Nakshatras-vis-a-vis rashis!

-----Original Message----From: jyotirved [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:00 PM To: HinduCalendar Cc: 'babaji'; 'Kirit Bhaiji'; 'Mystic India'; 'panchajanya'; 'Organiser'; 'Prakash'; 'R S S'; 'Future Point'; 'Shri Asaramji'; 'Shri N S Rajaram' Subject: [HinduCalendar] FW: 27nirayana Nakshatra divisions of"equal dimensions" are imaginary ones just as the nirayana rashis are!

-----Original Message----From: jyotirved [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:10 PM To: Hindi Forum Cc: KPandit; Dalip Langoo; O N Wali ; Rabinder Koul; Ravinder Bhan; Anjali Mahaldar ; Kul Razdan; Dr. Subhash Kak; Shri N S Rajaram; viveka kaul; Kanchi Shankaracharya; Kirit Bhaiji; Maheshyogiji Subject: 27nirayana Nakshatra divisions of "equal dimensions" are imaginary ones just as the nirayana rashis are! Dear Shri Narayan Prasadji, Namaskar! It is a pleasure to interact with scholars like you! My good luck that I joined Hindi-Forum since it is from this very forum that I got really some interesting and highly technical enquiries! Now I understand what Yamaraja (the Death-God) meant when he had said to Nachiketa, “twadrig nah bhooyat Nachiketa Prashta”---“I wish there were many questioners like you, O Nachiketa!” (Kathopanishad) I had prepared an article on the nakshatra divisions under the heading “Nakshatras vis-à-vis the Vedas” and it was translated by Shri Madhu Gadakari of Thane, Maharashtra, into Marathi. It has appeared in “Brahmagyan”, a Marathi magazine, of October/November 2002. It is being reproduced below. Like the imaginary Rashichakra, whether nirayana or sayana, we are following an imaginary nirayana nakshatra-chakra of equal divisions as well which is neither related to the constellational belt, that actually comprises the zodiac/Rashichakra, nor to the Vedic lore, as will be evident from this article. About the other points raised by you: 1) The so called Ardra Pravesh etc. cannot be related to seasons either! E.g. if we go by what these nirayana-wallas (siderealists) say, Ardra Pravesh (entrance of the sun into “sidereal” Ardra nakshatra) is taking place these days around June 21/22 i.e. almost the actual date of Dakshinayana – Summer Solstice--the Vedic month of Nabhas, the start of the rains, as it should be. However, if we go by the same (nirayana) nakshatra Chakra, making it start from the so called sideral Ashvini (that star viz. Beta Arietis, is actually 10 degrees away from the zero point of Lahiri/Rashtriya Panchanga Ashwini nakshatra division!), it would be taking place earlier by about a hundred days in 5000 BC, supposed to be the Rigvedic period. In other words, nirayana “Ardra pravesh” would have taken place then in the Vedic month of Madhu i.e. the first month of Spring whereas “Rohini” Pravesh would have taken place earlier by another 27 days! That means nirayana “Rohini Pravesh” would have been four months Prior to Dakshinaya i.e. roughly at the fag end of the Vedic month Tapasya, which is the second month of Winter instead of Summer! Thus nirayana Rohini etc. nakshatras offer no guarantee that they were or will be permanently linked to seasons, just as nirayana Rashis do not offer any guarantee either.

2) It is also contrary to the Vedic dictum “krittikasu-agnim addadeeta” i.e. “One should get consecrated in the Krittikas” because Vishuva, the Spring Equinox, was falling in Kritikas then, whereas according to siderealists the same Spring Equinox is supposed to be falling somewhere in the starting point of nirayana Revati division these days! Surprisingly, though, VE is these days in almost exact conjunction with the Star Beta Pegassi (Scheat), supposed to be the star of nirayana Purvabhadra division, which makes a mockery of all these divisions! Obviously, it is an unsubstantiated myth that rains always started with nirayana Ardra Pravesh whereas if this imaginary equal division of nakshatras is linked to Sayana Rashis, rainy season would always start around the entrance of the sun into (Sayana) Pushya division, just three days after the Summer Solstice. However, even that (sayana) division is imaginary, since the constellational dimensions are quite unequal actually! What is also noteworthy, as will be seen from the table in this article, “Ardra” i.e. Alpha Orionis is actually having a “Lahiri” longitude of 64° 54’ whereas “Ardra nakshatra division” is supposed to start from 66° 40’ which means the relevant Junction Star is out of sync with the concerned nakshatra division also! In fact “Ardra” has nothing to do with being “ardra” i.e. wet just as “Hasta” is not of the shape of a “hasta” i.e. a human hand! It is possible that since over the last couple of centuries the Summer Solstice has been falling near “Ardra” star it made us believe that rainy season would always start when the Sun was going to be in Ardra but that also is a myth since because of precession, the longitude of this (Ardra) Star was about 352° in 5000 BCE i.e. it was behind by about hundred days from the start of Summer Solstice i.e. the rainy season then. It is exactly like the floods of the Nile when the Star Sirius (Lubdhaka in Sanskrit) rose heliacally a few millennia back in Egypt, but it is not so now since that Star has moved onwards because of precession. So whichever way we look at it, nirayana nakshatras have nothing to do with the seasons just as “sidereal” rashis have nothing to do with them---though Tropical Rashis are always linked to the seasons e.g. Sayana Mesha and Vernal Equinox are synonyms. However, we must remember that there are no Rashis in the Vedas nor in the Mahabharata, for that matter! 2) Our real Vamadevas and Prasharas were really great astronomers linking everything, including the names of the months like Nabhas and Nabhasya to the seasons! For them Winter Solstice was Udagayana or Uttarayana, since the sun Turned North then whereas the Summer Solstice was Dakshinayana since the sun turned South then. As there were no Rashis involved, there was no confusion like sayana and nirayana—and there also whether Lahiri or Raman or Kharegat or Fagan or Raivata or Chitra and what not! 3) Now about Dasha-Bhuktis: These “Vedic Jyotishis” are using at least three Ayanamshas even today, the most common one being Lahiri Ayanamsha, Ramana being number two and Revati (Tilaka Panchanga) being number three! Then for Dasha bhuktis also they are using at least half a dozen Padhhatis. (a) Vimshottari in South and Northern India (b) whereas in Bengal etc. it is Ashtottari; (c) in Kashmir it was Yogini and that also without any Bhayat and Bhabhoga i.e. irrespective of the fact as to what part of nakshatra had elapsed! (d) In Nepal there is a Tribagi Dasha whereas nowadays there are (e) Kalachakra Dasha, (f) Dwisaptati Dasha etc. etc. also in the fray! Western siderealists, i.e. the followers of Cyril Fagan swear even today by some other imaginary Ayanamsha and they find “DashaBhukti” results marvelously accurate according to that Ayanamsha! Ironically, the Astrological Magazine of Bangalore swears by Ramana Ayanamsha but surprisingly they celebrate Pongal/Makar Sankranti as “prescribed” by “almighty” Lahiri---“almighty” because that Ayanamsha can even over-ride the pet Ayanamsha of Ramana-Bhaktas, for that matter bhakta of any other Ayanamsha! Actually Ramana Ayanamsha Sankrantis will always be earlier by about two days

from Lahiri/Rashtriya Panchanga Sankrantis, but these Ramana Bhaktas are mortally afraid of being excommunicated if they celebrate their Pongal on some other day than Lahiriwallas! Tilaka Panchanga with the so called Raivata Paksha is ploughing a lone furrow, but they swear by it for all practical purposes including that of predictive astrology, though that ayanamsha is different by about four degrees/days from Lahiri Ayanamsha---which means their sankrantis are earlier by four days from “almighty” Lahiri’s! You must be aware that Ketkar had prepared his “Jyotirganitam” in Sanskrit initially in accordance with “Raivata Paksha” i.e. Tilaka Panchanga Ayanamsha which was less by about four degrees from that of Lahiri, but he later “revised” it to “Chitra-Paksha i.e. Lahiri Ayanamsha” admitting his “mistake” i.e. he recanted his own statement just for the filth of lucre since he did not find any takers for an Ayanamsha different from that of Grahalaghava! It was immaterial as to whether it was correct or not but what was “material” was whether he would earn some name and fame and pelf from it or not! It is thus crystal clear that whatever song and dance stories these “siderealisits” make the so called nirayana equal nakshatra divisions (and ayanamshas!) have no sanction either from the shastras or from the astronomical/geographical factors, least of all our common sense and day to day experience. Therefore, the earlier we get rid of them the better! I must also put on record that in the earlier part of the last century almost all the panchangas in India were prepared on the basis of the Surya Sidhanta or some other sidhanta or later Grahalaghava/makaranda! Those very “jyotishis” who swore by those planetary longitudes and nakshatra divisions now confirm in one voice that those calculations were wrong! But somehow, they found “astrological predictions” as well as “Ardra Pravesh” results quite accurate then! That is the wonder of wonders but these “Vedic Jyotishis” will never take us into confidence as to how the “predictions” could be correct if the calculations were wrong! These “Vedic Jyoishis” have a clitch, “Proof of the pudding lies in its eating”. So the “pudding” is that all the astrological books of yore like Brihat Jataka or Manasagari or Saravali etc. etc. never mention as to what ayanamsha they were using! Obviously it must have been Sayana i.e. zero ayanamsha! 3) Astrological predictions from Dasha-bhuktis can never be correct because of one more reasons--whatever the Ayanamsha---and that is that the longitudes these panchagas give are “Geocentric”—i.e. they have been calculated for an imaginary place viz. “The centre of the earth” instead of “for the place of the event”. It means that the lunar longitudes---whatever the Ayanamsha---could be actually plus/minus up to one degree! It makes the ending moments of tithi, nakshatra, yoga etc. also (even the nirayana ones!) inaccurate up to two hours! This anachronism will be clear from my “PAC3” document which I hope you have already with you! 4) The names of lunar months also had nothing to do with nirayana nakshatra names. This is clear from the Vedanga Jyotisha which clubs the month of Uttaryana with Magha with a qualifying statement that it will always be so. It could not have been that solar Magha started say on December 21 and the lunar Magha would start around September 21---since in those days Ayanamsha would be “on the other side”!! This point has been clarified by S. B. Dikshit also in his Bharaitya Jyotisha. Similarly, there are references in our shastras and sidhantas to the effect that Madhu is synonymous with Chaitra and Madhava with Vaishakha. In the Shivamahapurana, it has been said that Akshayan tritiya should be celebrated on the Shukla Tritiya of “Madhava”. Thus lunar months also were pegged to the seasonal solar months by our shastras and sidhantas as well. I have also seen that by taking recourse to Sayana rashi/nakshatrachakra, the Full-Moon (Purnima) falls in the name of that very nakshatra, though sayana one. E.g. if we take Sayana Lunar Chaitra (Vasanti Navaratras) of 2005, which starts on March 11, 2005, the (topocentric) Full Moon (Purnima) falls on March 25, 2005, at 27h 4mts. It will be in Sayana Chitra Divisions which lasts from 28h 55mts

of March 24 to 6hrs 6mts of March 26, 2005 (these are topocentric beginning/ending moments for Delhi)! In fact, I have been calculating all the lunar festivals on the basis of that very sayana nakshatra chakra of 13° 20’ on topocentric basis! Even Alberuni has confirmed the same thing --sayana nakshata division as well rashichakra---in his “Alberuni’s India” in around 11th century India. I have also proved it conclusively and demonstrated it practically, on page 108 of my “Shri Krishen Universal Ephemeris & Panchang” for 1999, that by “subscribing” to a Sayana nakshatra division of 13° 20’ each, we can calculate all the lunar months more conveniently and as per the seasonal calendar in such a manner that Chaitra etc. lunar months do immediately follow the solar Madhu etc. months. I have covered a span of about 13000 years there by going to 10000 BC in the past and then to 3001 AD in future. With sayana nakshatra divisions of 13° 20’ each, all the lunar months get synchronized with the respective seasonal solar months. In fact, sayana Chitra etc. nakshatras are always present on Sayana Chaitra purnamashis i.e. such Full Moons always take place in sayana “Chitra division” whereas Lahiri etc. nirayana divisions ditch us several times! It is evident from the above discussion that if we have a “disconnect” from the real Equinoxes and Solstices etc. we will be celebrating all our rituals, festivals and muhurtas on wrong days, much to the annoyance of our real Vamadevas and Parasharas whereas if we get “disconnected” from the so called nirayana equal nakshtra/Rashi division---which is not even otherwise connected to either the constellational belt or to sayana rashis or to any dharmashastra---we will be annoying only fake “Vamadevas” and “Parasharas” etc. who are masquerading these days as “Vedic jyotishis”. It is up to us as to whom we want to annoy! With kind regards, Avtar Krishen Kaul

Nakshatras vis-à-vis the Vedas To presume a sidereal zodiac in the Vedas is to “exhibit” our ignorance of the Vedas! In India some “astrological scholars” say that the so called sidereal zodiac is Vedic as there are references to “nakshatras” in the Vedas. Nothing could be farther from the truth actually. (In this article, “nirayana-wallas” means “siderealists” ---those who want to follow the system of sidereal years…the time taken by the sun (actually the earth) to move via ecliptic from one Fixed star to the same Fixed Star. They forget, however, that no star is fixed since even if we ignore their “precessional motion” they have got a proper motion of their own---howsoever miniscule it maybe!) By nakshatras, also known as asterisms, these days we are made to understand 27 equal divisions of 13° - 20’ each which divide the 360° ecliptic into 27 divisions, just as the rashis (signs) are supposed to divide it into twelve equal divisions of 30 degrees each. In the so called nirayana system, both the Rashichakra and the nakshatra-chakra are supposed to start from zero degrees of “sidereal” Aries, but wherefrom that “zero degrees of sidereal Aries” starts, no one knows! They say that each nakshatra division is so named because of its relation with the particular junction star of that name e.g. Ashvini nakshatra is supposed to bear that name because Ashvini Star (Beta Arietis) falls in that (nirayana) division; Bharani division is so called because Bharni Star (41 Arietis) is in that division and so on. However, here also the ground is quite slippery as is evident from the following table: Table showing the “equal nakshatra division” vis-a-vis their junctions stars

S. N. 1 2 3 4 5 6

“VEDIC” N A K S H A T R A S Name From To Ashvini 0 13-20 Bharni 13-20 26-40 Krittika 26-40 40-00 Rohini 40-00 53-20 Mrigshira 53-20 66-40 Ardra 66-40 80-00

Modern Relevant Junction Star Star Name Longi. ° Latitude Dist No. B Arietis 10-07 +8-29 53 66 41 Arietis 24-21 +10-27 100 Eta Tauri 36-08 +4-03 541 139 Alpha Tauri 45-56 -5-28 68 168 LambdaOrionis 59-51 -13-22 GC Alpha Orionis 64-54 -16-02 310 224

Supposed Nakshatra Ashvini Bharni Krittika Rohini Mrigsh. Ardra

Actual nakshat Ashvini Bharni Krittika Rohini Mrigsh. Mrigshi

+/- ° or quarter 4th Fag end 4th 2nd 3rd -1° 20’

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Punarvasu Pushya Ashlesha Magha P.Phalguni. U.Phalguni Hast Chitra Svati Vishakha Anuradha Jyeshtha Mula P.Ashada U.Ashada Abhijit Shravan Dhanishtha Shatabisha P.Bhadra U.Bhadra Revati

80-00 93-20 93-20 106-40 106-40 120-00 120-00 133-20 133-20 146-40 146-40 160-00 160-00 173-20 173-20 186-40 186-40 200-00 200-00 213-20 213-20 226-40 226-40 240-00 240-00 253-20 253-20 266-40 266-40 280-00 276-40 280-53 280-00 293-20 293-20 306-40 306-40 320-00 320-00 333-20 333-20 346-40 346-40 360-00

Beta Gemono. Beta Cancri Epsilon Hydrae Alpha Leonis Delta Leonis Beta Leonis Delta Corvi Alpha Virginis Alpha Bootis Alpha Libra Delta Scorpii Alpha Scorpii Lamb. Scorpii Delta Sagittarii Sigma Sagittari Alpha Lyrae` Alpha Aquilae Beta Delphini Lamb. Aquarii Alpha Pegasi Gamma Pega. Zeta Piscium

89-21 104-52 108-29 125-58 137-28 147-46 169-36 179-59 180-23 201-14 218-43 225-54 240-40 250-43 258-32 261-28 277-55 292-29 317-43 329-38 345-18 356-01

+6-41 +0-05 -11-06 +0-28 +14-20 +12-16 -12-12 -2-03 +30-44 +0-20 -1-59 -4-34 -13-47 -6-28 -3-27 +61-44 +29-28 +31-55 -0-23 +19-24 +12-36 -0-13

36

85 82 43 124 260 36 66 590 66 310 84 300 26 17

109 570

295 326 329 380 422 444 465 496 526 548 594 616 662 687 706 699 745 771 864 871 7 66

Punarv. Pushya Ashlesha Magha P.Phalgun U.Phalgu. Hasta Chitra Svati Vishakha Anuradha Jyeshtha Mula P.Ashada U.Ashada Abhijit Shravana Dhanitsh. Shatabi. P.Bhadra U.Bhdara Revati

Punarv. Pushya Ashlesh Magha P.Phalg U.Phalg Hasta Chitra Chitra Vishakh Anuradh Anurad. Mula Mula P.Asha. P.Asha U.Asha Shrava, Shatabi. P.Bhadr U.Bhadr Revati

3rd 4th 1st middle 2nd Begin. 3rd middle -6°-17’ Begin. 2nd -0°-46’ Begin. -2°-37’ -8°-40’ -15°-12’ -2°-5’ -0°-51’ 4th 3rd Fag end 3rd

The above table has been prepared from the “nirayana bible” viz. Lahiri’s Ephemeris for 2003, page No. 69. We have given the longitudes of Junction Stars and also the details of relevant nakshatra division in the same. This table also gives “Dis” i.e. distance in light years and also the Catalogue Number of the Junction Stars so that you can check the details yourself from the relevant catalogue. As per this table some stars ”coincide” just with the beginning of nakshatra division like Mula but others are at the fag end like Purva-Bhadra. Still others are in the middle and some are in the 3rd quarter! Obviously, the Stars of the relevant divisions are not equally spaced so much so that as many as seven (including Abhijit) Stars do not fall in the names of their divisions at all! These are (i) Ardra, (ii) Svati, (iii) Jyeshtha, (iv)Purvashada, (v) Uttarashada, (vi)Abhijit, (vii) Shravana and (viii) Dhanishtha It is therefore clear that even the nirayana Star Divisions have nothing to do with the names of their Stars! To presume that these nakshatra divisions have any affect on anybody because of their association with junction Stars of similar names is illogical, to say the least, since some divisions will then have “double affects” Mrigshira having Ardra as well as Mrigshira Junction stars will give the effects of the both the “Nakshatras” but Ardra will be bereft of any effects since it does not have any Junction Star. Similarly, Chitra division having Chitra as well as Svati Junction Star in it will give “confused” effects whereas Svati will be bereft of any effects at all since it does not have any Junction Star! Same is the case with several other divisions --- all such Junction Stars have been marked in “bold” type in the above table. That is why the “Report of the Calendar Reform Committee” had to say on page 183/184, “We do not, however, have any idea as to how the beginning and ending of nakshatra divisions were fixed in India….matters do not improve much if we shift the beginning of each division so as to place Zeta Piscium (Revati) at the end of Revati division or in other words at the beginning of the Ashvini division…..In fact no arrangement at any time appears to have been satisfactory enough for all the Yogataras to fall within their respective divisions”. The Calendar Reform Committee have taken the so called Tilaka Pancvhanga Ayanamsha but I have used Lahiri Ayanamsha since our Rashtriya Panchanga follows that---what an irony---The “calendar-makers” to the nation or a slave to some chap callede N C Lahiri even for their Ayanasha myths!

Most of the Junction Stars are outside the limits of the zodiac! How ridiculous it is to link these Stars and nakshtra divisions with the zodiac will be clear further from the definition of the Zodiac itself. Lahiri’s Ephemeris repeats year after year on page 168 “Zodiac: An imaginary belt stretching about 9° north and 9° south of the ecliptic within which the planets and the Moon remain in course of their movement….” As per the above table, latitudes of as many as thirteen “prominent stars” of their nakshatra divisions as on January 1, 2002, are more than 9 degrees. Some of the Stars like Svati and Dhanishtha have latitudes of more than 30 degrees! Evidently, about fifty per cent of these Stars are beyond the ken of the Zodiac completely! They cannot therefore be a part of the zodiac at all. Then again the distance of these “nakshatra” Stars ranges from a minimum of 17 light years in case of Shravana to a maximum of 590 light years in case of Anuradha! It means that if any Star will affect me at all, it will take it hundreds of years to “touch” me! Suppose I am born in Krittika nakshtara, and if the Star Alcyone will affect me at all, it will take at least 541 years for its “rays” to touch me, even if those “rays” travel at “lightening speeds”---which is the maximum speed possible for anything to materialize or dematerialize! Some of these Stars have luminosities hundreds of times more than that of the Sun e.g. Jyeshtha is 7500 times as luminous as the sun; Svati 115 times more luminous; Punarvasu 60 times more luminous--- and the much talked about Spica (Chitra) 2100 times as luminous as the sun! Clearly, they must be at least that many times bigger/larger than our sun, which is 300000 times larger than the earth, which is hundreds of thousands of times larger than you or me individually! To say that these Stars have nothing else to do excepting to affect you and me individually is to presume that the entire Himalayan range of mountains was created to terrorize small ants crawling somewhere in the Sahara Deserts! Poor hapless “Chitra”: It is relevant to say here something about the much maligned Chitra Star---the ”main pillar” of “Chitrapaksha (read Lahiri!) Ayanamsha”. As we have seen, this Star is 2100 times larger than the sun. (If it does not scorch us it is only because it is 260 light years away from us which means that it takes 260 years for its rays to reach us whereas the Sun of our solar system is just about 8.3 minutes away from us!) With its distance of 260 light years from the solar system, it defies imagination as to how we can measure the longitudes of even mathematical points like Rahu/Kethu – which are just nodes of the moon without any dimensions---from “180° Opposite a giant of hundreds of millions times larger than that node and away at least by 260 light years from the same. We are ignoring such facts at the peril of becoming a laughing stock of the astronomical world! “Astronomical jugglery” The same “nirayana bible” viz. Lahiri’s Ephemeris (much like the Rashtriya Panchanga!) repeats year after year on page 5, “So in the sidereal system, the reference point is fixed point on the ecliptic in relation to some prominent stars, whose position is fixed in the sky. The nirayana longitudes of stars being nearly invariable the Indian signs always contain the same star groups in the division”. On the same page, however, it says further, “On March 22 of 285 AD, the nirayana and sayana longitude of Star Chitra was the same as 180°-00’-03”.0.“ In the same breath it says further, “The nirayana longitude of the Star Spica is now 179° 59’ 03” as on Jan 1, 2003”. Anybody can see for himself as to how the main pillar “Chitra” of “Chitra Ayanamsha” itself has been rocked and it has regressed in to nirayana Kanya from nirayana Tula -- which thus negates the nirayanawalas’ statement, “So in the sidereal system, the reference point is fixed point on the ecliptic….. “. Similarly, it is a self contradiction that “the Indian signs always contain the same star groups” as Chitra itself has regressed from nirayana Tula to Kanya! That much for nirayana zodiacs! If we take the same Lahiri’s Ephemeris of say 1975 i.e. about 25 years back, we find that it gives a much different latitude, Right Ascension and Declination of these very Stars than what it gives today -- though the “nirayana” longitudes are shown to be the same! Do you know why? Because we make “Ayanamsha” adjustments year after year in the longitudes but we cannot make similar “adjustments” in the latitudes etc. It is an astronomical fact that for finding the latitudes etc. of the Stars or planets, only Sayana longitudes can be taken into account! So “nirayana planetary” or “starry” data is neither reliable nor of any use at all!

The genesis of “Chitra Ayanamsha”: It is interesting to trace the history of Chitra Ayanamsha, the credit for which is being taken by Lahiri and Lahiriwallas. Bal Krishen Dikshit had prepared a magnum opus of astronomical history of Indian sidhantas etc. in his original Marathi work, “Bharatiya Jyotish” in 1896 AD, i.e. more than a hundred years back. It was translated into English and Hindi, the latter version having been published by the “Publications Division, Ministry of Information, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh” in 1957. It comprises about 700 pages and there is hardly any aspect of Indian astronomy that has not been discussed with authority by him. Diskshit has proved it beyond all the “reasonable doubts” that in ancient India, only Sayana Rashichakra was used for predictive astrology as well as rituals etc. In his “Conclusion” on pages 525 to 576 he had summarized all the reasons as to why we should make use of panchangas based on tropical Rashichakra and nakshatrachakra. On page 576, he had, however, said, “I have given all the reasons for using Sayana Panchagas for astrology as well as rituals etc. If because of any reasons whatsoever and in spite of the fact that Sayana Panchanga is the one recommended by all our shastras, it is difficult to convince the general public of a gap of 23 days between a sayana sankranti and a nirayana Grahalaghava/Surya Sidhanta Sankranti, then we may start using a fictitious Ayanamsha opposite the Star Chitra, instead of from the end of Revati division because in the latter case, there will be a difference of three days even then between Grahalaghava and Revati Sankrantis, which the general public may not like. The difference between the starting point of 180° opposite Chitra and that of Grahalaghava Sankrantis will be hardly a few hours which the general public will not understand. As such, it is the path of least resistance and may be adopted if at all nirayana panchangas are a necessary evil”. It maybe mentioned here that Ketkar had prepared initially his work “Jyotirganitham” on the basis of Revati Paksha Ayanamsha but later changed the same to “Chitra Paksha” on finding that the difference of three days in Grahalaghava and Revati sankrantis was not tolerable to the general public. N. C. Lahiri, who was publishing his “Vishudha Sidhanta Panjika” in Bengali and also “Lahiri’s Indian Ephemeris” in English used the method advocated by S. B. Dikshit without giving any credit to him since he wanted to kill two birds with one stone---to take the credit of “inventing” Chitra Ayanamsha besides not antagonizing the general public or the Panchangamakers. As he was also the Secretary to the Calendar Reform Committee, he succeeded in virtually “over-ruling” all the other members of that Committee and getting the so called Chitra Ayanamsha recommended. However, the Committee had made it very clear in its Report that it was only a very very temporary measure and in the near future, they had desired the longitudes to be sayana, as they were in the Vedic period. Puranas and the nakshatras: However, coming back to our scriptures, all the Puranas including Srimad Bhagavata refer to nothing but a tropical Rashichakra. Bhagvata, 5/22/5-6 says, “The sun transits each sign of two-and-a-half nakshatras”. Obviously, when the Rashis are Sayana, how can the nakshatras related to them be so called nirayana? Same is the case with other Puranas. Sidhantas and the nakshatras: In all the sidhantas whether the Surya Sidhanta, Aryabhattiyam, Shishyadhivridhidha or Bhaskara’s Sidhanta Shiromani – for that matter even Gralaghava --- you will find a separate chapter on the topic of “Bha-Graha-yuti” i.e. “The method of finding times of conjunction of planets with the stars/nakshatras”. Our sidhantas use “Bha” for a Star as well as nakshatra or even Rashis since Bhachakra can mean the zodiac or the ecliptic or even the constellational belt. If the sidhantas had meant by such “conjunctions” the entrance of planets into any nakshatra division of similar names, they would not have to give individual longitudes of all the prominent stars nor would they have to explain the methods of planetary conjunctions with the same, since they could just have said that when a planet enters e.g. 13° 20’ of Mesha Rashi, it is conjunct Bharani Star. Sidhantas also refer to sayana nakshatra divisions of 13° 20’ each and not to any nirayana one: Vedanga Jyotisha, verse 6 says unequivocally, “In the beginning of Shravishtha (Dhanishtha) the sun and the moon move towards north and at the center of Ashlesha, towards south.

The sun moves always towards north (i.e. Uttarayana always takes place) in the month of Magha and it moves towards south (i.e. it is Dakshinayana) in the month of Shravana always. The Surya Sidhanta also is very emphatic vide Verse 16 of Manadhyaya, “To the months of Kartika etc. belong, as concerns the conjunction, the asterisms Krittika etc. two by two: but three months namely the last, the next to the last, and the fifth, have triple asterisms.” If the sidhantas had meant any so called nirayana nakshatra division, they would not have related them to any season at all nor to sayana phenomena like Uttarayana etc. Besides, the qualifying word “always” would not have been inserted with such phenomena. Vedas and the “nakshatras” Now the crux of the matter i.e. nakshatras vis-à-vis the Vedas: First of all let us take the Rigveda. It does not specify any nakshatra divisions in any particular order but vide 1/50/2 it refers to stars as nakshatras. In 4/51/2, Chitra has been mentioned and in 4/51/47, Revati is indicated. In 5/54/13 it has named some nakshatras individually. In 10/64/8, Pushya is indicated. In 10/85/2, it says “Soma is in the nakshatras”. So there is no question of any nakshatra division of 13° 20’ in the Rigveda, as envisaged by “Vedic astrologers” “Krishna Yajurveda” 4/4/10, on the other hand, has listed all the 27 “nakshatras” prevailing today, but there the “nakshatra divisions” start from “Krittika” (instead of Ashvini!) and follow that very order viz. Krittika, Rohini etc. Taittiriya Samhita 4/4/10 also lists all the 27 nakshatras starting from Krittikas and ending at “Apbharni” i.e. Bharni. Taittiriya Brahmana 1/5/1 as well lists them in the same order starting with Krittikas. Atharva Veda Samhita 19/7 also lists all the 28 (including Abhijit) and not 27 nakshatras starting from Krittikas. Even Vedanga Jyotisha 25-27 lists these nakshatras not by their names but by the names of their lords, starting from “Agni” i.e. Krittikas. Taittiriya Brahmana 1/5/2 is very emphatic, “Krittika is the first and Vishakha the last nakshatra of gods“. Similarly, Shatapatha Brahmana 2/1/2/2 says, “One should get consecrated in Krittikas…Other nakshatras have one, two or three or four nakshatras only but these Krittikas have many…They do not deviate from the east whereas other nakshtras do deviate”. Several things are clear from these references: 1) The Vernal Equinox was in Krittikas then – which could be anywhere between about 3000 BC and 5000 BC. (II) The “nakshatras” started from Krittikas and not Ashvini in the time of Shatapatha Brahmana --- because the Vernal Equinox was then in that “nakshatra”, (III) Krittikas have more “nakshatras” than any other nakshatra. As per Sayana Bhashya of this passage of the Shatapatha Brahmana, “Mahidhara’s commentary on Katyana’s Shulva Sutras of the relevant passage says that the Krittikas rose in the exact Eastern direction on Mesha and Tula Sankrantis i.e. Equinoxes”! Obviously, these (non-existent) Rashis (in the Vedas) are Sayana—tropical! If the Vedic Rishis had meant any imaginary division of nakshtras each comprising 13° 20’, they would not have said that Krittikas contain the maximum number of nakshatras. Secondly, they have used “Krittikas” as plural and not as a singular either for any nakshatra division or for any particular star. In fact they have referred to Krittikas as a group of nakshatras! The English equivalent of Krittikas is “Pleiades” and as per Patrick Moore’s “A-Z of Astronomy”, page 153, “Pleiades: The most famous of all open clusters, usually known as Seven Sisters. The brightest Star is Alcyone or Eta Tauri (Krittika). Next come Electra, Atlas, Merope, Maia, Taygete, Calaeno, Pleione and Asterope. Observers with normal sight can see at least seven stars under average conditions; the record is said to be nineteen. Many more stars are shown telescopically. There are several hundred stars in the cluster, together with a beautiful reflection nebula; the distance is 410 light years. The cluster is No. 45 in Messier’s list…. All the leading stars of the cluster are hot and white, and their age has been estimated at less than a hundred million years.” Just see how exactly the two definitions of “Krittikas” tally --- Shatapatha Brahmana says that other nakshatras are one or two or three or four in number but Krittikas have a very large number of nakshatras! It has not referred anywhere to individual stars but to nakshatras! In fact each nakshatra according to the Vedic Rishis comprises a group of nakshatras! Actually as per International Astronomical Union Map of Boundaries of Constellations, Taurus is the second largest among all the twelve/thirteen “zodiacal” Constellations/signs as it covers a span of 37.5 degrees whereas Virgo covers about 43°. Taurus contains several “clusters”, Pleiades being the most prominent. Thus the

definition of Krittikas as per the Vedas is virtually the definition of a very large “cluster” rather than the definition of some imaginary nakshatra division of 13° 20’ each! Besides, though the Vernal Equinox was in Krittikas then, it was never said that the year started from Ashvini, as is being done these days by our “Vedic Astrologers” though actually the Vernal Equinox falls in the beginning of Pisces and is on the verge of regressing into Aquarius in a few centuries. Obviously, even “non-Vedic” astronomers of the West are more attuned to the real Vedic astronomy than we in India are! The Upanishadas and the Puranas also refer to Vernal Equinox in Krittikas: Maitrayani Upanishad 6/14 says, “The first half of the year viz. Uttarayana ranges from the beginning of Magha nakshatra to the middle of Dhanishtha”. Vishnupurana 2/8/74-78 is very emphatic that, “When the sun is in the Mesha Rashi i.e. first part of Krittika….it is Vishuva when the days and nights are equal. It is a very propitious moment for giving alms etc.” Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak also confirmed an unequal division of nakshatras in the Vedas: In his magnificent work on nakshatras vis-à-vis the Vedas, viz “The Orion – or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas”, Lokamanya Tilak has this to say on page 26, “The Vedic observations could not again be such as need any minute or detailed arithmetical operations. I shall therefore adopt for the present the simplest possible method of calculation---a method which may be easily understood and followed by any one, who can watch and observe the stars after the manner of the ancient priest. We shall assume that the zodiac was divided into 27 parts, not by compass but by means of the leading stars, which Prof. Max Muller rightly calls the milestones of the heavens. The Vedic priest, who ascertained the motion of the sun by observing with his unaided eye the nearest visible star, cannot be supposed to have followed a different method in making other celestial observations; and if so, we cannot assume that he was capable of recognizing and using for the purposes of observation any artificial divisions of the ecliptic on a mathematical principle, such as those which would result from the division of 360° of the zodiac into 27 equal parts, each part thus extending over 13° 20’ of the ecliptic. …When we therefore find it stated in the Vedic works that the sun was in the Krittika, it is more probable that the fixed asterism, and not the beginning of the artificial portion of the zodiac, was intended.” We have already seen that no “milestone” is of any use in the equal division of 13°-20’ each! It thus means that even Lokmanya Tilak considered the equal division of zodiac into 27 nakshatras an artificial 0ne. It is on the basis of such an unequal division of nakshatras i.e. constellations that he has tried to prove that in ancient times the Vernal Equinox was in Mrigshira nakshatra division of the Orion constellation and that is why Lord Krishna had said in the Gita 10/35, “….among the months I am Margashishra and among the seasons I am Spring”. Thus to say that Lokamnya Tilak had advocated an equal division of nakshatras in the Vedas means that we have not understood even the works of our own stalwarts properly! N. C. Lahiri also was sure that it was an unequal division in the early Vedic times: Even the late N. C. Lahiri had said on page XI of his Foreword to “Hindu Popular Astronomy” by Kali Nath Mukherji, published in 1969 by Nirmal Mukherjea, Calcutta, “In India the ecliptic stars were divided into 28 (and not 27) divisions even in the Vedic times. As these clusters of stars do not cover equal lengths of the ecliptic, the original divisions were naturally of unequal length. We get a description of this unequal division in the work of Bhaskaracharya, who has stated that it was introduced by early sages like Garga. In this unequal division system there are 15 nakshatras of normal length which is 13° 10’ 35” the mean daily motion of the moon. The nakshatras Bharani, Ardra, Aslesha, Svati, Jyeshtha and Satabhisaj were of half the above length and the nakshatras Rohini, Punarvasu, Uttara Phalguni, Visakha, Uttara Asadha and Uttara Bhadrapada were of one and half times the normal length, and Abhijit’s length was only 4° 14’ 15” the residue of the circle. With the introduction of computational astronomy, the above unequal division was found very inconvenient for practical calculations. As a result the ecliptic was subsequently divided into 27 nakshatras or lunar mansions of 13° 20’ each starting from Asvini. It is likely that this equal division system came into

vogue when the nakshatra cycle started from Krittika at the Vedic times about 2000 BC. At the time of Vedanga Jyotisha Calendar (1350 BC) when the nakshatra cycle started from Dhanishtha, the equal division system was fully established”. It is surprising as to how we are ignoring even these asseverations of our own “nirayana stalwart”. May be because he ignored it himself ! N. C. Lahiri had also stated on page X of the same Foreword already, “Unlike the present-day usage, Krittika nakshata and Vrisha Rashi were taken to start simultaneously at that early age”. However, let us analyze this statement of N. C. Lahiri: actually he should not have confused Taurus constellation with Taurus Rashi. Since he was a good astronomer he should have known that imaginary Rashi divisions did not exist in the Vedic times at all. As we have seen, Krittikas is a “cluster” in the constellation Taurus but the latter has nothing to do with the astrological sign of a similar name, whether Sayana or so called nirayana. Besides, as everybody knows, the Vedas have a seasonal year – and if at all the months like Madhu, Madhava etc. could be linked to any Rashis (which they have not been), it could be only the Tropical ones as has been done in the Puranas like Bhagavata, Vishnurpurana etc.! Thus it appears that N. C. Lahiri was speaking more on behalf of predictive astrologers (frauds?) than astronomers! Equal Division of nakshatras also is co-related to tropical and not so called nirayana Rashichakra: Coming again to the equal division of 13° 20’ each, as and when it got linked to the so called Rashichakra, it was only a Tropical one and not to any so called nirayana Rashichakra! As we shall see in the earlier article already, Alberuni has referred to a Rashi-cum-nakshatra charka on page 81 of his travelogue, Alberuni’s India, in the chapter titled “On the stations of the Moon”, “The Hindus use the lunar stations exactly in the same way as the zodiacal signs”. By implication, because zodiacal signs were aligned to seasons i.e. they were tropical starting from Vernal Equinox, there could not be any separate so called sidereal zodiac for nakshatras. Alberuni claims further, “As the ecliptic is, by the zodiacal signs, divided into 12 equal parts, so, by the lunar stations, it is divided into twentyseven equal parts. Each station occupies 13 1/3 degrees, or 800 minutes of the ecliptic. The planets enter into them and leave them again, and wander to and fro through their northern and southern latitudes. The astrologers attribute to each station a special nature”. We also find that commentators like Anandabodha Yati have also made it very clear that “nakshatras” like Krittika and yogas like Vishkumbha etc are based on a seasonal Rashichakra! Sub and sub-sub divisions of nakshatras make a further mockery of the actual constellational belt and therefore the real Vedic nakshatra divisions: Of late, to make confusion worst confounded, “Hindu astrologers” (especially Krishnamurthi Padhati!) resort to dividing each nakshatra division further into nine sub-divisions by linking the number of years of so called Vimshottari Dashas of individual planets to the span of each nakshatra division of 13° 20’. Each sub-division thus ranges from 0° 40’ of arc to 2° 20’ 40”. Then these “subdivisions” are divided further into sub-sub divisions, each ranging from 0° 2’ -15” of arc to 0° 22’ 13” of arc – again in proportion to the Vimshottari Dasha Bhuktis! As clarified by Lokamanya Tilak also, it is impossible for our Vedic Rishis to have made such meticulous sub-sub divisions of such small arcs of longitude! Equal division of nakshatras is just like a Navamsha division etc. In the so called nirayana astrology there are divisions galore of the “Rashichakra” like Hora, Dreshkana, Saptamsha etc. Similarly, there are twenty seven equal division also----which have been named nakshatras though they have nothing to do with the junctions stars of similar names. It is therefore proved without any doubt that the Constellational belt of the Vedas has nothing whatsoever to do with the 27 nakshatra divisions of 13° 20’ each nor have these “lunar mansions” anything to do with the so called nirayana Rashichakra. “Arabian Astrology” has woken to the real situation: It may be mentioned here that now even in Pakistan and other Islamic countries, after reading my articles in the magazines and my “Shri Krishen Universal Ephemeris & Panchang”, their “Jantris” show nakshtra divisions on the basis of

tropical Rashis instead of the so called nirayana ones e.g. “Zinjani Jantri” for 2002 shows ending moments of nakshatra divisions in accordance with the tropical Rashichakra instead of the so called nirayana Rashichakra, as they were doing till a few years back, before reading my articles. A humble request to all concerned to shun obduracy and switch over to tropical nakshatra division for deciding tithi, nakshatra etc. as suggested by our shastras: We have thus seen that the equal division of “nirayana” nakshatras is neither as per the Vedas nor any shastra. If there is any such division, it is related only to the tropical i.e. seasonal Rashichakra. It is therefore a request to all concerned that we should switch over to deciding nakshatras, yogas etc. as per that very “equal division” based on Sayana Rashis and especially on topocentric basis instead of geocentric. Om Tat-Sat Brahmarpanam Astu

Dear Amit jii & other members, namaste ! There are many types of year : (1) tropical year (2) sidereal year (3) anomalistic year (4) Besselian year If nothing is specifically mentioned, a year means the tropical year. I will talk of only that which will be useful for understanding the basic concept behind reformation of the Hindu calendar. Since ancient times people have tried to measure time. The basic concept of year comes from the apparent motion of the Sun around the earth. The Sun does not, in general, rise exactly in the east. It appears to have gradual northward and southward movement in the eastern horizon. A year is defined as one complete cycle of the apparent movement of the Sun from north to south and back from south to north. The apparent motion of the Sun from north to south is called dakSiNAyana and from south to north it's uttarAyaNa (ayana = movement). Here there are two schools of thought about the concept of dakSiNAyana and uttarAyaNa. As per the first, the motion of the Sun in the northern hemisphere is uttarAyaNa (i.e. from the exact eastern point towards the extreme north and back to this point), whereas the motion in the southern hemisphere is dakSiNAyana. As per the second, the southward motion from the extreme north in the northern hemisphere to the extreme south in the southern hemisphere is dakSiNAyana, whereas the reverse motion is uttarAyaNa. In the mahAbhArata, the latter definition is definitely meant. It is a common observation for people that the seasons change due to this apparent motion of the Sun. This type of year is called the tropical year. Its average value is 365.2422 mean solar days. [Here, I want to confuse you. My one question to you: If apparently the Sun moves around the earth (actually the Earth about its axis) by 360 degrees in 24 hours, why the term mean solar day ?]

The basic concept of the term "month" or mAsa comes from the time interval between either two consecutive full moons (pUrNimA to pUrNimA) [pUrNimAnta panchAnga], or two new moons (amAvasyA to amAvasyA) [amAnta panchAnga]. This interval is lunar month and its average value is 29.53058867 mean solar days[to be exact, during 1900]. So 12 such lunar months = 12 X 29.53058867 = 354.367 mean solar days. This is called one lunar year, which differs from the tropical year by 365.2422 354.3670 = 10.875 mean solar days. Thus in 29.53058867/ 10.875 = 2.715 lunar years, there will be a lag of one complete lunar month regarding season. In order to keep pace with the seasons, every third (lunar) year, one lunar month is counted twice and this month is called adhika mAsa (intercalary month). This type of calendar is called the luni-solar calendar (chAndra-saura panchAnga). Why do we require the reformation of the Hindu panchaanga ? Because, in the calendars in vogue the year is not tropical one, but the sidereal one (please see the definition given already by Jyotirvedjii, reproduced below), apparently due to its application to agriculture and the jAtakas (natal horoscopes) in astrology. In agriculture, a knowledge of the solar position in different nakSatras, esp. during summer [ashwinii, bharaNii, kRttikA, rohiNii, mRgashirA, and part of ArdrA] and rainy season [ArdrA, punarvasu, puSya, ashleSA, maghA, pUrvAphAlgunii, uttarAphAlgunii (kAnA), hasta (hathiyaa) and chitrA] is highly useful. Have you heard the proverb: "रोहन तपे िमरिगसरा तपे कु छ-कु छ अदरा जाय" (rohan tape mirgisrA tape kuchha-kuchha adrA jAy) ? For good agricultural product it is necessary that the weather should be hot during rohiNii, mRgashirA and part of ArdrA, and then only the rains should start. Another reason why the sidereal year is used is the nomenclature of the lunar months : chaitra, vaishAkha, jyeSTha, etc which are derived from the nakSatras in which the full moons (pUrNimA) are supposed to occur, i.e., a lunar month chaitra is so called because the pUrNimA occurs when the moon is in the chitrA nakSatra, the vaishAkha is so called because the pUrNimA occurs when the moon is in the vishAkhA nakSatra and so on. BTW, have you heard the following proverb: सावन पछवा भादो पूरवा, आिसन बहै इसान |

काितक मासे सक न डोलै, कहाँ रखोगे धान || (saavan pachhvaa bhaado pUrvaa, aasin bahai isaan | kaatik maase siiMk na Dolai, kahaa~m rakhoge dhaan ||) And in astrology there is the application of lunar positions in different nakSatras. The viMshottarii dashA is computed based on this information only. The trouble is, if the sidereal year is adopted, with time the festivals will become off the season and if the tropical year is adopted, the very concept of the solar positions in different nakSatras will have to be dispensed with, and if retained, these nakSatras will not be the real ones but the imaginary ones. Similar problem with the nomenclature of the lunar months. So what is the solution ? Pt S B Dixit has provided three different alternatives. I leave this topic for Jyotirvedjii to elaborate.

Interested people may read my following related articles in Hindi published in the VedavANii, Haryana. (1) "किलयुगा द अहगण बनाम जुिलयन दवस संया" (Kaliyugaadi ahargaN banaam Julian divas saMkhyaa), May 1999, pp.13-18 + 1 Table. (2) "अिधकमास एवं यमास - I " (adhikamaas evaM kSayamaas - I), Feb. 2001, pp.17-26 (3) "अिधकमास एवं यमास - II ", March 2002, pp.12-19. (4) "अिधकमास एवं यमास - III ", Jan. 2004, pp.11-17. In the last three the adhikamaas and kSayamaas in between the period 1800-2200 AD have been considered. Note: I will be busy in finalizing my paper for All India Oriental Conference, to be held in the first week of Nov. 2004 at Varanasi. So I may not be able to devote sufficient time in the present discussion. I will remain out of station between 2 Nov to 8 Nov, both inclusive.

------ Narayan Prasad



Amit K Agarwal wrote: Dear Narayan ji

I do know what is a year.. but I am not aware of tropical and sidereal year. Kindly help me understand it. thanks. amit --- narayan prasad wrote: > Dear Amit jii, > > >I am not very well versed in astrology so, I dont > >understand the ABC, but I do wonder about it. > > The subject title itself appears to be confusing. > The problem is related to the field of astronomy, > and not astrology. > > Let us go step by step. First, please let me know > whether you understand what is "year" and the > difference between "tropical year" & "sidereal > year". > > --Narayan Prasad