also the location of a temple of planet worship called the Navagraha, meaning an abode of nine planets of solar system, and its connection with an ancient research on astronomy and astrology lends weight to the theory that the city was buried beneath today's Guwahati," he says. Regarding the exact period of the civilisation, Medhi says that the site at Ambari speaks of a time between seventh century AD to 13th century AD. Assam had an excellent river transport system in the past and the connection of Ambari to the Brahmaputra river via the Dighalipukhuri tank points out to the possibility of Ambari functioning as a dockyard of the Pragjyotishpur city, he said. As social, political and trade relationships formed bases of development and survival of an urban centre, there was much evidence of those in the findings at Ambari and elsewhere in Guwahati. First, the stone figures of the country's mythological heroes and heroines and the God Surya and the Goddess Durga reflect on the social relationship, he said. On its international trade relationship, the reouletted and caledon pottery of Ambari suggests, its possible links with Roman and Chinese empires, he said. Secondly, Medhi argues, the presence of so many temples in Guwahati-Ugratara temple at Jorpukhuri area, Chatrakar temple at Uzan Bazar, Vishnu and Shiva temple complex at Sukreswar and the famous Kamakhya temple, to name a few, reveals that they were developed during the urban life of the Pragjyotishpur city. "There were a number of traditional and social aspects on the existence of Pragjyotishpur city as it was mentioned on a copper plate presented in 18th century by Rudra Sinha, an ancient Ahom king," Medhi said. Further, the Pragjyotishpur name also figures in the stone inscription of Dunautra Rai at the Ganeshguri Ganesh temple of 15th century AD. Apart from the status of Ambari as an entry port, it might be also an architectural school where training was given to local artisans in the work of stone curving and sculpturing, he said. Voicing a need for further research on the topic, Medi said the remains of the lost civilisation should be looked at, in a number of areas in Assam and adjoining states with a group of interdisciplinary researchers. The scholar expressed optimism that given a thorough study, the Brahmaputra civilisation would be called the Pragjyotishpur civilisation in the similar concept of nomenclature of the Harappan civilization - 0 - =================================== , sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:>> > Dear Bhaskarji,> > As someone interested in the history of Hindu Astronomy may I add a bit on the history of Suryasiddhanta. Original work of Mayasura (of Pragjyotishpura, ie. the earliest place where astrology was developed and practised)) had one hundred thousand verses. In Mahabharata you must have found that Narakasura's son Bhagadatta led a group of Yavanas. This shows that the Asuras of Pragjyotishpura were also known as Yavana and Mayasura was none other than the Yavanacharya. Mayasura learnt astrology from Surya. This Surya could be the name of a rishi or Mayasura might have made direct observation on the Sun and the solar system like the modern-day naked-eye astronomer of Orissa, Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. Aryabhatta made a concise version of Mayasura's work and this concise treatise was known as the Aryasiddhanta. It is generally said that the Aryasiddhanta is lost. But it need not be so. This Aryasiddhanta of Aryabhatta has been called the> Suryasiddhanta by Varahamihira and that is also called the Yavana jataka of Yavanacharya by Sphuridhvaja> > Aryabhatta said that he was 23 years of age in "Sashtyaabdaanaam Sashtyaardha (ie. sixty multiplied by half of sixty) from the start of Kali yuga". This means he was born in 3102 - (60 X 60 / 2) + 23 = 1325 BCE. Aryabhatta did not mention any other kala as the other kalas such as mentioned by Varahamihira and Brahmagupta were not there during his time. So he had to express in terms of the Kali era. In his time the 60- year Brihaspati-chakra was used in place of centuries. On the otherhand at a much later date Varahamihira mentioned Sakendrakala starting from 551 BCE and Brahmagupta mentioned Sakanta kala starting from 78 BCE. > > I will like to hear your opinion as well as that of the other learned scholars regarding the above. > > Regards,> > Sunil K. Bhattacjarjya> > ps.> From the above one can also see that Varahamihira was born much before the advent of the Sakanta kala (popularly called Saka kala or Shalivahana Saka, which king Shalivahana popularised some centuries later). Further we know that during Varahamihira's time the Winter solstice began to occur in Uttarashadha, which was around 500 BCE and that Winter solstice stopped occurring in Uttaraashadha around 500 CE. Thus Varahamihira was born near 500 BCE and not near 500 CE, as the western scholars make out to be.> > > I understand that Vinay Jhaji has written a book on Suryasiddhanta and he also claims to have some of the lost portions of the Suryasiddhanta but I have not seen his book > so far to offer any comment on Jhaji's work and cannot comment on his claims. It seems that an American professor Charles hartley calculated and found that the time of Solar eclipses can be calculated accurately by using the methods of Suryasiddhanta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 28, 2009 WAVES-Vedic , " Avtar Krishen Kaul " <jyotirved wrote: Dear Moderator, Namaskar! I have a request. Since the posts to this forum are moderated, whenever some sweeping statements about a date of an event or work or its composition are made by any poster, he must be asked to give all the references and proofs first and then only such posts must be accepted. For example, there is a statement by Shri Sunil Bhattacharjya, " Original work of Mayasura (of Pragjyotishpura, ie. the earliest place where astrology was developed and practised)) had one hundred thousand verses. In Mahabharata you must have found that Narakasura's son Bhagadatta led a group of Yavanas. This shows that the Asuras of Pragjyotishpura were also known as Yavana and Mayasura was none other than the Yavanacharya. Mayasura learnt astrology from Surya. " All this is just a conjecture nay even, wishful thinking and may even be a deliberate attempt to eulogize predictive gimmicks that have been declared reprehensible ( " nakshatra-socchis are brahmana-chandalas " Bhishma!) by our shastras, and the words like " you must have found " is like putting someone else's words into someone else's mouth! Similarly, the statement " Original work of Mayasura of Pragjyotishpura, i.e. the earliest place where astrology was developed and practised " is yet another fantastic statement contrary to all the available evidence, since it was in Babylonia that predictive gimmicks were first practised. Kindly, therefore, ask the poster to substantiate his arguments with proofs and quotes with full references. That applies not only to this post of Shri Bhattacharjya but to all the other posts as well, since it will just be like going on a fishing expedition otherwise. With regards, A K Kaul WAVES-Vedic , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote: > > > > --- On Thu, 3/26/09, sunil_bhattacharjya@ <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote: > > > sunil_bhattacharjya@ <sunil_bhattacharjya@> > Re: Suryasiddhanta > > Cc: , vedic_research_institute , ancintindia , IndiaArchaeology > Thursday, March 26, 2009, 7:09 PM > Dear Bhaskarji, > > As someone interested in the history of Hindu Astronomy may I add a bit on the history of Suryasiddhanta. Original work of Mayasura (of Pragjyotishpura, ie. the earliest place where astrology was developed and practised)) had one hundred thousand verses. In Mahabharata you must have found that Narakasura's son Bhagadatta led a group of Yavanas. This shows that the Asuras of Pragjyotishpura were also known as Yavana and Mayasura was none other than the Yavanacharya. Mayasura learnt astrology from Surya. This Surya could be the name of a rishi or Mayasura might have made direct observation on the Sun and the solar system like the modern-day naked-eye astronomer of Orissa, Samanta Chandrasekhar had done. Aryabhatta made a concise version of Mayasura's work and this concise treatise was known as the Aryasiddhanta. It is generally said that the Aryasiddhanta is lost. But it need not be so. This Aryasiddhanta of Aryabhatta has been called the > Suryasiddhanta by Varahamihira and that is also called the Yavana jataka of Yavanacharya by Sphuridhvaja > > Aryabhatta said that he was 23 years of age in " Sashtyaabdaanaam Sashtyaardha (ie. sixty multiplied by half of sixty) from the start of Kali yuga " . This means he was born in 3102 - (60 X 60 / 2) + 23 = 1325 BCE. Aryabhatta did not mention any other kala as the other kalas such as mentioned by Varahamihira and Brahmagupta were not there during his time. So he had to express in terms of the Kali era. In his time the 60- year Brihaspati- chakra was used in place of centuries. On the otherhand at a much later date Varahamihira mentioned Sakendrakala starting from 551 BCE and Brahmagupta mentioned Sakanta kala starting from 78 BCE. > > I will like to hear your opinion as well as that of the other learned scholars regarding the above. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacjarjya > > ps. > From the above one can also see that Varahamihira was born much before the advent of the Sakanta kala (popularly called Saka kala or Shalivahana Saka, which king Shalivahana popularised some centuries later). Further we know that during Varahamihira' s time the Winter solstice began to occur in Uttarashadha, which was around 500 BCE and that Winter solstice stopped occurring in Uttaraashadha around 500 CE. Thus Varahamihira was born near 500 BCE and not near 500 CE, as the western scholars make out to be. > > > I understand that Vinay Jhaji has written a book on Suryasiddhanta and he also claims to have some of the lost portions of the Suryasiddhanta but I have not seen his book > so far to offer any comment on Jhaji's work and cannot comment on his claims. It seems that an American professor Charles hartley calculated and found that the time of Solar eclipses can be calculated accurately by using the methods of Suryasiddhanta. > > --- On Thu, 3/26/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> wrote: > > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> > Is This possible ? Yes with our Ancient knowledge, it is. > > Thursday, March 26, 2009, 6:00 AM > > Dear friends, Do You know that with our Andcient indian Knowledge of > " Surya Siddhanta " we can calculate the position of the planets on any > given date,of any year in the past or future (Any date after Chaitra > Shukla Pratipada Shake 1826), without use of telescope, or moving out > of a closed room, and without the use of ephemeris, or any external (Or > Internal) means of locating or mapping the planetary positions in the > sky. The planetary position for any planet can be calculated within 15 > minutes without referring to any Ephemeris, Data, Computer or Book with > closed eyes and a assistant who can use a calculator and note down on a > piece of paper what is being mentioned . This position thus calculated > should be similiar to the Rapheals ephemeris or any more accurate one > within just 1-2 minutes difference (Not degrees). is this possible ? Yes > this is. With our ancient knowledge applied, with help of few shlokas > and formulas, one can blind folded with help of a assistant (Anyone who > knows how to use a scientific calculator) calculate the planetary > positions of any date after Shake 1826. Those who are interested in > same, may take an appointment with me in Bombay, in advance, and they > will be shown a method how to do this, alongwith illustrations and > formulas of the same. But they should be well versed in the Indian > knowledge of Hindu Lunar months, adhika maas etc. regards/Bhaskar. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2009 Vinayji, You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta.. My very first sentence was as follows: Quote I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. Unquote For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. In the light of the above my observations are as follows: 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar's effort in this regard. 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. - SKB --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Suryasiddhanta Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM Sunil ji,I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana).-VJ____________ _________ _________ __Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AMSubject: SuryasiddhantaDear all,I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta?Regards,Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2009 Vinayji,I said that a liar is worse than a chandala and you are not a chandala as long as you do not take yourself to be a liar. If you are convinced that you have not lied then you are definitely not a chandala. I do not believe that one has to have a low birth to become a chandala. That is what Lord Buddha had taught us. If you think I have lied then I am a chandala too. I did not say that Vinayji you are a chandala. Human memory fails and both of us are in the sixties. If you remember I said that let us go to our earlier mails to show who said what to bring out the truth. Did you agree? One of your supporters called me a bastard. I do not accept it as I know that I am not. On the contrary I told him that one who calls another person a bastard is a bastard himself. You called Sreenadhji, Neelamji and me as liars as I saw from the past mails. Do you think that you have not abused us yourself. In fact you seem to forget the abuses you hurl at others. Why this double standard?You are asking "why you did not download my out of print Hindi book which was at my website for years ?" Did you ever tell me that your Suryasiddhanta was in your website? I do not go on seeing what is in the website of people. I heard your name and your claims first in the AIA group. If you think that it is a must-read book you can always put it in the Internet and tell the group when you put it in the Internet.I do not agree with your Max Mullerian chronology, which you are mentioning in the mail. Further in the long mail you did not say anything about the historicity of Suryasiddhanta. Why waste your energy in writing irrelevant matters like the measure of Yojana and that Ptolemy was a plagiarist? You said that there is not independent method for determining the date of Suryasiddhanta. If that is the case then please tell us what date you found to be of Suryasiddhanta and show us how you detrmined the date with your dependent method.-SKB--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta"Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjyaWednesday, April 15, 2009, 6:49 AMTo Sunil Ji :Sir,Will you tolerate if someone calls you "worse than a chaandaala" ?? I never addressed you with any foul word, because I believe Word is God. Moreover, you are elder to me.There is no independent method of ascertaining the date of Suryasiddhanta. It is far archaic work than you can imagine of. I am giving one proof here, from my out of print Hindi book.MBh has a story that when Jaraasandha threw his (tantric) gadaa at Mathura, it fell just adjacent to Mathura at a distance of 99 yojanas from Girivraja, the ancient capital of Magadha ( I've 19 fullscape pages of handwritten notes about ALL astrologically significant references from MBh on my table, but for getting the verse number why you did not download my out of print Hindi book which was at my website for years ?).Suryasiddhanta says Earth's equatorial diameter is of 1600 yojanas, whose modern value is 12756.4 Kms (or 12756.3) . Hence, one Suryasiddhantic yojana measures 7.97274625 Kms. I computed the distance of Girivraja to Mathura and converted it into Suryasiddhantic yojana, it came to be 98.54 yojanas, which Vyaasa ji rounded off to 99 in his verse.The value of yojana in Aryabhatiya and Panchsiddhantika was 1.5 times greater than that of Suryasiddhantic one. In later ages, it fluctuated, but never came near to Suryasiddhantic value. Since Panchsiddhantika mentions Suryasiddhanta, the latter must be an earliker work than Panchsiddhantika. Mooreover, before Ajatshatru shifted the capital of Magadha to Pataliputra around ~490 BCE (I forget the exact year), the capital was at Rajgir. Girivraja was the capital in socalled prehistoric period (before ~600 BCE), and never in historic period. Therefore, can we not say that this story of MBh and magnitude of Suryasiddhantic yojana belong to a prehistoric period ??? This story cannot be brushed aside as an interpolation, because it forms part of the main story and its mathematical value is also accurate.Narada Purana is also accredited to Vyaasa Ji, although white and brown sahibs can think otherwise. It gives details which fith well with Suryasiddhanta. Moreover, the philosophical and cosmological framework of Suryasiddhanta is perfectly in harmony with Vedic-Puranic-Epic tradition. Therefore, the kernel of all those references to astrology or astronomy in Vedic, Puranic and epic texts must be prehistoric which fit with Suryasiddhantic framework. It is only a summarized view, one proof in favour of which I have cited above.There are interpolations in epic-Puranic texts which conform to Vedic-Puranic-Epic tradition of Suryasiddhantic astrology / astronomy or cosmology, but have a far smaller value of yojana. Such a small value has never been attested in historical period. Hence, I guess these interpolations belong to Harappan period perhaps. Hence, during the entire span of Treta and Dvapar ages, Suryasiddhantic yojana must have in vogue, unless proven otherwise, on account of aforementioned evidence from MBh, and similarity in other writings ascribed to Vyaasa ji with Suryasiddhantic framework.Now, I come to a difficult point. Almagest (Syntaxis) is a hotch-potch written by a clever plagiarist Ptolemy. Ptolemy is a proven plagiarist, who stole the idea of Hipparchus about precession and ascribed the discovery to his own experiments and observations. But modern researches have shown that those observational values belonged to the epoch of Hipparchus and not of Ptolemy. Another hitherto undiscovered plagiary of Ptolemy is the fact that Suryasiddhanta has an organic unity and beautiful systemic coherence which Almagest lacks. It is next to impossible to prove this point, because Indians will never study either Almagest or Suryasiddhanta, and Westerners will never listen to me. One instance of the great mathematical coherence amounting to almost magic can be viewed by Clicking Here . There are many such hidden magics in Suryasiddhanta, the greatest of which is the accuracy of predictive astrology based on it, which was true in the era of Varaha Mihira and is true even today. I am translating my Hindi works and uploading them one by one on the internet. Please have some patience. Why you do not test the accuracy of Suryasiddhanta astrologically, by means of Kundalee software. I have nothing to gain from it, because I never earned a paisa out of astrology. Kundalee software will turn a novice into good astrologer in short time, provided intent is sincere.-VJSunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya Cc: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:19:51 PMRe: Re: Suryasiddhanta Vinayji,My intention is not to attack you but to really know when the Suryasiddhanta was composed. Kaulji says that Suryasiddhanta was copied from the Greek work. I did contest that. Butfinding the date of Suryasiddhanta will help. I am optimistic that we shall be able to find the date. Bentley failed because he believed in the AIT and he looked for dates after 1500 BCE. Did he try any date in the third millennium BCE? He should have tried for dates eariler than what he had tried. So a proper investigation is yet to be undertaken? May be some scholar will undertake that study sooner or later.Is it necessary that we must agree? Can we not agree to disagree without being emotional. -SKB--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Re: Suryasiddhanta"Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjyaWednesday, April 15, 2009, 1:26 AMTo All :Sunil Ji is unable to address me without personal attacks or sarcastic remarks, which I will not answer. He is adamant on judging Suryasiddhanta in a biased way, because he has not spent time to understand the problem fully. Since he is not interested in understanding my statements, I am requesting other interested members to consider following points :If we use eclipses as the sole criterion for deducing the amount of apparent "error" in Suryasiddhanta, we will easily find some date for which Suryasiddhantic eclipse will tally with the timing given by physical astronomy. But then, other planets will show great differences, often of more than 10 degrees, which increases as we go into past.If we decide that Jupiter's position, for instance, should be the reference for which Suryasiddhanta's dating ought to be calculated in comparison to the value given by physical astronomy, Saturn or Venus will disagree. I have devoted a whole chapter on this problem in my Hindi book on Suryasiddhanta which was published in 2005 and went out of print in 2006. The conclusion is : there is no period in whole history for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. I repeated this point again and again in my mails, but to no avail, because some people are adamant on taking Suryasiddhantic planets as physical bodies. If this be accepted, Suryasiddhanta must have a date for which ALL its planets, tithis, yogas, karanas, eclipses, etc ought to conform to the findings of physical astronomy within a margin of tolerable limits, say 1 degree (supposing ancient Indians could not make more precise observations). What is that date ? I challenge Sunil ji to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. He will fail, utterly. That is why Bentely took a resort to devious means to get a date of 1091 AD, which is against historical evidences, as even Varaha Mihira is known to be acquainted with Suryasiddhanta and eulogised it as the best. As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, should not Sunil ji check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira. Mathematics is also a tapasya. Do some computations, instead of playing with mere words. Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets, including eclipses ?????Why ?? The reason is simple. A single criteria is selected according to dating which fits in Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Other facts need to be neglected, in order to save this AIT. Vedanga Jyotisha mentioned Maagha Shukla Pratipadaa as one of the conditions of uttarayana at the start of Dhanishthaa, which Colebrooke and all his "honest" followers deliberately neglected to mention, because they had to prove a date not before 1500 BC. Similarly, Varaha Mihira's verse-9 in Brihaspati-chaaraadhyaaya of Brihad-samhitaa is never analyzed for dating a concurreence when Prabhava samvatsara concurred with Brihaspati at the start of Dhanishthaa in Maagha month , because any sincere effort of finding such concurrences push the dates of Indian history into remote prehistory. Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories.sunil ji is not interested in either testing the validity of Suryasiddhanta because he has no serious interest in it, but why he unwilling to show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets ? He will never find any such date, either in past or in future. That is why he is hell-bent on denouncing it.Another point is about Samanta Chandrashekhara. He changed values of Suryasiddhantic constants in order to get modern astronomical positions of planets. Had he succeeded, why some panchanga makers are not making panchangas on his lines ? The fact is thet whatever changes we make in Suryasiddhantic constanta, we cannot make the planetary positions conform to physical planets due to fundamental theoretical differences. For instance, the four mandaphala and shighraphala samskaaras can never fit with modern astronomy. Another instance is planetary distances : Suryasiddhantic Sun is at a distance of 1/ 27.2 AU !! But Moon's distance is same as given by modern astronomy !! How can such a system fit with physical astronomy ?? Hence, if one wants the positions of physical astronomy, he/she will have ti discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed. But it is wrong to call it outdated, because if Suryasiddhanta is wrong today, it was more wrong in any period of the past. Nirayana mean values of Suryasiddhantic planetary positions have minimum "errors" for ~2000 AD !! Does it mean Suryasiddhanta was composed for 2000 AD ??Comparison with physical astronomy gives impossible conclusions which cannot be resolved. If such a method is accepted, we must conclude that all ancient scholars were idiots who could not observe errors of ober 10 degrees in planetary positions for long durations.But ancient evidence is opposite : Suryasiddhanta was eulogized as the best treatise for astrology, and those who observed physical stars and planets for astrological purposes were despised as nakshatra-soochakas !! This is the very meaning 'f "soochaka". All ancient texts say that astrological planets are divinities. And divinities can never be seen sensorily. The only proof of Suryasiddhana is an honest and sioncere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Persons like Sunil ji will never undertake such investigations, but many members are already downloading Lundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta.-VJ===================== =======================Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyavinayjhaa16Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:07:53 PMFw: Re: Suryasiddhanta --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Suryasiddhanta Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 10:38 PM Vinayji, You have not read my mail properly. This mail is not about challenging your opinion that you who have done tapasya can only understand the true meaning of the Suryasiddhanta. BTW why do you think that you alone have done the tapasya and that others have not done tapasya simply because the others have not beaten their trumpet. My mail was regarding the prediction of the eclipses using Suryasiddhanta.. My very first sentence was as follows: Quote I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. Unquote For your comprehension I reframe the question as follows: Why do all the Panchanga-maker astrologers use Suryasiddhanta (SS) for everything else other than for the prediction of the eclipses and why they have to depend on the Positional Astronomy Centre for the data on the eclipses? Should we assume that nobody has been able to take the challenge so far to demonstrate whether with the help of Suryasiddhanta the date and the time of occurrence of the eclipses can be predicted correctly upto the fraction of a minute or not. In the absence of any such demonstrations it can be assumed that the Suryasiddhanta calculations fails to predict the eclipses at the present time. I think Prafulla Vaman Mendki gave the correct reply elsewhere. He mentions the causes as to why correction is necessary to the Suryasiddhata data, as follows: 1) Synodic months are changing as the Moon is going away from the Earth, 2) The speed of the earth is changing and Delta-T correction is required for this and 3) There is change in the speed of the ascending / descending nodes. In the light of the above my observations are as follows: 1) It is time that someone should apply the appropriate corrections to the Suryasiddhanta formulae ? What about the work of the great Indian astronomer Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Samanta Chandrasekhar's effort in this regard. 2) Secondly there is a silver lining. According to Hartley there was a time in the past when with the Suryasiddhantic formulae the eclipse could be calculated correctly though Hartley does not give that date but says that as we go to the past the calculations become more and more correct. In fct if the observation of hartley is correct we should be able to determine the date of composition of the the Suryasiddhanta from such astronomical calculations. - SKB --- On Mon, 4/13/09, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16Re: Suryasiddhanta Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 7:52 PM Sunil ji,I have made it clear again and again that Suryasiddhantic (Saurapakshiya) planetary positions differ from those of physical astronomy (Drikpakshoya) . Benteley used some special mathematical method based upon difference of planets from Sun to deduce a mean date at 1091 AD, while Burgess based his computations on tropical Sun to get a date of 250 AD. The standard method of sidereal computations gives a mean date of minimum difference of both Saurapakshiya and Drikpakshoya mean planets at ~2000 AD. We do not observe mean planets, we see true planets. Comparison of Drikpakshoya and Saurapakshiya true planetary positions give no such date in past or present in which all true planets show a difference of less than 8-10 degrees. Does it mean ancient astronomers were so dull as to be unable to notice such huge differences and yet declare that Suryasiddhanta is the best ? If Sunil ji is really sincere (he may be), I request him to compute all true planets from both methods for the period of Varaha Mihira. Only then Sunil ji will see that Suryasiddhantic and physical planets had huge differences in those ages, and these differences were far greater than today if sidereal planetary positions are compared, which has remained the standard Indian practice. Why take a single criterion and declare elephant's tail to be a rope ?? Compare all planets, and make this comparison according to the methods used by Indians (ie, nirayana).-VJ____________ _________ _________ __Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:26:40 AMSubject: SuryasiddhantaDear all,I understand that in the current Indian Panchangas, which are based on Suryasiddhanta, the time of the eclipses are given not from calculations based on the Suryasiddhanta but from the modern astronomical data obtained from the Positional Astronomy Centre in Kolkata. If this is really so what could be the reason? To my knowledge Hartley commented that eclipses can be calculated from the Suryasiddhanta but the calculations become more correct for the past edlipses. This may probably give a hint that the calculations based on Suryasiddhanta were more appropriate at the time of the composition of the Suryasiddhanta. May I invite the comments on this from the learned scholars of Suryasiddhanta?Regards,Sunil K. BHattacharjya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
