Fwd: Month Solar or Lunar?

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul "

<jyotirved wrote:

 

Shri Arvind Vyasji,

Namaskar!

Thanks for advancing the discussion on calendar reform!

 

<This is a serious point for discussion. The months in RV are

certainly lunar (as they talk about 12 and sometimes 13 months).>

 

The lunar months like from one Equinox to the same equinox or one

Fixed Star to the same fixed star were out of use in the Vedic Era,

unlike the solar months! The Vedas and the VJ talk of a solar year

which started with either the Winter Solstice or the Vernal Equinox.

The four cardinal points are the main fulcrum of a Vedic and modern

astronomical year.

 

When the time gap between one cardinal point and another is divided

into three equal parts, that is supposed to be the real Vedic solar

month, IMHO. As against this procedure, these days we are dividing

the ecliptic into 360 degrees and then correlating the travel of sun

accordingly with 365.25 days of a mean solar year approximately.

 

The Vedanga Jyotisha talks of a solar year of 366 days.

 

When we talk of lunar months, we actually mean synodic months---from

one New Moon to another---Amanta. There are also references in the

Vedas to the months from one Full Moon to another---Purnimanta.

The duration of a synodic month these days is 29 days 12 hrs 44 mts 3

seconds i.e. 29.530589 days approximately. That accounts for twelve

synodic months equalling 354.36708 days. As against that duration of

twelve synodic months, the duration of a Vedic seasonal year is about

365 days 5hrs 48mts 45 seconds i.e. 365.242190 days. The solar year

is thus longer by 10.87511 days. In three years' time, thirty six

synodic months fall short by about 32.62533 days against thirty six

solar months! This difference of 32.6 days accounts for an

adhikamasa every three years! Adhika-masa means thus actually

duplicating synodic month to " subsidize the deficit " .

 

Thus adhikamasa/kshyayamasa has no existence without any solar months!

 

This is further confirmed by the fact that the definition of an

adhika masa itself is " No solar ingress (sankranti) between two New

Moons " and that of a kshyaya masa (decayed month) is " two solar

ingresses (sankrantis) between two new moons " .

Therefore, when the Rigveda talks of an adhikamasa, it could not have

talked of such a phenomenon without taking into account solar ingress

i.e. sankranti. And with each sankranti starts a new solar month!

 

There should, therefore, be absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind

that during the Vedic or the VJ period, the synodic months were

against the background/backdrop of and not to the exclusion of solar

months!

 

Synodic months to the exclusion of solar months are being used in

Hejira calendar actually over the last more than a thousand years!

That is why Muslim festivals fall earlier by about eleven days every

year and continue that way for an indefinite number of years! E.g.

if id-uz-zuha was on December 9 in 2008, it will be on November 28 in

2009, on about November 17 in 2010, November 6 in 2012, October 25 in

2013, October 14 in 2014 and October 3 in 2015 and so on till after

about thirty three years from 2008 it will fall again on December 9

in 2041 AD and will repeat the same cycle again.

Thus saying that the Vedic seers were following Synodic months to

the exclusion of solar months is tantamount to confusing Hejira

calendar with Vedic calendar!

For further confirmation of the synodic months vis-a-vis solar

months, we can see references in the Vedas--- " Madhuschai-madhavaschai

vasantikav ritu " i.e Madhu and Madhava are the months of Vasanta

Ritu and so on. If Madhu and Madhava are taken as exclusive synodic

months, like in Hejira calendar, they can never remain permanetly

fixed to Vasanta Ritu.

 

The Vedas say that a year comprises 360 days and 720 nights. Quite a

few " Vedic astrologers " say that 360 days are 360 degrees since a

(solar) year has 365 days! Actually, as we have seen above, a solar

year has 365.25 days and 12 synodic month period equals 354.37 days.

IMHO, the mean of these two i.e. 365.25+354.37 = 719.62 divided by 2

= 359.81 days has been taken as the duration of a year by the Vedic

Seers, since they used synodic as well as solar months/years

simultaneously, neither to the exclusion of the other!

The most beautiful point about Vedic calendar is thus that both the

solar and the synodic months remain aligned to the seasons! An it is

for this very purpose that an adhika-masa/kshyaya-masa has been

introduced by Vedic seers.

 

We find the same trend continuing in post Vedic period in the Puranas

etc. The Vishnu Purana 2/8/81 has said, " Tapah and Tapasya, Madhu

and Madhava, and Shukrah and Shuchih are the six months of

Uttarayana; Nabhah and Nabhasya,Isha and Urja and Sahah and Sahasya

are the six months of dakshinayana " . In the same adhyaya, in 28th

shloka, the same VP has said, " At the beginning of Uttarayana, the

sun enters Makara when the day is the shortest, then Kumbha and

Mina. After having passed through those three Rashis, it becomes

Vishuva in Mesha when the day and night become equal throughout the

entire globe. After that days start becoming longer than nights and

finally, at the end of Mithuna, when the sun enters Karkata, the day

is the longest. It is also the start of dakshinayana " .

 

I do not think that we need any further proofs that the Vedic and

even post-Vedic Hindu calendar was having synodic months against the

background of solar months.

 

<There are some good points in Sri AKK's discussions, but his agenda

of calendar reform is badly mangled with discrediting Jyothish.>

 

It is only " Vedic astrologers " who want us to delink both the solar

as well as the lunar months from the seaons completely and they have

succeeded in the same even beyond their own expectations, taking the

entire Hindu community for a ride, with the result that we are

compelled to celebrate Pitra-Amavasya on actual Dipavali and Maha-

Shivaatri on February 23 instead of January 24 in 2009 and so on.

 

It is a statement of facts howsoever unpleasant it may be! This

must be clear from the fact that no body celebrates Uttarayana these

days but everybody celebrates Makara Sankranti---and that also only

that Makar Sankranti that has been sanctioned not by the Puranas or

the sidhantas, which is a synonym of Uttarayana, but the one by

Lahiriwalas or Ramanawalas or even Shakuntaladevi-walas! (Pl. see

BVB6, 1999b in files section).

That is why I keep on repeating, " We do not need enemies to ruin our

dharma, if we have 'Vedic astrologers' around " .

I know every Vedic Hindu feels the same thing/way but is relucant to

admit it openly.

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

hinducivilization , " Arvind Vyas "

<arvind_vyas@> wrote:

>

> Dear Group members,

>

> This is a serious point for discussion. The months in RV are

> certainly lunar (as they talk about 12 and sometimes 13 months).

>

> There are some good points in Sri AKK's discussions, but his agenda

> of calendar reform is badly mangled with discrediting Jyothish. A

> request to Sri Kaul is to provide a concise to the point

> clarification. There are far too many messages from him to the

extent

> that the whole discussion becomes pointless - and I am sure that

the

> calendar reform can be done without discrediting our ancient

> scholars, as throughout our history we have been fine-tuning our

> approach on this issue (Calendar reform). Once there is a concensus

> on Calendar issue we can discuss the second item in his agenda. I

> believe that calendar reform is infinitely more important than

> compare to discrediting Jyotish.

>

> Best regards,

> Arvind Vyas

>

> hinducivilization , " shankarabharadwaj "

> <shankarabharadwaj@> wrote:

> >

> > This is an extract from Sri AKK's post:

> >

> > " Thus all the

> > lunar months get advanced by one month as against the real Vedic

> > months! "

> >

> > I am surprised, and wish to know if there is any clear indication

> that

> > the " Vedic months " as Sri SKK says were Solar and not Lunar.

> >

> > That month is lunar is quite evident from the specification of

month

> > as the duration between newmoon and newmoon. The indication

> of " adhika

> > masa " even in MahaBharata, implies that month must be Lunar.

Bhishma

> > says in the Gograhana episode: " The wheel of time revolves with

its

> > divisions, viz., with Kalas and Kasthas and Muhurtas and days and

> > fortnights and months and constellations and planets and seasons

and

> > years. In consequence of their fractional excesses and the

> deviations

> > of also of the heavenly bodies, there is an increase of two

months

> in

> > every five years. It seems to me that calculating this wise, there

> > would be an excess of five months and twelve nights in thirteen

> years.

> > Everything, therefore, that the sons of Pandu had promised, hath

> been

> > exactly fulfilled by them. Knowing this to be certain, Vibhatsu

hath

> > made his appearance. "

> >

> > And in another post Sri AKK himself says:

> >

> > " The fact of the matter is that tithis were

> > prevailing right from the Rigveda! So were the adhika masa! We

have

> > also the most indigenous astronomical work which tells us as to

how

> > to calculate mean tithi etc. "

> >

> > How can there be an adhika masa if the month is solar? The very

> > concept of adhika masa becomes relevant only when the month is

lunar

> > and it needs to be reconciled with solar year.

> >

> > There are sufficient number of reasons why months should have been

> > Lunar, religious or otherwise. For instance " masika " for pitris is

> > Lunar masa - they live in Candra loka during that time. The gynic

> Ritu

> > is also aligned to the Lunar masa and not Solar masa. And so on.

> >

> > The only riddle is about Surya " sankramana " , which has to do with

> > solar and not lunar cycle. As far as I know this is not aligned

to

> the

> > 12 lunar month year, but I will be happy with any more clarity

added

> > on this.

> >

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---