Hora definition (Lesson#6)

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Sanjay,

 

> (a) that the time could be 6.05 etc instead of 6 AM LMT:

> Answer: No, it cannot be. Any scale built by a rational mind

> shall have an integer, preferably Zero as an initial point.

 

Old people always measure time in ghatis and vighatis and not

in hours. Sunrise is the 0 ghati point. Isn't that a good

initial point?

 

If time in hours was standardized a little differently, what

we call 6:00 AM now could have been called 6:05 AM or 6:01 AM.

My point is that taking hours and minutes is an arbitrary thing.

Hours and minutes are defined in a rather arbitrary way.

 

> I have a question for you. Can you tell why the starting

> point of the Zodiac is Zero degrees of Aries and not 15 deg

> Taurus?

 

Zodiac starts from 0 deg in Ar because zodiac was divided

into 12 parts and the first one was called Aries. In other words,

it is NOT the case that the 12 rasis existed first and then

someone figured out where the zodiac should start. On the other

hand, zodiac (Maha Vishnu) was the first thing to exist. It was

divided into 12 equal parts and the first one (head of Vishnu)

was called Aries.

 

> Here we are accounting for the days based on the rotation

> of the earth which was found to be for " ONE DAY AND ONE NIGHT "

> called AHORATRA. The total Quantity of time of ONE DAY AND ONE

> NIGHT was to be mapped into the Zodiac of 12 houses and this

> resulted in the concept of BHAVA LAGNA which is different from

> LAGNA. Lagna is a non-linear rotation as it is based on the

> elliptical path whereas BHAVA LAGNA is a linear concept based

> on the circular path. Thus, the first measure of time derived

 

Bhava lagna is NOT a linear motion. It has a linear motion within

a day. But if you take several days, its overall motion is not

linear. The hora I define is in fact similar to HL, by the way.

It has a linear motion within the period of one aho-ratra (day &

night). The hora you defined has a linear motion always.

 

BTW, BL does NOT move at the rate of one sign in 2 hours. That is

only approximate. Parasara clearly said that it moves one sign in

5 ghatis. Ghati is 1/60th of the time between two sunrises. If

the next day's sunrise is after 24:06 hours, then BL moves at the

rate of one sign in 2:00:30 hrs and HL moves at the rate of

1 rasi in 1:00:15 hours. The hora that I am defining on the basis

of sunrise has exactly the same behavior.

 

They are are linear within a given day, but the slope of the

linear formula can slightly change from day to day. If you insist

that we should always progress BL at the rate of 1 rasi in 2 hrs,

you will have a *discontinuity* at sunrise. Moreover, Parasara

clearly defined it in terms of ghatis. One ghati = 24 minutes

is only approximate. The correct definition of ghati is 1/60th

of a day and the correct definition of a day is sunrise to the

next sunrise.

 

> from ONE DAY & ONE NIGHT was the Bhava of 2 hours each. You

> will also note that the signs are 30 degrees each (Why?? Don't

> you find this arbitrary when we can have exact maps of each

> sign on the basis of the stars/constellations it contains??).

 

No. I do not question the number of rasis, number of planets

etc etc. But I question attaching importance to 5 am or 6 am or

7 am or 6:05 am or 6:01 am.

 

> The next division of time was for HORA LAGNA which moves at

> twice the speed of Bhava Lagna and was to be mapped into ONE

> DAY OR (repeat OR) ONE NIGHT. Thus the Hora period (Called

> HOUR today-thanks to the Greeks!) was derived.

> Now the hard question comes. Time, if it is to be linear,

> cannot be based on a variable like the sunrise. However, the

> Lagna

 

Why does it have to be linear? Why can't it be nonlinear? Most

other measures of time (solar years/days, lunar years/days) are

all nonlinear.

 

> > There is no disagreement among scholars about when the

> > new weekday and its first hora start. They all agree that

> > it happens when Sun rises. If you want to deviate, there

> > must be a very strong reason. You don't seem to have one.

>

> What is your definition of strong reason? It is wrong to say

> that there is no disagreement. Jyotish is one topic where the

> largest amount of disagreement is present..largely due to

> lack of depth of understanding.

 

I did not say that there are no disagreements. But, when it

comes to the questions of when a day starts and when the first

hora of a day starts, I haven't seen any disagreements. All

the scholars I have read and respect used sunrise.

 

Until one convinces me that a day starts at 6 am instead of

sunrise, I will go with Dr.Raman, Santhanam and others. And,

I will request you to respect the standard opinion until you

can give a strong argument about why 6 am should be used. We

don't need new controversies. We already have enough.

 

> It is

> > usually equal to an hour (60 minutes). However, that is

> > not necessary. The measure of time is the motion of Sun,

> > Moon and earth and NOT the oscillations of a quartz

> > crystal.

> Can you explain the motion of the MOON and its influence on

> the Hora? Infact, how can you explain this?? Which quartz

> crystal??? Do not speak in riddles. Time was kept in well

> calculated pots of water called Ghatika. We call them Danda

> in Oriya. In any case what has this got to do with the

> discussion?

 

I did not say that Moon affects horas. I said that Sun's

motion and the relative motion of Sun and lagna or Sun and

Moon decides various measures of time. We use the first one in

solar years. The second one gives the normal sunrise-to-sunrise

days. The third one gives tithis and lunar calendar.

 

> > I am absolutely confident that I am correct. I am also

> > confident that you will agree later. Kindly rethink.

> How can you say that? Did you do a Prasna Jataka? I have

> debated for years on this concept of Hora and the knowledge

> was gradually seeping in. Small words from the elders did help

> very much.

 

I did not do any prasna jataka. After Saturn left my paaka

lagna, my mind is functioning well and I am able to confidently

resolve several issues that bothered me in the past.

 

I still don't know whether true sunrise shoould be used or

apparent sunrise. I don't know whether the center of Sun or the

upper limb of Sun should rise at the time of sunrise that starts

a day. Regarding all those issues, I am open. But I am convinced

that 6 am LMT is not the right answer.

 

It is the *arbitrariness* of 6 am LMT that makes me confident

that it is wrong. It's the same thing that makes me think

that you will agree with me later.

 

> You really made me work hard today. I hope others can also

> come up with strong points. also please tell me how you were

> so sure about me changing my mind at a later date?

> Blessings

> Sanjay Rath

 

Always seeking your blessings,

Narasimha