Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 To All: Suryasiddhanta's first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to Maya the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at the fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 years from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over Julioan). According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of Jyotisha, vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, etc. Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas say that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. In koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant " easterlies " , and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must find its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira who eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written a commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern view is guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that Indian astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to conclusions, Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these ideosyncratic or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix the date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : Suryasiddhantic(Saur) and Physical (Drik) AD Method Sun Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn 382 Drik 343:33:59 001:39:24 304:06:20 320:29:20 238:48:12 310:08:09 050:58:12 Saur 344:09:44 002:18:18 306:00:04 317:26:27 236:14:05 307:10:43 058:18:51 482 Drik 344:18:44 318:25:11 347:52:07 319:15:50 025:16:49 027:27:47 209:22:01 Saur 344:47:48 319:25:52 350:42:50 324:10:33 021:03:18 025:40:02 214:40:16 582 Drik 345:03:34 253:57:54 029:03:14 335:51:57 188:46:46 325:47:33 337:17:06 Saur 345:25:49 258:28:12 031:42:36 343:39:19 185:05:00 322:54:50 342:03:42 682 Drik 345:48:00 215:27:37 073:50:27 358:38:34 342:03:44 028:07:06 128:39:19 Saur 346:03:50 214:34:27 076:53:20 000:13:16 338:05:47 031:01:54 138:56:21 782 Drik 346:33:23 152:21:34 157:55:10 357:25:17 136:30:39 342:28:19 272:56:05 Saur 346:41:49 154:02:50 165:14:47 350:55:52 132:22:37 340:03:29 276:49:23 882 Drik 347:18:01 109:07:50 260:33:02 322:29:25 298:43:55 323:44:48 044:58:58 Saur 347:19:46 107:58:29 261:48:04 320:02:06 295:40:57 335:09:06 051:04:16 982 Drik 348:02:48 052:09:32 311:52:48 324:01:45 085:44:25 359:21:07 205:23:02 Saur 347:57:41 052:17:24 312:05:43 328:07:58 081:53:55 357:30:27 209:48:18 1082 Drik 348:48:22 000:17:10 355:34:55 341:21:32 253:17:16 302:24:10 335:41:00 Saur 348:35:35 000:24:57 356:47:17 347:45:54 251:39:09 301:33:34 337:05:04 The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements with physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side (from my book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 years during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. Lower table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets from physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all Westernerers consider to be period of composition of Suryasiddhanta. Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds of arc) AD Sun Moon Mars Mercury Jupiter Venus Saturn 382 -2145 - 2334 - 6824 +10973 + 9247 +10646 -26439 482 -1744 - 3641 -10243 -17683 +15211 + 6465 -19095 582 -1335 -16218 - 9562 -28042 +13306 +10363 -17196 682 - 950 + 3190 -10973 - 5682 -21723 -10488 -37022 782 - 506 - 6076 -26377 +23365 +14882 + 8690 -13998 882 - 105 + 4161 - 4502 + 8839 +10978 -41058 -21918 982 + 307 - 472 - 775 -14773 +13830 + 6640 -15916 1082 + 767 - 467 - 4342 -23062 + 5887 + 3036 - 5044 The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is no period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which cannot be shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on Suryasiddhanta : " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, in the manner already explained, do not appear to have been constructed so as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic planets could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, above tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging from -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the century from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in intervening years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge differences ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will yield similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " difference in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik ayanamsha was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of Saur ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya was based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect that in 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If nirayana computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be 782 AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be a criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD is the year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every 42000 years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, due to undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get only those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get the help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to a Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets must not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was a wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but could not find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There are a lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been removed by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing all the secrets of Suryasiddhata. 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " merely on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta completely. It cannot be reformed at all. 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 over 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 of " 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 sincere ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading Kundalee software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. Hence, facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But is this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The real Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they were for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India according to their colonial and cultural interests. Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit down to test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of freely available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that Suryasiddhanta is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the mathematical basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. If we do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta will not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is not guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who cannot be propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. -VJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 To All : The tables I pasted here were deformed by javascript of . Readers may download DateSury.doc file from files section. Without these tables, understanding this article will be difficult. -VJ ============ ========= ======== =========== , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > To All: > > Suryasiddhanta's first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to Maya > the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at the > fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 years > from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over Julioan). > According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of Jyotisha, > vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, etc. > Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized > Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a > mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all > mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas say > that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. In > koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant " easterlies " , > and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . > > To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must find > its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira who > eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. > Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all > siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written a > commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern view is > guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the > world today. > > According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were > incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that Indian > astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to conclusions, > Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these ideosyncratic > or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix the > date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? > > Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : > Suryasiddhantic(Saur) and Physical (Drik) > > AD > > Method > > Sun > > Moon > > Mars > > Mercury > > Jupiter > > Venus > > Saturn > > 382 > > Drik > > 343:33:59 > > 001:39:24 > > 304:06:20 > > 320:29:20 > > 238:48:12 > > 310:08:09 > > 050:58:12 > > > > Saur > > 344:09:44 > > 002:18:18 > > 306:00:04 > > 317:26:27 > > 236:14:05 > > 307:10:43 > > 058:18:51 > > 482 > > Drik > > 344:18:44 > > 318:25:11 > > 347:52:07 > > 319:15:50 > > 025:16:49 > > 027:27:47 > > 209:22:01 > > > > Saur > > 344:47:48 > > 319:25:52 > > 350:42:50 > > 324:10:33 > > 021:03:18 > > 025:40:02 > > 214:40:16 > > 582 > > Drik > > 345:03:34 > > 253:57:54 > > 029:03:14 > > 335:51:57 > > 188:46:46 > > 325:47:33 > > 337:17:06 > > > > Saur > > 345:25:49 > > 258:28:12 > > 031:42:36 > > 343:39:19 > > 185:05:00 > > 322:54:50 > > 342:03:42 > > 682 > > Drik > > 345:48:00 > > 215:27:37 > > 073:50:27 > > 358:38:34 > > 342:03:44 > > 028:07:06 > > 128:39:19 > > > > Saur > > 346:03:50 > > 214:34:27 > > 076:53:20 > > 000:13:16 > > 338:05:47 > > 031:01:54 > > 138:56:21 > > 782 > > Drik > > 346:33:23 > > 152:21:34 > > 157:55:10 > > 357:25:17 > > 136:30:39 > > 342:28:19 > > 272:56:05 > > > > Saur > > 346:41:49 > > 154:02:50 > > 165:14:47 > > 350:55:52 > > 132:22:37 > > 340:03:29 > > 276:49:23 > > 882 > > Drik > > 347:18:01 > > 109:07:50 > > 260:33:02 > > 322:29:25 > > 298:43:55 > > 323:44:48 > > 044:58:58 > > > > Saur > > 347:19:46 > > 107:58:29 > > 261:48:04 > > 320:02:06 > > 295:40:57 > > 335:09:06 > > 051:04:16 > > 982 > > Drik > > 348:02:48 > > 052:09:32 > > 311:52:48 > > 324:01:45 > > 085:44:25 > > 359:21:07 > > 205:23:02 > > > > Saur > > 347:57:41 > > 052:17:24 > > 312:05:43 > > 328:07:58 > > 081:53:55 > > 357:30:27 > > 209:48:18 > > 1082 > > Drik > > 348:48:22 > > 000:17:10 > > 355:34:55 > > 341:21:32 > > 253:17:16 > > 302:24:10 > > 335:41:00 > > > > Saur > > 348:35:35 > > 000:24:57 > > 356:47:17 > > 347:45:54 > > 251:39:09 > > 301:33:34 > > 337:05:04 > > > > The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements with > physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other > planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side (from my > book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 years > during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of > composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. Lower > table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets from > physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all > Westernerers consider to be period of composition of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds of > arc) > > AD > > Sun > > Moon > > Mars > > Mercury > > Jupiter > > Venus > > Saturn > > 382 > > -2145 > > - 2334 > > - 6824 > > +10973 > > + 9247 > > +10646 > > -26439 > > 482 > > -1744 > > - 3641 > > -10243 > > -17683 > > +15211 > > + 6465 > > -19095 > > 582 > > -1335 > > -16218 > > - 9562 > > -28042 > > +13306 > > +10363 > > -17196 > > 682 > > - 950 > > + 3190 > > -10973 > > - 5682 > > -21723 > > -10488 > > -37022 > > 782 > > - 506 > > - 6076 > > -26377 > > +23365 > > +14882 > > + 8690 > > -13998 > > 882 > > - 105 > > + 4161 > > - 4502 > > + 8839 > > +10978 > > -41058 > > -21918 > > 982 > > + 307 > > - 472 > > - 775 > > -14773 > > +13830 > > + 6640 > > -15916 > > 1082 > > + 767 > > - 467 > > - 4342 > > -23062 > > + 5887 > > + 3036 > > - 5044 > > The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is no > period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which cannot be > shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions > can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the > planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which Suryasiddhantic > planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on Suryasiddhanta : > " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, in > the manner already explained, do not appear to have been constructed so > as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all > siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic planets > could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha > Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, above > tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging from > -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the century > from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in intervening > years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge differences > ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will yield > similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " difference > in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik ayanamsha > was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of Saur > ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya was > based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect that in > 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If nirayana > computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be 782 > AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be a > criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD is the > year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every 42000 > years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, due to > undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. > > > > Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get only > those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get the > help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to a > Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets must > not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most > serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the > Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was a > wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is > against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional > Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but could not > find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There are a > lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been removed > by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing all > the secrets of Suryasiddhata. > > > > 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " merely > on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta > completely. It cannot be reformed at all. > > > > 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 over 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 of " 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 sincere > ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading Kundalee > software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. Hence, > facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as > theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world view > which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But is > this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, > including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The real > Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and > Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they were > for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India according to > their colonial and cultural interests. > > > > Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit down to > test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of freely > available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that Suryasiddhanta > is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the > siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the mathematical > basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. If we > do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta will > not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is not > guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who cannot be > propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. > > > > -VJ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Dear Vinay Jha ji, I like your recent mails, though may not agree to the total content, which minor disagreements does not matter. You are right about " bickering about date of Surya siddhanta " . You are also right about " Our whole history has been > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India according to > their colonial and cultural interests. " What " matters " is the " crux " of the " matter " - APPLICATION. There is no usefullness in trying to teach skeptics and non believers like AKK who have only one agenda in mind " To criticise " . There is also no palpable sense in trying to find out ancient dates and origins of a subject matter which finding may not be considered authentic even if one finds what he wishes to find. I wholeheartedly agree to this approach of " Application " of available data and knowledge to the utilisation of the astronomers or astrologers who may be at advantage with the knowledge of how to apply the " knowledge of application " rather than theoretical confirmation or condemning which is now become the luxury of those who have enough time on hand . This has obviously no practical value to any. Let me know when I will find it easier to download your Software since I have done it twice on two seperate occasions and was unsuccessful both times. Till the time I am able to do the same, and verify the claims put forth by You, I will reserve my comments , being a man of justice. regards, Bhaskar. , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > > To All: > > Suryasiddhanta's first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to Maya > the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at the > fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 years > from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over Julioan). > According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of Jyotisha, > vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, etc. > Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized > Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a > mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all > mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas say > that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. In > koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant " easterlies " , > and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . > > To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must find > its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira who > eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. > Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all > siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written a > commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern view is > guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the > world today. > > According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were > incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that Indian > astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to conclusions, > Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these ideosyncratic > or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix the > date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? > > Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : > Suryasiddhantic(Saur) and Physical (Drik) > > AD > > Method > > Sun > > Moon > > Mars > > Mercury > > Jupiter > > Venus > > Saturn > > 382 > > Drik > > 343:33:59 > > 001:39:24 > > 304:06:20 > > 320:29:20 > > 238:48:12 > > 310:08:09 > > 050:58:12 > > > > Saur > > 344:09:44 > > 002:18:18 > > 306:00:04 > > 317:26:27 > > 236:14:05 > > 307:10:43 > > 058:18:51 > > 482 > > Drik > > 344:18:44 > > 318:25:11 > > 347:52:07 > > 319:15:50 > > 025:16:49 > > 027:27:47 > > 209:22:01 > > > > Saur > > 344:47:48 > > 319:25:52 > > 350:42:50 > > 324:10:33 > > 021:03:18 > > 025:40:02 > > 214:40:16 > > 582 > > Drik > > 345:03:34 > > 253:57:54 > > 029:03:14 > > 335:51:57 > > 188:46:46 > > 325:47:33 > > 337:17:06 > > > > Saur > > 345:25:49 > > 258:28:12 > > 031:42:36 > > 343:39:19 > > 185:05:00 > > 322:54:50 > > 342:03:42 > > 682 > > Drik > > 345:48:00 > > 215:27:37 > > 073:50:27 > > 358:38:34 > > 342:03:44 > > 028:07:06 > > 128:39:19 > > > > Saur > > 346:03:50 > > 214:34:27 > > 076:53:20 > > 000:13:16 > > 338:05:47 > > 031:01:54 > > 138:56:21 > > 782 > > Drik > > 346:33:23 > > 152:21:34 > > 157:55:10 > > 357:25:17 > > 136:30:39 > > 342:28:19 > > 272:56:05 > > > > Saur > > 346:41:49 > > 154:02:50 > > 165:14:47 > > 350:55:52 > > 132:22:37 > > 340:03:29 > > 276:49:23 > > 882 > > Drik > > 347:18:01 > > 109:07:50 > > 260:33:02 > > 322:29:25 > > 298:43:55 > > 323:44:48 > > 044:58:58 > > > > Saur > > 347:19:46 > > 107:58:29 > > 261:48:04 > > 320:02:06 > > 295:40:57 > > 335:09:06 > > 051:04:16 > > 982 > > Drik > > 348:02:48 > > 052:09:32 > > 311:52:48 > > 324:01:45 > > 085:44:25 > > 359:21:07 > > 205:23:02 > > > > Saur > > 347:57:41 > > 052:17:24 > > 312:05:43 > > 328:07:58 > > 081:53:55 > > 357:30:27 > > 209:48:18 > > 1082 > > Drik > > 348:48:22 > > 000:17:10 > > 355:34:55 > > 341:21:32 > > 253:17:16 > > 302:24:10 > > 335:41:00 > > > > Saur > > 348:35:35 > > 000:24:57 > > 356:47:17 > > 347:45:54 > > 251:39:09 > > 301:33:34 > > 337:05:04 > > > > The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements with > physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other > planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side (from my > book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 years > during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of > composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. Lower > table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets from > physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all > Westernerers consider to be period of composition of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds of > arc) > > AD > > Sun > > Moon > > Mars > > Mercury > > Jupiter > > Venus > > Saturn > > 382 > > -2145 > > - 2334 > > - 6824 > > +10973 > > + 9247 > > +10646 > > -26439 > > 482 > > -1744 > > - 3641 > > -10243 > > -17683 > > +15211 > > + 6465 > > -19095 > > 582 > > -1335 > > -16218 > > - 9562 > > -28042 > > +13306 > > +10363 > > -17196 > > 682 > > - 950 > > + 3190 > > -10973 > > - 5682 > > -21723 > > -10488 > > -37022 > > 782 > > - 506 > > - 6076 > > -26377 > > +23365 > > +14882 > > + 8690 > > -13998 > > 882 > > - 105 > > + 4161 > > - 4502 > > + 8839 > > +10978 > > -41058 > > -21918 > > 982 > > + 307 > > - 472 > > - 775 > > -14773 > > +13830 > > + 6640 > > -15916 > > 1082 > > + 767 > > - 467 > > - 4342 > > -23062 > > + 5887 > > + 3036 > > - 5044 > > The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is no > period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which cannot be > shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions > can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the > planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which Suryasiddhantic > planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on Suryasiddhanta : > " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, in > the manner already explained, do not appear to have been constructed so > as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all > siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic planets > could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha > Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, above > tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging from > -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the century > from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in intervening > years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge differences > ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will yield > similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " difference > in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik ayanamsha > was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of Saur > ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya was > based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect that in > 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If nirayana > computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be 782 > AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be a > criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD is the > year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every 42000 > years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, due to > undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. > > > > Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get only > those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get the > help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to a > Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets must > not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most > serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the > Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was a > wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is > against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional > Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but could not > find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There are a > lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been removed > by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing all > the secrets of Suryasiddhata. > > > > 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " merely > on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta > completely. It cannot be reformed at all. > > > > 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 over 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 of " 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 sincere > ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading Kundalee > software to test the continuing astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. Hence, > facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as > theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world view > which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But is > this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, > including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The real > Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and > Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they were > for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India according to > their colonial and cultural interests. > > > > Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit down to > test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of freely > available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that Suryasiddhanta > is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the > siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the mathematical > basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. If we > do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta will > not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is not > guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who cannot be > propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. > > > > -VJ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Dear Vinay Jha ji, 1) I always use Bhava Chalit chart for predictions, and use the Raashi Chart only for checking the aspects. 2) I use Vimsottari for timing events. 3) Of couse one must not try to look for what is not there, rather be appreciable of the fact of whatever is offered and make suggestions if they are asked for. I will try to download it from the new site. regards, Bhaskar. , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote: > > bhaskar Ji, > AKK & co have no real interest in either true history or astrology, their are wasting our time with their anti-astrological agenda. > > My earlier server is very busy, and many users had to face problem during downloads due to server overloads. > > Following is the location of new site for downloading Kundalee software : > > http://kundalee.wikidot.com/start > > The best way way to get benefit of this software is to use bhaavachalita for predictions instead of the raashi chart, and use Vimshottari for timing of events, followed in importance by Varshaphala. Ashtakavarga is only for research purposes, it may be avoided for normal works. Divisionals of Kundalee will differ from other softwares, but will prove to be accurate astrologically. > > Please try to get what Kundalee offers , and do not try to find what it does not offer. For example, I have still not added modules for yogas & c. > > -VJ > > > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:22:38 PM > Re: Dating the Suryasiddhaanta Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > I like your recent mails, though may not agree to the total content, > which minor disagreements does not matter. > > You are right about " bickering about date of Surya siddhanta " . > > You are also right about " Our whole history has been > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India according > to > their colonial and cultural interests. " > > What " matters " is the " crux " of the " matter " - APPLICATION. > > There is no usefullness in trying to teach skeptics and non believers > like AKK who have only one agenda in mind " To criticise " . There is also > no palpable sense in trying to find out ancient dates and origins of a > subject matter which finding may not be considered authentic even if one > finds what he wishes to find. > > I wholeheartedly agree to this approach of " Application " of available > data and knowledge to the utilisation of the astronomers or astrologers > who may be at advantage with the knowledge of how to apply the > " knowledge of application " rather than theoretical confirmation or > condemning which is now become the luxury of those who have enough time > on hand . This has obviously no practical value to any. > > Let me know when I will find it easier to download your Software since I > have done it twice on two seperate occasions and was unsuccessful both > times. Till the time I am able to do the same, and verify the claims > put forth by You, I will reserve my comments , being a man of justice. > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ ....> > wrote: > > > > > > To All: > > > > Suryasiddhanta' s first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to Maya > > the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at the > > fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 years > > from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over Julioan). > > According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of > Jyotisha, > > vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, etc. > > Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized > > Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a > > mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all > > mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas say > > that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. In > > koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant " easterlies " , > > and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . > > > > To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must find > > its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira who > > eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. > > Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all > > siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written a > > commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern view > is > > guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite in > the > > world today. > > > > According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were > > incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that Indian > > astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to > conclusions, > > Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these > ideosyncratic > > or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix the > > date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? > > > > Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : > > Suryasiddhantic( Saur) and Physical (Drik) > > > > AD > > > > Method > > > > Sun > > > > Moon > > > > Mars > > > > Mercury > > > > Jupiter > > > > Venus > > > > Saturn > > > > 382 > > > > Drik > > > > 343:33:59 > > > > 001:39:24 > > > > 304:06:20 > > > > 320:29:20 > > > > 238:48:12 > > > > 310:08:09 > > > > 050:58:12 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 344:09:44 > > > > 002:18:18 > > > > 306:00:04 > > > > 317:26:27 > > > > 236:14:05 > > > > 307:10:43 > > > > 058:18:51 > > > > 482 > > > > Drik > > > > 344:18:44 > > > > 318:25:11 > > > > 347:52:07 > > > > 319:15:50 > > > > 025:16:49 > > > > 027:27:47 > > > > 209:22:01 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 344:47:48 > > > > 319:25:52 > > > > 350:42:50 > > > > 324:10:33 > > > > 021:03:18 > > > > 025:40:02 > > > > 214:40:16 > > > > 582 > > > > Drik > > > > 345:03:34 > > > > 253:57:54 > > > > 029:03:14 > > > > 335:51:57 > > > > 188:46:46 > > > > 325:47:33 > > > > 337:17:06 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 345:25:49 > > > > 258:28:12 > > > > 031:42:36 > > > > 343:39:19 > > > > 185:05:00 > > > > 322:54:50 > > > > 342:03:42 > > > > 682 > > > > Drik > > > > 345:48:00 > > > > 215:27:37 > > > > 073:50:27 > > > > 358:38:34 > > > > 342:03:44 > > > > 028:07:06 > > > > 128:39:19 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 346:03:50 > > > > 214:34:27 > > > > 076:53:20 > > > > 000:13:16 > > > > 338:05:47 > > > > 031:01:54 > > > > 138:56:21 > > > > 782 > > > > Drik > > > > 346:33:23 > > > > 152:21:34 > > > > 157:55:10 > > > > 357:25:17 > > > > 136:30:39 > > > > 342:28:19 > > > > 272:56:05 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 346:41:49 > > > > 154:02:50 > > > > 165:14:47 > > > > 350:55:52 > > > > 132:22:37 > > > > 340:03:29 > > > > 276:49:23 > > > > 882 > > > > Drik > > > > 347:18:01 > > > > 109:07:50 > > > > 260:33:02 > > > > 322:29:25 > > > > 298:43:55 > > > > 323:44:48 > > > > 044:58:58 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 347:19:46 > > > > 107:58:29 > > > > 261:48:04 > > > > 320:02:06 > > > > 295:40:57 > > > > 335:09:06 > > > > 051:04:16 > > > > 982 > > > > Drik > > > > 348:02:48 > > > > 052:09:32 > > > > 311:52:48 > > > > 324:01:45 > > > > 085:44:25 > > > > 359:21:07 > > > > 205:23:02 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 347:57:41 > > > > 052:17:24 > > > > 312:05:43 > > > > 328:07:58 > > > > 081:53:55 > > > > 357:30:27 > > > > 209:48:18 > > > > 1082 > > > > Drik > > > > 348:48:22 > > > > 000:17:10 > > > > 355:34:55 > > > > 341:21:32 > > > > 253:17:16 > > > > 302:24:10 > > > > 335:41:00 > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > 348:35:35 > > > > 000:24:57 > > > > 356:47:17 > > > > 347:45:54 > > > > 251:39:09 > > > > 301:33:34 > > > > 337:05:04 > > > > > > > > The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements with > > physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other > > planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side (from > my > > book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 years > > during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of > > composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. Lower > > table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets from > > physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all > > Westernerers consider to be period of composition of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds of > > arc) > > > > AD > > > > Sun > > > > Moon > > > > Mars > > > > Mercury > > > > Jupiter > > > > Venus > > > > Saturn > > > > 382 > > > > -2145 > > > > - 2334 > > > > - 6824 > > > > +10973 > > > > + 9247 > > > > +10646 > > > > -26439 > > > > 482 > > > > -1744 > > > > - 3641 > > > > -10243 > > > > -17683 > > > > +15211 > > > > + 6465 > > > > -19095 > > > > 582 > > > > -1335 > > > > -16218 > > > > - 9562 > > > > -28042 > > > > +13306 > > > > +10363 > > > > -17196 > > > > 682 > > > > - 950 > > > > + 3190 > > > > -10973 > > > > - 5682 > > > > -21723 > > > > -10488 > > > > -37022 > > > > 782 > > > > - 506 > > > > - 6076 > > > > -26377 > > > > +23365 > > > > +14882 > > > > + 8690 > > > > -13998 > > > > 882 > > > > - 105 > > > > + 4161 > > > > - 4502 > > > > + 8839 > > > > +10978 > > > > -41058 > > > > -21918 > > > > 982 > > > > + 307 > > > > - 472 > > > > - 775 > > > > -14773 > > > > +13830 > > > > + 6640 > > > > -15916 > > > > 1082 > > > > + 767 > > > > - 467 > > > > - 4342 > > > > -23062 > > > > + 5887 > > > > + 3036 > > > > - 5044 > > > > The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is no > > period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which cannot > be > > shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary positions > > can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the > > planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which Suryasiddhantic > > planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on Suryasiddhanta > : > > " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, in > > the manner already explained, do not appear to have been constructed > so > > as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . > > > > > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all > > siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic planets > > could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha > > Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, above > > tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging from > > -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the century > > from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in intervening > > years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge > differences > > ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will yield > > similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " difference > > in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik ayanamsha > > was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of Saur > > ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya was > > based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect that > in > > 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If nirayana > > computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be 782 > > AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be a > > criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD is > the > > year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every 42000 > > years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, due > to > > undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. > > > > > > > > Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get only > > those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get the > > help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to a > > Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets > must > > not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most > > serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the > > Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was a > > wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is > > against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional > > Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but could > not > > find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There are > a > > lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been > removed > > by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing all > > the secrets of Suryasiddhata. > > > > > > > > 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " merely > > on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta > > completely. It cannot be reformed at all. > > > > > > > > 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 over > 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 of " 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 sincere > > ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading Kundalee > > software to test the continuing astrological validity of > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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-chaaraad hyaaya 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. Hence, > > facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as > > theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world view > > which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But is > > this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, > > including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The real > > Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and > > Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they were > > for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India according > to > > their colonial and cultural interests. > > > > > > > > Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit down > to > > test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of freely > > available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that > Suryasiddhanta > > is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the > > siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the mathematical > > basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. If we > > do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta will > > not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is not > > guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who cannot > be > > propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Dear Vinay Jha ji, That was the 3rd time I spent half an hour to one hour in trying to download your software, which unfortunately is unable to load on any of my computers. 2 Files out of 3 I was able to download, but the 3rd one " SETUP.LST " I was not able to, as a Page opens but nothing downloads. I do not have any further will or energy left to try once again, so lets leave this aside now. I would advice you to spend a few hundred rupees and go to smart software Engineer who can help you out. We have already read that few members were able to download , but all of the mails in various groups by various members, suggest otherwise, so it would be better if you get this rectified once and for all. regards, Bhaskar. , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > 1) I always use Bhava Chalit chart for predictions, and use the Raashi > Chart only for checking the aspects. > > 2) I use Vimsottari for timing events. > > 3) Of couse one must not try to look for what is not there, rather be > appreciable of the fact of whatever is offered and make suggestions if > they are asked for. > > I will try to download it from the new site. > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > , Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote: > > > > bhaskar Ji, > > AKK & co have no real interest in either true history or astrology, > their are wasting our time with their anti-astrological agenda. > > > > My earlier server is very busy, and many users had to face problem > during downloads due to server overloads. > > > > Following is the location of new site for downloading Kundalee > software : > > > > http://kundalee.wikidot.com/start > > > > The best way way to get benefit of this software is to use > bhaavachalita for predictions instead of the raashi chart, and use > Vimshottari for timing of events, followed in importance by Varshaphala. > Ashtakavarga is only for research purposes, it may be avoided for normal > works. Divisionals of Kundalee will differ from other softwares, but > will prove to be accurate astrologically. > > > > Please try to get what Kundalee offers , and do not try to find what > it does not offer. For example, I have still not added modules for yogas > & c. > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ > > > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:22:38 PM > > Re: Dating the Suryasiddhaanta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > > > I like your recent mails, though may not agree to the total content, > > which minor disagreements does not matter. > > > > You are right about " bickering about date of Surya siddhanta " . > > > > You are also right about " Our whole history has been > > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India > according > > to > their colonial and cultural interests. " > > > > What " matters " is the " crux " of the " matter " - APPLICATION. > > > > There is no usefullness in trying to teach skeptics and non believers > > like AKK who have only one agenda in mind " To criticise " . There is > also > > no palpable sense in trying to find out ancient dates and origins of a > > subject matter which finding may not be considered authentic even if > one > > finds what he wishes to find. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree to this approach of " Application " of available > > data and knowledge to the utilisation of the astronomers or > astrologers > > who may be at advantage with the knowledge of how to apply the > > " knowledge of application " rather than theoretical confirmation or > > condemning which is now become the luxury of those who have enough > time > > on hand . This has obviously no practical value to any. > > > > Let me know when I will find it easier to download your Software since > I > > have done it twice on two seperate occasions and was unsuccessful both > > times. Till the time I am able to do the same, and verify the claims > > put forth by You, I will reserve my comments , being a man of justice. > > > > regards, > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ > ...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > To All: > > > > > > Suryasiddhanta' s first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to > Maya > > > the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at > the > > > fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 years > > > from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over Julioan). > > > According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of > > Jyotisha, > > > vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, etc. > > > Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized > > > Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a > > > mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all > > > mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas > say > > > that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. > In > > > koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant " easterlies " > , > > > and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . > > > > > > To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must > find > > > its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira who > > > eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. > > > Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all > > > siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written a > > > commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern > view > > is > > > guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite in > > the > > > world today. > > > > > > According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were > > > incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that > Indian > > > astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to > > conclusions, > > > Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these > > ideosyncratic > > > or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix the > > > date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? > > > > > > Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : > > > Suryasiddhantic( Saur) and Physical (Drik) > > > > > > AD > > > > > > Method > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > Moon > > > > > > Mars > > > > > > Mercury > > > > > > Jupiter > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > Saturn > > > > > > 382 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 343:33:59 > > > > > > 001:39:24 > > > > > > 304:06:20 > > > > > > 320:29:20 > > > > > > 238:48:12 > > > > > > 310:08:09 > > > > > > 050:58:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 344:09:44 > > > > > > 002:18:18 > > > > > > 306:00:04 > > > > > > 317:26:27 > > > > > > 236:14:05 > > > > > > 307:10:43 > > > > > > 058:18:51 > > > > > > 482 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 344:18:44 > > > > > > 318:25:11 > > > > > > 347:52:07 > > > > > > 319:15:50 > > > > > > 025:16:49 > > > > > > 027:27:47 > > > > > > 209:22:01 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 344:47:48 > > > > > > 319:25:52 > > > > > > 350:42:50 > > > > > > 324:10:33 > > > > > > 021:03:18 > > > > > > 025:40:02 > > > > > > 214:40:16 > > > > > > 582 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 345:03:34 > > > > > > 253:57:54 > > > > > > 029:03:14 > > > > > > 335:51:57 > > > > > > 188:46:46 > > > > > > 325:47:33 > > > > > > 337:17:06 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 345:25:49 > > > > > > 258:28:12 > > > > > > 031:42:36 > > > > > > 343:39:19 > > > > > > 185:05:00 > > > > > > 322:54:50 > > > > > > 342:03:42 > > > > > > 682 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 345:48:00 > > > > > > 215:27:37 > > > > > > 073:50:27 > > > > > > 358:38:34 > > > > > > 342:03:44 > > > > > > 028:07:06 > > > > > > 128:39:19 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 346:03:50 > > > > > > 214:34:27 > > > > > > 076:53:20 > > > > > > 000:13:16 > > > > > > 338:05:47 > > > > > > 031:01:54 > > > > > > 138:56:21 > > > > > > 782 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 346:33:23 > > > > > > 152:21:34 > > > > > > 157:55:10 > > > > > > 357:25:17 > > > > > > 136:30:39 > > > > > > 342:28:19 > > > > > > 272:56:05 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 346:41:49 > > > > > > 154:02:50 > > > > > > 165:14:47 > > > > > > 350:55:52 > > > > > > 132:22:37 > > > > > > 340:03:29 > > > > > > 276:49:23 > > > > > > 882 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 347:18:01 > > > > > > 109:07:50 > > > > > > 260:33:02 > > > > > > 322:29:25 > > > > > > 298:43:55 > > > > > > 323:44:48 > > > > > > 044:58:58 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 347:19:46 > > > > > > 107:58:29 > > > > > > 261:48:04 > > > > > > 320:02:06 > > > > > > 295:40:57 > > > > > > 335:09:06 > > > > > > 051:04:16 > > > > > > 982 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 348:02:48 > > > > > > 052:09:32 > > > > > > 311:52:48 > > > > > > 324:01:45 > > > > > > 085:44:25 > > > > > > 359:21:07 > > > > > > 205:23:02 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 347:57:41 > > > > > > 052:17:24 > > > > > > 312:05:43 > > > > > > 328:07:58 > > > > > > 081:53:55 > > > > > > 357:30:27 > > > > > > 209:48:18 > > > > > > 1082 > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > 348:48:22 > > > > > > 000:17:10 > > > > > > 355:34:55 > > > > > > 341:21:32 > > > > > > 253:17:16 > > > > > > 302:24:10 > > > > > > 335:41:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > 348:35:35 > > > > > > 000:24:57 > > > > > > 356:47:17 > > > > > > 347:45:54 > > > > > > 251:39:09 > > > > > > 301:33:34 > > > > > > 337:05:04 > > > > > > > > > > > > The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements > with > > > physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other > > > planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side (from > > my > > > book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 > years > > > during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of > > > composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. > Lower > > > table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets from > > > physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all > > > Westernerers consider to be period of composition of Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds > of > > > arc) > > > > > > AD > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > Moon > > > > > > Mars > > > > > > Mercury > > > > > > Jupiter > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > Saturn > > > > > > 382 > > > > > > -2145 > > > > > > - 2334 > > > > > > - 6824 > > > > > > +10973 > > > > > > + 9247 > > > > > > +10646 > > > > > > -26439 > > > > > > 482 > > > > > > -1744 > > > > > > - 3641 > > > > > > -10243 > > > > > > -17683 > > > > > > +15211 > > > > > > + 6465 > > > > > > -19095 > > > > > > 582 > > > > > > -1335 > > > > > > -16218 > > > > > > - 9562 > > > > > > -28042 > > > > > > +13306 > > > > > > +10363 > > > > > > -17196 > > > > > > 682 > > > > > > - 950 > > > > > > + 3190 > > > > > > -10973 > > > > > > - 5682 > > > > > > -21723 > > > > > > -10488 > > > > > > -37022 > > > > > > 782 > > > > > > - 506 > > > > > > - 6076 > > > > > > -26377 > > > > > > +23365 > > > > > > +14882 > > > > > > + 8690 > > > > > > -13998 > > > > > > 882 > > > > > > - 105 > > > > > > + 4161 > > > > > > - 4502 > > > > > > + 8839 > > > > > > +10978 > > > > > > -41058 > > > > > > -21918 > > > > > > 982 > > > > > > + 307 > > > > > > - 472 > > > > > > - 775 > > > > > > -14773 > > > > > > +13830 > > > > > > + 6640 > > > > > > -15916 > > > > > > 1082 > > > > > > + 767 > > > > > > - 467 > > > > > > - 4342 > > > > > > -23062 > > > > > > + 5887 > > > > > > + 3036 > > > > > > - 5044 > > > > > > The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is > no > > > period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which > cannot > > be > > > shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary > positions > > > can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the > > > planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which Suryasiddhantic > > > planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on > Suryasiddhanta > > : > > > " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, > in > > > the manner already explained, do not appear to have been constructed > > so > > > as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . > > > > > > > > > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all > > > siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic planets > > > could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha > > > Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, > above > > > tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging from > > > -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the century > > > from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in intervening > > > years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge > > differences > > > ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will yield > > > similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " > difference > > > in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik > ayanamsha > > > was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of > Saur > > > ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya > was > > > based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect > that > > in > > > 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If nirayana > > > computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be > 782 > > > AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be a > > > criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD is > > the > > > year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every > 42000 > > > years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, due > > to > > > undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get > only > > > those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get > the > > > help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to a > > > Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets > > must > > > not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most > > > serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the > > > Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was a > > > wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is > > > against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional > > > Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but could > > not > > > find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There > are > > a > > > lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been > > removed > > > by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing > all > > > the secrets of Suryasiddhata. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " > merely > > > on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta > > > completely. It cannot be reformed at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > over > > 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 of " 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 sincere > > > ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading Kundalee > > > software to test the continuing astrological validity of > > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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-chaaraad hyaaya 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. > Hence, > > > facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as > > > theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world > view > > > which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But > is > > > this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, > > > including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The real > > > Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and > > > Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they > were > > > for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been > > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India > according > > to > > > their colonial and cultural interests. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit > down > > to > > > test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of freely > > > available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that > > Suryasiddhanta > > > is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the > > > siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the mathematical > > > basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. If > we > > > do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta > will > > > not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is not > > > guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who cannot > > be > > > propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Dear Shri Gopu ji, Yes you know many other members have tried so and failed as we have read on other groups too where you too are member. Many have honestly and sincerely tried to download and myself have done so a number of times, and everytime it takes up extra time, because I have to go back and search for those files have already got downloaded and remove them from the PC to avoid congestion. All this is too much of trouble. I dont understand there are at least 30 softwares on Jyotish which one can download without hassles, but this one is the only one which gives trouble. Ultimately one gets disenchanted. Anyway all I am expecting is just a change in Vimsottari dates and nothing else spectacular , because the planetary degrees one cannot change, the ayanamsha is of my choice, the Cuspal positions one cannot change, so what change can one produce in a astrology siftware. after having so many others ? regards and best wishes, Bhaskar. , K Gopu <kgopu_24 wrote: > > dear shri bhaskar, > I have also tried to install Kundalee software but at the > installation stage it gets aborted. I have also brought to the > notice of Shri VInay Jha. > > good wishes, > k.gopu > > > > --- On Fri, 4/17/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish > Re: Dating the Suryasiddhaanta > > Friday, April 17, 2009, 10:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > > > That was the 3rd time I spent half an hour to one hour in trying to > > download your software, which unfortunately is unable to load on any of > > my computers. 2 Files out of 3 I was able to download, but the 3rd one > > " SETUP.LST " I was not able to, as a Page opens but nothing downloads. > > > > I do not have any further will or energy left to try once again, so lets > > leave this aside now. > > > > I would advice you to spend a few hundred rupees and go to smart > > software Engineer who can help you out. We have already read that few > > members were able to download , but all of the mails in various groups > > by various members, suggest otherwise, so it would be better if you get > > this rectified once and for all. > > > > regards, > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > > > > > 1) I always use Bhava Chalit chart for predictions, and use the Raashi > > > Chart only for checking the aspects. > > > > > > 2) I use Vimsottari for timing events. > > > > > > 3) Of couse one must not try to look for what is not there, rather be > > > appreciable of the fact of whatever is offered and make suggestions if > > > they are asked for. > > > > > > I will try to download it from the new site. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote: > > > > > > > > bhaskar Ji, > > > > AKK & co have no real interest in either true history or astrology, > > > their are wasting our time with their anti-astrological agenda. > > > > > > > > My earlier server is very busy, and many users had to face problem > > > during downloads due to server overloads. > > > > > > > > Following is the location of new site for downloading Kundalee > > > software : > > > > > > > > http://kundalee. wikidot.com/ start > > > > > > > > The best way way to get benefit of this software is to use > > > bhaavachalita for predictions instead of the raashi chart, and use > > > Vimshottari for timing of events, followed in importance by > > Varshaphala. > > > Ashtakavarga is only for research purposes, it may be avoided for > > normal > > > works. Divisionals of Kundalee will differ from other softwares, but > > > will prove to be accurate astrologically. > > > > > > > > Please try to get what Kundalee offers , and do not try to find what > > > it does not offer. For example, I have still not added modules for > > yogas > > > & c. > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ > > > > > > > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:22:38 PM > > > > Re: Dating the Suryasiddhaanta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > > > > > > > I like your recent mails, though may not agree to the total content, > > > > which minor disagreements does not matter. > > > > > > > > You are right about " bickering about date of Surya siddhanta " . > > > > > > > > You are also right about " Our whole history has been > > > > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India > > > according > > > > to > their colonial and cultural interests. " > > > > > > > > What " matters " is the " crux " of the " matter " - APPLICATION. > > > > > > > > There is no usefullness in trying to teach skeptics and non > > believers > > > > like AKK who have only one agenda in mind " To criticise " . There is > > > also > > > > no palpable sense in trying to find out ancient dates and origins of > > a > > > > subject matter which finding may not be considered authentic even if > > > one > > > > finds what he wishes to find. > > > > > > > > I wholeheartedly agree to this approach of " Application " of > > available > > > > data and knowledge to the utilisation of the astronomers or > > > astrologers > > > > who may be at advantage with the knowledge of how to apply the > > > > " knowledge of application " rather than theoretical confirmation or > > > > condemning which is now become the luxury of those who have enough > > > time > > > > on hand . This has obviously no practical value to any. > > > > > > > > Let me know when I will find it easier to download your Software > > since > > > I > > > > have done it twice on two seperate occasions and was unsuccessful > > both > > > > times. Till the time I am able to do the same, and verify the claims > > > > put forth by You, I will reserve my comments , being a man of > > justice. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ > > > ...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To All: > > > > > > > > > > Suryasiddhanta' s first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to > > > Maya > > > > > the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at > > > the > > > > > fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 > > years > > > > > from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over > > Julioan). > > > > > According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of > > > > Jyotisha, > > > > > vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, > > etc. > > > > > Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized > > > > > Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a > > > > > mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all > > > > > mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas > > > say > > > > > that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. > > > In > > > > > koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant > > " easterlies " > > > , > > > > > and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . > > > > > > > > > > To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must > > > find > > > > > its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira > > who > > > > > eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. > > > > > Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all > > > > > siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written > > a > > > > > commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern > > > view > > > > is > > > > > guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite > > in > > > > the > > > > > world today. > > > > > > > > > > According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were > > > > > incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that > > > Indian > > > > > astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to > > > > conclusions, > > > > > Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these > > > > ideosyncratic > > > > > or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix > > the > > > > > date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? > > > > > > > > > > Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : > > > > > Suryasiddhantic( Saur) and Physical (Drik) > > > > > > > > > > AD > > > > > > > > > > Method > > > > > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > > > > > Moon > > > > > > > > > > Mars > > > > > > > > > > Mercury > > > > > > > > > > Jupiter > > > > > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > > > > Saturn > > > > > > > > > > 382 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 343:33:59 > > > > > > > > > > 001:39:24 > > > > > > > > > > 304:06:20 > > > > > > > > > > 320:29:20 > > > > > > > > > > 238:48:12 > > > > > > > > > > 310:08:09 > > > > > > > > > > 050:58:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 344:09:44 > > > > > > > > > > 002:18:18 > > > > > > > > > > 306:00:04 > > > > > > > > > > 317:26:27 > > > > > > > > > > 236:14:05 > > > > > > > > > > 307:10:43 > > > > > > > > > > 058:18:51 > > > > > > > > > > 482 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 344:18:44 > > > > > > > > > > 318:25:11 > > > > > > > > > > 347:52:07 > > > > > > > > > > 319:15:50 > > > > > > > > > > 025:16:49 > > > > > > > > > > 027:27:47 > > > > > > > > > > 209:22:01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 344:47:48 > > > > > > > > > > 319:25:52 > > > > > > > > > > 350:42:50 > > > > > > > > > > 324:10:33 > > > > > > > > > > 021:03:18 > > > > > > > > > > 025:40:02 > > > > > > > > > > 214:40:16 > > > > > > > > > > 582 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 345:03:34 > > > > > > > > > > 253:57:54 > > > > > > > > > > 029:03:14 > > > > > > > > > > 335:51:57 > > > > > > > > > > 188:46:46 > > > > > > > > > > 325:47:33 > > > > > > > > > > 337:17:06 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 345:25:49 > > > > > > > > > > 258:28:12 > > > > > > > > > > 031:42:36 > > > > > > > > > > 343:39:19 > > > > > > > > > > 185:05:00 > > > > > > > > > > 322:54:50 > > > > > > > > > > 342:03:42 > > > > > > > > > > 682 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 345:48:00 > > > > > > > > > > 215:27:37 > > > > > > > > > > 073:50:27 > > > > > > > > > > 358:38:34 > > > > > > > > > > 342:03:44 > > > > > > > > > > 028:07:06 > > > > > > > > > > 128:39:19 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 346:03:50 > > > > > > > > > > 214:34:27 > > > > > > > > > > 076:53:20 > > > > > > > > > > 000:13:16 > > > > > > > > > > 338:05:47 > > > > > > > > > > 031:01:54 > > > > > > > > > > 138:56:21 > > > > > > > > > > 782 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 346:33:23 > > > > > > > > > > 152:21:34 > > > > > > > > > > 157:55:10 > > > > > > > > > > 357:25:17 > > > > > > > > > > 136:30:39 > > > > > > > > > > 342:28:19 > > > > > > > > > > 272:56:05 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 346:41:49 > > > > > > > > > > 154:02:50 > > > > > > > > > > 165:14:47 > > > > > > > > > > 350:55:52 > > > > > > > > > > 132:22:37 > > > > > > > > > > 340:03:29 > > > > > > > > > > 276:49:23 > > > > > > > > > > 882 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 347:18:01 > > > > > > > > > > 109:07:50 > > > > > > > > > > 260:33:02 > > > > > > > > > > 322:29:25 > > > > > > > > > > 298:43:55 > > > > > > > > > > 323:44:48 > > > > > > > > > > 044:58:58 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 347:19:46 > > > > > > > > > > 107:58:29 > > > > > > > > > > 261:48:04 > > > > > > > > > > 320:02:06 > > > > > > > > > > 295:40:57 > > > > > > > > > > 335:09:06 > > > > > > > > > > 051:04:16 > > > > > > > > > > 982 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 348:02:48 > > > > > > > > > > 052:09:32 > > > > > > > > > > 311:52:48 > > > > > > > > > > 324:01:45 > > > > > > > > > > 085:44:25 > > > > > > > > > > 359:21:07 > > > > > > > > > > 205:23:02 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 347:57:41 > > > > > > > > > > 052:17:24 > > > > > > > > > > 312:05:43 > > > > > > > > > > 328:07:58 > > > > > > > > > > 081:53:55 > > > > > > > > > > 357:30:27 > > > > > > > > > > 209:48:18 > > > > > > > > > > 1082 > > > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > > > 348:48:22 > > > > > > > > > > 000:17:10 > > > > > > > > > > 355:34:55 > > > > > > > > > > 341:21:32 > > > > > > > > > > 253:17:16 > > > > > > > > > > 302:24:10 > > > > > > > > > > 335:41:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > > > 348:35:35 > > > > > > > > > > 000:24:57 > > > > > > > > > > 356:47:17 > > > > > > > > > > 347:45:54 > > > > > > > > > > 251:39:09 > > > > > > > > > > 301:33:34 > > > > > > > > > > 337:05:04 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements > > > with > > > > > physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other > > > > > planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side > > (from > > > > my > > > > > book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 > > > years > > > > > during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of > > > > > composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. > > > Lower > > > > > table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets > > from > > > > > physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all > > > > > Westernerers consider to be period of composition of > > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds > > > of > > > > > arc) > > > > > > > > > > AD > > > > > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > > > > > Moon > > > > > > > > > > Mars > > > > > > > > > > Mercury > > > > > > > > > > Jupiter > > > > > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > > > > Saturn > > > > > > > > > > 382 > > > > > > > > > > -2145 > > > > > > > > > > - 2334 > > > > > > > > > > - 6824 > > > > > > > > > > +10973 > > > > > > > > > > + 9247 > > > > > > > > > > +10646 > > > > > > > > > > -26439 > > > > > > > > > > 482 > > > > > > > > > > -1744 > > > > > > > > > > - 3641 > > > > > > > > > > -10243 > > > > > > > > > > -17683 > > > > > > > > > > +15211 > > > > > > > > > > + 6465 > > > > > > > > > > -19095 > > > > > > > > > > 582 > > > > > > > > > > -1335 > > > > > > > > > > -16218 > > > > > > > > > > - 9562 > > > > > > > > > > -28042 > > > > > > > > > > +13306 > > > > > > > > > > +10363 > > > > > > > > > > -17196 > > > > > > > > > > 682 > > > > > > > > > > - 950 > > > > > > > > > > + 3190 > > > > > > > > > > -10973 > > > > > > > > > > - 5682 > > > > > > > > > > -21723 > > > > > > > > > > -10488 > > > > > > > > > > -37022 > > > > > > > > > > 782 > > > > > > > > > > - 506 > > > > > > > > > > - 6076 > > > > > > > > > > -26377 > > > > > > > > > > +23365 > > > > > > > > > > +14882 > > > > > > > > > > + 8690 > > > > > > > > > > -13998 > > > > > > > > > > 882 > > > > > > > > > > - 105 > > > > > > > > > > + 4161 > > > > > > > > > > - 4502 > > > > > > > > > > + 8839 > > > > > > > > > > +10978 > > > > > > > > > > -41058 > > > > > > > > > > -21918 > > > > > > > > > > 982 > > > > > > > > > > + 307 > > > > > > > > > > - 472 > > > > > > > > > > - 775 > > > > > > > > > > -14773 > > > > > > > > > > +13830 > > > > > > > > > > + 6640 > > > > > > > > > > -15916 > > > > > > > > > > 1082 > > > > > > > > > > + 767 > > > > > > > > > > - 467 > > > > > > > > > > - 4342 > > > > > > > > > > -23062 > > > > > > > > > > + 5887 > > > > > > > > > > + 3036 > > > > > > > > > > - 5044 > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is > > > no > > > > > period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which > > > cannot > > > > be > > > > > shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary > > > positions > > > > > can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the > > > > > planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which > > Suryasiddhantic > > > > > planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on > > > Suryasiddhanta > > > > : > > > > > " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, > > > in > > > > > the manner already explained, do not appear to have been > > constructed > > > > so > > > > > as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all > > > > > siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic > > planets > > > > > could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha > > > > > Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, > > > above > > > > > tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging > > from > > > > > -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the > > century > > > > > from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in > > intervening > > > > > years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge > > > > differences > > > > > ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will > > yield > > > > > similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " > > > difference > > > > > in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik > > > ayanamsha > > > > > was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of > > > Saur > > > > > ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya > > > was > > > > > based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect > > > that > > > > in > > > > > 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If > > nirayana > > > > > computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be > > > 782 > > > > > AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be > > a > > > > > criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD > > is > > > > the > > > > > year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every > > > 42000 > > > > > years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, > > due > > > > to > > > > > undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get > > > only > > > > > those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get > > > the > > > > > help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to > > a > > > > > Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets > > > > must > > > > > not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most > > > > > serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the > > > > > Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was > > a > > > > > wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is > > > > > against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional > > > > > Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but > > could > > > > not > > > > > find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There > > > are > > > > a > > > > > lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been > > > > removed > > > > > by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing > > > all > > > > > the secrets of Suryasiddhata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " > > > merely > > > > > on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta > > > > > completely. It cannot be reformed at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > over > > > > 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 of " 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 > > sincere > > > > > ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading > > Kundalee > > > > > software to test the continuing astrological validity of > > > > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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-chaaraad hyaaya 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. > > > Hence, > > > > > facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as > > > > > theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world > > > view > > > > > which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But > > > is > > > > > this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, > > > > > including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The > > real > > > > > Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and > > > > > Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they > > > were > > > > > for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been > > > > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India > > > according > > > > to > > > > > their colonial and cultural interests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit > > > down > > > > to > > > > > test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of > > freely > > > > > available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that > > > > Suryasiddhanta > > > > > is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the > > > > > siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the > > mathematical > > > > > basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. > > If > > > we > > > > > do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta > > > will > > > > > not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is > > not > > > > > guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who > > cannot > > > > be > > > > > propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Dear Friends, Nothing to do with Vinay Jha-Ji or this software that is named KUNDALI (sp?) which has been causing so much consternation and yet people are really trying so hard to use it and so on. It has aroused a lot of fire and heat and perhaps must be renamed: JWAALA! From what I have read and hear in books and many of these fora like this one, these days people pay good money to advisors to find their most appropriate name (numerology or namology!) or perfect place to place stuff in their homes (vastu or Feng-Shui) and while I have no direct experience with these means of success, personally or empirically (You PAY, I get to learn from your experience!), maybe Bhaskar ji's advice, pragmatic as always is not to be glossed over! Since Jha-ji is a Monk but devoted to this PROJECT, perhaps an entrepreneur should step-in and hopefully one who is pure of heart and intention. Or it would not work! Unfortunately it is the entrepreneur that gets hurt in a worldly sense from what I have seen in the past, not the channel/protal or the monk! My apologies if I said too much or irritated anyone, which I never meant to intentionally... rohiniranjan , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > That was the 3rd time I spent half an hour to one hour in trying to > download your software, which unfortunately is unable to load on any of > my computers. 2 Files out of 3 I was able to download, but the 3rd one > " SETUP.LST " I was not able to, as a Page opens but nothing downloads. > > I do not have any further will or energy left to try once again, so lets > leave this aside now. > > I would advice you to spend a few hundred rupees and go to smart > software Engineer who can help you out. We have already read that few > members were able to download , but all of the mails in various groups > by various members, suggest otherwise, so it would be better if you get > this rectified once and for all. > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > > > 1) I always use Bhava Chalit chart for predictions, and use the Raashi > > Chart only for checking the aspects. > > > > 2) I use Vimsottari for timing events. > > > > 3) Of couse one must not try to look for what is not there, rather be > > appreciable of the fact of whatever is offered and make suggestions if > > they are asked for. > > > > I will try to download it from the new site. > > > > regards, > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > , Vinay Jha vinayjhaa16@ wrote: > > > > > > bhaskar Ji, > > > AKK & co have no real interest in either true history or astrology, > > their are wasting our time with their anti-astrological agenda. > > > > > > My earlier server is very busy, and many users had to face problem > > during downloads due to server overloads. > > > > > > Following is the location of new site for downloading Kundalee > > software : > > > > > > http://kundalee.wikidot.com/start > > > > > > The best way way to get benefit of this software is to use > > bhaavachalita for predictions instead of the raashi chart, and use > > Vimshottari for timing of events, followed in importance by > Varshaphala. > > Ashtakavarga is only for research purposes, it may be avoided for > normal > > works. Divisionals of Kundalee will differ from other softwares, but > > will prove to be accurate astrologically. > > > > > > Please try to get what Kundalee offers , and do not try to find what > > it does not offer. For example, I have still not added modules for > yogas > > & c. > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ > > > > > > Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:22:38 PM > > > Re: Dating the Suryasiddhaanta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Vinay Jha ji, > > > > > > I like your recent mails, though may not agree to the total content, > > > which minor disagreements does not matter. > > > > > > You are right about " bickering about date of Surya siddhanta " . > > > > > > You are also right about " Our whole history has been > > > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India > > according > > > to > their colonial and cultural interests. " > > > > > > What " matters " is the " crux " of the " matter " - APPLICATION. > > > > > > There is no usefullness in trying to teach skeptics and non > believers > > > like AKK who have only one agenda in mind " To criticise " . There is > > also > > > no palpable sense in trying to find out ancient dates and origins of > a > > > subject matter which finding may not be considered authentic even if > > one > > > finds what he wishes to find. > > > > > > I wholeheartedly agree to this approach of " Application " of > available > > > data and knowledge to the utilisation of the astronomers or > > astrologers > > > who may be at advantage with the knowledge of how to apply the > > > " knowledge of application " rather than theoretical confirmation or > > > condemning which is now become the luxury of those who have enough > > time > > > on hand . This has obviously no practical value to any. > > > > > > Let me know when I will find it easier to download your Software > since > > I > > > have done it twice on two seperate occasions and was unsuccessful > both > > > times. Till the time I am able to do the same, and verify the claims > > > put forth by You, I will reserve my comments , being a man of > justice. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > , " vinayjhaa16 " <vinayjhaa16@ > > ...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > To All: > > > > > > > > Suryasiddhanta' s first chapter says it was given by Lord Surya to > > Maya > > > > the Asura after the latter performed a great deal of tapasyaa, at > > the > > > > fag end of previous Satyuga, which was slightly before 2165109 > years > > > > from now (add 52 years for excess of siddhantic year over > Julioan). > > > > According to epics and Puranas, Maya is said to be founder of > > > Jyotisha, > > > > vaastu shaastra, town planning, architecture, temple building, > etc. > > > > Without Maya, Veda would have been blind, because sages eulogized > > > > Jyotisha as the eye of Veda. Hence, it is wrong to call Maya a > > > > mlechchha. Some asuras were mlechchhas, but the ancestors of all > > > > mlechchhas and asuras were Aryans, if we believe Puranas. Puranas > > say > > > > that mlechchhas were expelled from India due to their bad conduct. > > In > > > > koine Greek, the very word Europa etymologically meant > " easterlies " > > , > > > > and 'European' would thus mean " those who came from the East " . > > > > > > > > To moderners, Suryasiddhanta in Satyuga sounds absurd. They must > > find > > > > its date somewhere in the historical period before Varaha Mihira > who > > > > eulogized Suryasiddhanta as being most clear ( " spashta " , cf. > > > > Panchsiddhaantikaa edited by Thibaut & Sudhakar Dvivedi) of all > > > > siddhantas, and even before Aryabhatta who is said to have written > a > > > > commentary on Suryasiddhanta which is not available. This modern > > view > > > is > > > > guided by a world view which is the dominant view of ruling elite > in > > > the > > > > world today. > > > > > > > > According to Burgess, Whitney had a firm opinion that Indians were > > > > incapable of inventing anything, while Burgess maintained that > > Indian > > > > astronomy was more ancient than Greek. But when it came to > > > conclusions, > > > > Burgess had no difference with Whitney. Leave aside these > > > ideosyncratic > > > > or culturally biased views, let us talk of facts. How can we fix > the > > > > date of composition of Suryasiddhanta ??? > > > > > > > > Ujjain, 3 March : Comparison of Saayana Planets : > > > > Suryasiddhantic( Saur) and Physical (Drik) > > > > > > > > AD > > > > > > > > Method > > > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > > > Moon > > > > > > > > Mars > > > > > > > > Mercury > > > > > > > > Jupiter > > > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > > Saturn > > > > > > > > 382 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 343:33:59 > > > > > > > > 001:39:24 > > > > > > > > 304:06:20 > > > > > > > > 320:29:20 > > > > > > > > 238:48:12 > > > > > > > > 310:08:09 > > > > > > > > 050:58:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 344:09:44 > > > > > > > > 002:18:18 > > > > > > > > 306:00:04 > > > > > > > > 317:26:27 > > > > > > > > 236:14:05 > > > > > > > > 307:10:43 > > > > > > > > 058:18:51 > > > > > > > > 482 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 344:18:44 > > > > > > > > 318:25:11 > > > > > > > > 347:52:07 > > > > > > > > 319:15:50 > > > > > > > > 025:16:49 > > > > > > > > 027:27:47 > > > > > > > > 209:22:01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 344:47:48 > > > > > > > > 319:25:52 > > > > > > > > 350:42:50 > > > > > > > > 324:10:33 > > > > > > > > 021:03:18 > > > > > > > > 025:40:02 > > > > > > > > 214:40:16 > > > > > > > > 582 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 345:03:34 > > > > > > > > 253:57:54 > > > > > > > > 029:03:14 > > > > > > > > 335:51:57 > > > > > > > > 188:46:46 > > > > > > > > 325:47:33 > > > > > > > > 337:17:06 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 345:25:49 > > > > > > > > 258:28:12 > > > > > > > > 031:42:36 > > > > > > > > 343:39:19 > > > > > > > > 185:05:00 > > > > > > > > 322:54:50 > > > > > > > > 342:03:42 > > > > > > > > 682 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 345:48:00 > > > > > > > > 215:27:37 > > > > > > > > 073:50:27 > > > > > > > > 358:38:34 > > > > > > > > 342:03:44 > > > > > > > > 028:07:06 > > > > > > > > 128:39:19 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 346:03:50 > > > > > > > > 214:34:27 > > > > > > > > 076:53:20 > > > > > > > > 000:13:16 > > > > > > > > 338:05:47 > > > > > > > > 031:01:54 > > > > > > > > 138:56:21 > > > > > > > > 782 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 346:33:23 > > > > > > > > 152:21:34 > > > > > > > > 157:55:10 > > > > > > > > 357:25:17 > > > > > > > > 136:30:39 > > > > > > > > 342:28:19 > > > > > > > > 272:56:05 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 346:41:49 > > > > > > > > 154:02:50 > > > > > > > > 165:14:47 > > > > > > > > 350:55:52 > > > > > > > > 132:22:37 > > > > > > > > 340:03:29 > > > > > > > > 276:49:23 > > > > > > > > 882 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 347:18:01 > > > > > > > > 109:07:50 > > > > > > > > 260:33:02 > > > > > > > > 322:29:25 > > > > > > > > 298:43:55 > > > > > > > > 323:44:48 > > > > > > > > 044:58:58 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 347:19:46 > > > > > > > > 107:58:29 > > > > > > > > 261:48:04 > > > > > > > > 320:02:06 > > > > > > > > 295:40:57 > > > > > > > > 335:09:06 > > > > > > > > 051:04:16 > > > > > > > > 982 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 348:02:48 > > > > > > > > 052:09:32 > > > > > > > > 311:52:48 > > > > > > > > 324:01:45 > > > > > > > > 085:44:25 > > > > > > > > 359:21:07 > > > > > > > > 205:23:02 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 347:57:41 > > > > > > > > 052:17:24 > > > > > > > > 312:05:43 > > > > > > > > 328:07:58 > > > > > > > > 081:53:55 > > > > > > > > 357:30:27 > > > > > > > > 209:48:18 > > > > > > > > 1082 > > > > > > > > Drik > > > > > > > > 348:48:22 > > > > > > > > 000:17:10 > > > > > > > > 355:34:55 > > > > > > > > 341:21:32 > > > > > > > > 253:17:16 > > > > > > > > 302:24:10 > > > > > > > > 335:41:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saur > > > > > > > > 348:35:35 > > > > > > > > 000:24:57 > > > > > > > > 356:47:17 > > > > > > > > 347:45:54 > > > > > > > > 251:39:09 > > > > > > > > 301:33:34 > > > > > > > > 337:05:04 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The most obvious way is to check planetary positions. 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 will show disagreements > > with > > > > physical astronomy by wide margins. If Saturn is fixed, some other > > > > planet will show intolerable divergences. 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. Table on left hand side > (from > > > my > > > > book) shows the position of tropical planets at intervals of 100 > > years > > > > during the entire epoch which was considered to be the period of > > > > composition of Suryasiddha by scholars like Benteley or Burgess. > > Lower > > > > table shows the difference between Suryasiddhantic true planets > from > > > > physical planets of modern astronomy for the period which all > > > > Westernerers consider to be period of composition of > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comparison of Suryasiddhantic and Physical (Drik) Planets (seconds > > of > > > > arc) > > > > > > > > AD > > > > > > > > Sun > > > > > > > > Moon > > > > > > > > Mars > > > > > > > > Mercury > > > > > > > > Jupiter > > > > > > > > Venus > > > > > > > > Saturn > > > > > > > > 382 > > > > > > > > -2145 > > > > > > > > - 2334 > > > > > > > > - 6824 > > > > > > > > +10973 > > > > > > > > + 9247 > > > > > > > > +10646 > > > > > > > > -26439 > > > > > > > > 482 > > > > > > > > -1744 > > > > > > > > - 3641 > > > > > > > > -10243 > > > > > > > > -17683 > > > > > > > > +15211 > > > > > > > > + 6465 > > > > > > > > -19095 > > > > > > > > 582 > > > > > > > > -1335 > > > > > > > > -16218 > > > > > > > > - 9562 > > > > > > > > -28042 > > > > > > > > +13306 > > > > > > > > +10363 > > > > > > > > -17196 > > > > > > > > 682 > > > > > > > > - 950 > > > > > > > > + 3190 > > > > > > > > -10973 > > > > > > > > - 5682 > > > > > > > > -21723 > > > > > > > > -10488 > > > > > > > > -37022 > > > > > > > > 782 > > > > > > > > - 506 > > > > > > > > - 6076 > > > > > > > > -26377 > > > > > > > > +23365 > > > > > > > > +14882 > > > > > > > > + 8690 > > > > > > > > -13998 > > > > > > > > 882 > > > > > > > > - 105 > > > > > > > > + 4161 > > > > > > > > - 4502 > > > > > > > > + 8839 > > > > > > > > +10978 > > > > > > > > -41058 > > > > > > > > -21918 > > > > > > > > 982 > > > > > > > > + 307 > > > > > > > > - 472 > > > > > > > > - 775 > > > > > > > > -14773 > > > > > > > > +13830 > > > > > > > > + 6640 > > > > > > > > -15916 > > > > > > > > 1082 > > > > > > > > + 767 > > > > > > > > - 467 > > > > > > > > - 4342 > > > > > > > > -23062 > > > > > > > > + 5887 > > > > > > > > + 3036 > > > > > > > > - 5044 > > > > > > > > The conclusion one can deduce from such a comparison is : there is > > no > > > > period in whole history (I've checked other periods too, which > > cannot > > > be > > > > shown here due to space) for which Suryasiddhantic planetary > > positions > > > > can be brought to be within tolerable margins with respect to the > > > > planetary positions given by physical astronomy. 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 ? Please show some date for which > Suryasiddhantic > > > > planets could be made to conform to ALL physical planets. We 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. Even Burgess had to say, in his commentary on > > Suryasiddhanta > > > : > > > > " planetary elements, which, when tested by the errors of position, > > in > > > > the manner already explained, do not appear to have been > constructed > > > so > > > > as to give the true sidereal position at any assignable epoch " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Varaha Mihira eulogized Suryasiddhanta as the clearest of all > > > > siddhantas, why we should not check whether Suryasiddhantic > planets > > > > could be made to conform to physical planets at the time of Varaha > > > > Mihira ? If we take Varaha Mihira's date as between 505-550 AD, > > above > > > > tables show thT Suryasiddhantic planets had differences ranging > from > > > > -28042 " to +15211 " , ie, from -4.2 to 7.8 degrees during the > century > > > > from 482 to 582 AD (greater differences were observed in > intervening > > > > years) !! Was Varaha Mihira so dull as to neglect such huge > > > differences > > > > ?? Above comparison is tropical. But sidereal comparison will > yield > > > > similar results, with greater differences due to +2:59':22 " > > difference > > > > in ayanamsha in 499 AD. Saur ayanamsha zero in 499 AD, Drik > > ayanamsha > > > > was zero in 285 AD, hence Drig ayanamsha was +3 degrees ahead of > > Saur > > > > ayanamsha in 499 AD which was the zero year for which Aryabhatiya > > was > > > > based. Sun's table shows a clear order which leads us to suspect > > that > > > in > > > > 908 AD, tropical values of Saur and Drik Sun were same. If > nirayana > > > > computations are made, the year of zero difference in Sun will be > > 782 > > > > AD. . Burgess gave a wrong value at 250 AD. But only Sun cannot be > a > > > > criteria. If mean positions of all planets are compared, 2000 AD > is > > > the > > > > year of minimum difference, and such a date arrives after every > > 42000 > > > > years. Barring Sun, other planets do not give any result at all, > due > > > to > > > > undulating values of differences, which even Burgess noted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Burgess tried hard to understand Suryasiddhanta, but he could get > > only > > > > those pandits who were greedy of mone, and therefore could not get > > the > > > > help of those pandits who did not want to divulge their secrets to > a > > > > Christian priest. Suryasiddhanta clearly says that all its secrets > > > must > > > > not be given to all and sundry (in the end of two chapters). Most > > > > serious mistake of Burgess was his inability to understand the > > > > Suryasiddhantic tradition of beeja-samskaara. His secong error was > a > > > > wrong method of making true planets out of mean planets, which is > > > > against laws of mathematics as well as against traditional > > > > Suryasiddhatic (Makaranda) tables which Burgess knew well but > could > > > not > > > > find their formulae and therefore published a wrong method. There > > are > > > a > > > > lot of other mistakes in his commentary too, which have not been > > > removed > > > > by later commentators, due to canonical prohibition on publishing > > all > > > > the secrets of Suryasiddhata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 constants, 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. Mars can produce a maximum of 22:17 " > > merely > > > > on account of its equation of centre. 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 t0 discard Suryasiddhanta > > > > completely. It cannot be reformed at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > over > > > 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 of " 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 > sincere > > > > ASTROLOGICAL enquiry. Many members are already downloading > Kundalee > > > > software to test the continuing astrological validity of > > > Suryasiddhanta. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why take a single criteria, why not check all the planets ?? 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-chaaraad hyaaya 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 going back to hundreds of thousands of years. > > Hence, > > > > facts are neglected or distorted, and fictions are propounded as > > > > theories. As I said above, this modern view is guided by a world > > view > > > > which is the dominant view of ruling elite in the world today. But > > is > > > > this elite immortal ? How long truth about Vedas and Vedaangas, > > > > including Suryasiddhanta will be suppressewd or neglected ? The > real > > > > Vedaanga is Suryasiddhanta and books of rishis like Parashara and > > > > Jaimini ; Mahatma Lagadha's books were not for astrologers, they > > were > > > > for Vaidikas who performed sacrifices. Our whole history has been > > > > written with an alien point of view, who " discovered " India > > according > > > to > > > > their colonial and cultural interests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of bickering about the date of Suryasiddhanta, if we sit > > down > > > to > > > > test the astrological validity of Suryasiddhanta by means of > freely > > > > available Kundalee software, we will have to accept that > > > Suryasiddhanta > > > > is not a book of physical astronomy at all. It is actually the > > > > siddhantic bedrock of Vedic Astrology without which the > mathematical > > > > basis of Tri-skandha Jyotisha will lose its fundamental skandha. > If > > we > > > > do not want to learn Suryasiddhanta and abuse it, Suryasiddhanta > > will > > > > not teach us automatically. Jyotisha, besides human destiny, is > not > > > > guided by physical planets, but by superconscious deities who > cannot > > > be > > > > propitiated by sapphire or diamond if our hearts are not pure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -VJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Dear Shri RR ji, Good humour.I always learn good English from your mails. The word you used " Jwaala " is right. It did cause more than that, and engulfed many readers of these forums. This is like a " Nivaala " which does not go down the throat. I for one have only academic interest in such claims, with already having many softwares on my 3 Computers, and a Laptop, have no interest or space for more. Just wanted to verify the claims, what they mean, whether there is some new discovery which will make us ordinary ( Astros like me and not your goodself) astrologers, predict better as projected and posed by the Creator.. I have seen enough in my short Life what you mentioned, free softwares offered at the drop of a hat, with strings attached after a certain period is over, to flush out money from the users ( This man may of course be genuine , I am not referring him)after a stipulated period, or to pay up for the updates without which the software would have no meaning.Most of these do not have proper calculated planetary positions. Recently I purchased a KP software for Rs.5000- which too shows wrong Sub Lord positions. I also prefer using Licensed full Paid up softwares purchased, rather than using Free stuff which does not go with my self respect, with the exception of J.Hora which of course is one of the worlds best, coming from a aspiritual entity, so have no qualms in using that as a supplemnetary software. But in this software(Mr.Vinay Jhas) since last 3 months due to the claims put up., I have only " academic interest " and not for using free stuff. best wishes, Bhaskar. , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Nothing to do with Vinay Jha-Ji or this software that is named KUNDALI (sp?) which has been causing so much consternation and yet people are really trying so hard to use it and so on. It has aroused a lot of fire and heat and perhaps must be renamed: JWAALA! > > From what I have read and hear in books and many of these fora like this one, these days people pay good money to advisors to find their most appropriate name (numerology or namology!) or perfect place to place stuff in their homes (vastu or Feng-Shui) and while I have no direct experience with these means of success, personally or empirically (You PAY, I get to learn from your experience!), maybe Bhaskar ji's advice, pragmatic as always is not to be glossed over! Since Jha-ji is a Monk but devoted to this PROJECT, perhaps an entrepreneur should step-in and hopefully one who is pure of heart and intention. Or it would not work! Unfortunately it is the entrepreneur that gets hurt in a worldly sense from what I have seen in the past, not the channel/protal or the monk! > > My apologies if I said too much or irritated anyone, which I never meant to intentionally... > > rohiniranjan > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji, The calculation-programming errors have plagued many major astro software packages starting from the MS-DOS days including the ones that used to claim that they have been endorsed by a very famous jyotishi-teacher. Worse -- if version 1.89 fixed an error, a new one cropped up in version 1.92! In defence of astrosoftware vs human computer between the ears, the former will make the same error each time and so is relatively easier to spot, fix and to move on. And most of us do not have the hour or two it used to take even when using proportional log tables and tables of ascendants etc all of which were approximate interpolations for the most part anyway. I think Mr. Jha is serious about what he is saying and I have seen him beginning to write about jyotish and analyses using his software and methodology. I think all should give him some breathing space instead of distracting him into other discussions or turning it into a software support discussion thread which often takes an ugly turn and then everyone gets upset. If all readers are patient and those who can get the software running and put to use, would eventually share their findings and so on. These testings take a lot of time, interest and energy and not everyone can be expected to invest those three. RR , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Dear Shri RR ji, > > Good humour.I always learn good English from your mails. > > The word you used " Jwaala " is right. It did cause more than that, and engulfed many readers of these forums. This is like a " Nivaala " which does not go down the throat. > > I for one have only academic interest in such claims, with already having many softwares on my 3 Computers, and a Laptop, have no interest or space for more. Just wanted to verify the claims, what they mean, whether there is some new discovery which will make us ordinary ( Astros like me and not your goodself) astrologers, predict better as projected and posed by the Creator.. > > I have seen enough in my short Life what you mentioned, free softwares offered at the drop of a hat, with strings attached after a certain period is over, to flush out money from the users ( This man may of course be genuine , I am not referring him)after a stipulated period, or to pay up for the updates without which the software would have no meaning.Most of these do not have proper calculated planetary positions. Recently I purchased a KP software for Rs.5000- which too shows wrong Sub Lord positions. > > I also prefer using Licensed full Paid up softwares purchased, rather than using Free stuff which does not go with my self respect, with the exception of J.Hora which of course is one of the worlds best, coming from a aspiritual entity, so have no qualms in using that as a supplemnetary software. > > But in this software(Mr.Vinay Jhas) since last 3 months due to the claims put up., I have only " academic interest " and not for using free stuff. > > best wishes, > Bhaskar. > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > Nothing to do with Vinay Jha-Ji or this software that is named KUNDALI (sp?) which has been causing so much consternation and yet people are really trying so hard to use it and so on. It has aroused a lot of fire and heat and perhaps must be renamed: JWAALA! > > > > From what I have read and hear in books and many of these fora like this one, these days people pay good money to advisors to find their most appropriate name (numerology or namology!) or perfect place to place stuff in their homes (vastu or Feng-Shui) and while I have no direct experience with these means of success, personally or empirically (You PAY, I get to learn from your experience!), maybe Bhaskar ji's advice, pragmatic as always is not to be glossed over! Since Jha-ji is a Monk but devoted to this PROJECT, perhaps an entrepreneur should step-in and hopefully one who is pure of heart and intention. Or it would not work! Unfortunately it is the entrepreneur that gets hurt in a worldly sense from what I have seen in the past, not the channel/protal or the monk! > > > > My apologies if I said too much or irritated anyone, which I never meant to intentionally... > > > > rohiniranjan > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Dear Shri RR ji, I hear a sudden change in melody. Yes we must allow Shri Vinay ji to showcase what he has got in form of his software, which is why I always tried downloading it, and also supported him many a times when he encountered confrontations from many members. Justice must be given, whatever may be the core known or unknown intentions behind any project which is not our lookout or concern. About software being to the mark, and jyotish acumen running parallel, this may be be too early for anyone of us to vouch for.I am keeping abreast of mails sent to other Groups once in a while and know he has recently given replies to some members on JR, about which I willl withold my comments as of now.It is not easy to find both beauty and brains together normally just as it is not easy to find jyotishis with mathematical abilities and astrological or astronomical abilities running together. best wishes, Bhaskar. , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > The calculation-programming errors have plagued many major astro software packages starting from the MS-DOS days including the ones that used to claim that they have been endorsed by a very famous jyotishi-teacher. Worse -- if version 1.89 fixed an error, a new one cropped up in version 1.92! In defence of astrosoftware vs human computer between the ears, the former will make the same error each time and so is relatively easier to spot, fix and to move on. And most of us do not have the hour or two it used to take even when using proportional log tables and tables of ascendants etc all of which were approximate interpolations for the most part anyway. > > I think Mr. Jha is serious about what he is saying and I have seen him beginning to write about jyotish and analyses using his software and methodology. I think all should give him some breathing space instead of distracting him into other discussions or turning it into a software support discussion thread which often takes an ugly turn and then everyone gets upset. > > If all readers are patient and those who can get the software running and put to use, would eventually share their findings and so on. These testings take a lot of time, interest and energy and not everyone can be expected to invest those three. > > RR > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Shri RR ji, > > > > Good humour.I always learn good English from your mails. > > > > The word you used " Jwaala " is right. It did cause more than that, and engulfed many readers of these forums. This is like a " Nivaala " which does not go down the throat. > > > > I for one have only academic interest in such claims, with already having many softwares on my 3 Computers, and a Laptop, have no interest or space for more. Just wanted to verify the claims, what they mean, whether there is some new discovery which will make us ordinary ( Astros like me and not your goodself) astrologers, predict better as projected and posed by the Creator.. > > > > I have seen enough in my short Life what you mentioned, free softwares offered at the drop of a hat, with strings attached after a certain period is over, to flush out money from the users ( This man may of course be genuine , I am not referring him)after a stipulated period, or to pay up for the updates without which the software would have no meaning.Most of these do not have proper calculated planetary positions. Recently I purchased a KP software for Rs.5000- which too shows wrong Sub Lord positions. > > > > I also prefer using Licensed full Paid up softwares purchased, rather than using Free stuff which does not go with my self respect, with the exception of J.Hora which of course is one of the worlds best, coming from a aspiritual entity, so have no qualms in using that as a supplemnetary software. > > > > But in this software(Mr.Vinay Jhas) since last 3 months due to the claims put up., I have only " academic interest " and not for using free stuff. > > > > best wishes, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Rohiniranjan " <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > > > Nothing to do with Vinay Jha-Ji or this software that is named KUNDALI (sp?) which has been causing so much consternation and yet people are really trying so hard to use it and so on. It has aroused a lot of fire and heat and perhaps must be renamed: JWAALA! > > > > > > From what I have read and hear in books and many of these fora like this one, these days people pay good money to advisors to find their most appropriate name (numerology or namology!) or perfect place to place stuff in their homes (vastu or Feng-Shui) and while I have no direct experience with these means of success, personally or empirically (You PAY, I get to learn from your experience!), maybe Bhaskar ji's advice, pragmatic as always is not to be glossed over! Since Jha-ji is a Monk but devoted to this PROJECT, perhaps an entrepreneur should step-in and hopefully one who is pure of heart and intention. Or it would not work! Unfortunately it is the entrepreneur that gets hurt in a worldly sense from what I have seen in the past, not the channel/protal or the monk! > > > > > > My apologies if I said too much or irritated anyone, which I never meant to intentionally... > > > > > > rohiniranjan > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.