Comments Posted By Vraja Kishor
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 29 Comments
As you know: The Sun moves north and south of the equator. The northern tropic is called “Cancer” because the Sun enters Cancer Rasi when it reaches that northernmost latitude. The southern tropic is called “Capricorn” because the Sun enters Capricorn Rasi when it reaches that southernmost latitude. When the Sun is over the equator it can either be in Libra or Aries. If it is northward bound it is entering Aries. If southward bound it enters Libra. Thus all the four cardinal points and signs are mapped.
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 02.11.2012 @ 01:35
Your point is that in parts of the earth that are between the two tropics, the Sun can go directly overhead at some time of the year and therefore those parts of the earth are “bright.” And outside that tropical region the Sun cannot come to the sky’s zenith, and therefore those parts of earth are “dark.” Therefore the land situated on a tropic line (Cancer or Capricorn) are bordering / bridging / blending the light and dark?
Very interesting and a novel way to discuss Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu!
Do you have any thoughts as to why that particular LATITUDE?
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 01.11.2012 @ 06:41
Here is rather surprising hard evidence that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Gaudiya Math members including Sridhara Swami (and even Srila Prabhupada) used the Tropical Zodiac for rashi calculations:
PS: SS 1.28 says that the circle is made of 12 signs, each of 30 degrees, each of 60 minutes, each of 60 seconds. I think it is silly that anyone will accept this as a sidereal definition of the zodiac. Sidereal means in reference to a star. There is no mention of a star in SS 1.28. On the other hand my quotes from Bhagavatam and Surya Siddhanta explicitly show the 12 signs achored to equinoxes and solstices (the definition of “tropical”). The tropical definitions I have quoted are very clear and thorough and straightforward. The SS 1.28 this article quotes does not make a sidereal reference at all.
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 07.12.2012 @ 08:25
In your original article you argued that the previous text (27) sets a sidereal context. I do not see why you say that, except that in the translation presented by Danavir GoswÄmÄ« the word âRevatÄ«â is used. Even then it has a footnote admitting that âRevatÄ«â is not literally in the text itself. The text itself only says, âantebhagaá¹aâ â the end of the orbit / circle.
It seems straightforward that SS 1.28 shows how to measure the speed of the planets by dividing their orbit into units of seconds, minutes, degrees, and âgroupsâ / rÄÅi. This is the context set by the verses immediately proceeding and following 1.28. Thus there is nothing inherently sidereal or tropical about SS 1.28, except that it demonstrates that rÄÅi are mathematical constructs, not literal stars or constellations; which detracts from the motivation to consider the rÄÅi stellar phenomena.
On to another topic:
You want to demonstrate the 22nd chapter to conclude that the rÄÅi and naká¹£atra are fixed to one another. If so how will you avoid contradicting the principle of ayanÄá¹Åa based on SS 3.9: âIn one age (yuga) the circle of stars lags behind 600 revolutions towards the east.â?
Glad to have the blessing of your association in this discussion,
Vraja Kishor das
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 30.10.2012 @ 01:23
Honestly, letâs compare the statements up for election as the definition of ârÄÅiââ¦
SS 14.7-10 says they are tropical:
âIt is well-known that the circle of signs is split by two diameters. One is the line from equinox to equinox. The other is the line from solstice to solstice. Between each solstice and equinox are two other markers. Each solstice /equinox and the two following markers represent the three strides of Vishnu.
âThe Sun has entered Capricorn when it begins moving north for six months. It has entered Cancer when it begins moving south for six months. Seasons last for two signs each, beginning from Capricorn with the frozen season. The twelve signs named Aries, etc. are the months which altogether comprise the year.â
SB 5.21.3-5 (mirroring Viá¹£á¹u, Matsya and perhaps other Puranas) says they are tropical:
âOuter space is measured by relation of heaven and earth. The Sun is the king of all the planets, in the center of everything, keeping everything together. It moves to the north, crosses the equator, and moves to the south. When it goes north of the equator days get longer. When it crosses the equator days and nights are equal. When it goes south of the equator days get shorter. On this basis the Sun moves through the twelve divisions called Capricorn and so forth.
âThe Sun is at Aries and Libra when the days and nights are equal. Passing through Taurus, etc. the days become longer and then decrease until again equal with the night. Passing through Scorpio, etc. the night becomes longer and then decrease to again become equal with the days.â
I think these are very explicit and straightforward definitions of what the rÄÅi are. You want to dismiss these are being secondary to SS 1.28:
â60 seconds (vikÄla) make a minute. 60 minutes (kÄla) make a degree. 30 degrees (bhaga) make a sign. 12 signs (rÄÅi) complete the circle/orbit (bhagaá¹a).â
This is obviously a lot less explicit and complete a definition than the previous two statements. But even if we accept this as another definition of rÄÅi, I find nothing in it stipulating that the seconds, minutes and degrees of the rÄÅi are relative to a specific star [sidereal] and not to the equinoxes and solstices [tropical].
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 30.10.2012 @ 01:22
Dear Antardwip Prabhu,
Your devotion in responding, and the clarity and honesty with which you did so, has moved me to respond. Thank you very much for your clear statements, I deeply appreciate your effort.
I enjoy discussing this topic with you. Clearly your heart and mind are pure. It is a pleasure to be in your association.
Some notes, please respond to them if needed:
You rest your argument on Sanskrit declinations, saying that SB 5.21.3-5 cannot be a âdefinitionâ of the rÄÅi because the declination used there is locative, but that SS 1.28 is a âdefinitionâ of the rasis because the declination used there is nominative.
First, is there a grammatical rule or principle that nominative case must be used in a definition and locative case cannot? If so, what if we are defining a location â how shall we word the definition? The rashiâs are locations through which the planets move. Naturally when being defined the locative case must be used.
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 30.10.2012 @ 01:20
Your previous post has completely ignored that Srimad Bhagavatam and Surya Siddhanta (not Vic DiCara / Vraja Kishor) define the zodiac tropically.
All things must be understood in context. We have clear, undeniable definitions from absolutely essential shastra stating that the zodiac is tropical. Other statements must be understood within that context. The statement of Varahamihira was a true statement at the time it was made. To insist that it is a true statement today requires that you devalue the definitions of the zodiac in Srimad Bhagavatam and Surya Siddhanta. I therefore don’t accept that opinion.
Yes, I talk about “my opinion”, “my understanding”, and “my belief” because thanks to the hard work of the Vaishnavas I have come to admit that I can always be wrong, and that everyone has their own opinion. Even Krishna acknowledges this and speaks in this manner.
I should not engage in controversy and argument with anyone, especially not great souls such as yourselves. Therefore I purify myself with the dust left behind from your exalted footsteps. I aspire that it is in the humble spirit of service that I do not wish to allow this point to go undefended. However I must now acknowledge that I have said everything I have to say on the subject - between my original article (http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10661) and the comments here. I will now beg your permission to allow my departure from this conversation.
If anyone wishes to know my opinion on any new facet of this discussion, please contact me personally. It is easy to find me on the internet.
It has been an honor to discuss the subject with devotees of Sri Hari. I hope that after all, in some way you will be pleased with me and give your blessings to me for the cultivation of Sri Krishna prema.
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare
Hare Rama, Hare Rama,
Rama Rama, Hare Hare.
Vanca kalpa tarubhyas ca
Krpa sindhubya eva ca
Vaishnavebhyo namo namah
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 26.10.2012 @ 00:45
Dear Antardwipa Prabhu,
Thank you for participating directly! It is kind of you.
No, in my opinion you have certainly not demonstrated a sidereal definition of the 12 signs in Vedic literature. You have, however, demonstrated the use of an application of 12 rashi segments in circular geometry applied to the sidereal ecliptic.
What I mean: Shastra defines the rashis as segments of the Sun’s travel from solstice to equinox. That is what the rashis inherently are. The same system of mathematics dividing the 360 degrees of a circle into 30 degree segments, and dividing each degree into 60 minutes and each minute into 60 seconds, which derives from the 12 segments of the Sun’s travel from equinox to solstice, etc., is used to calculate / describe sidereal positions. That is not what the rashi are, it is just one application of their principle.
That is my understanding. How do you feel about it?
Vraja Kishor das
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 24.10.2012 @ 10:17
Why should we assume anything? We know from Atharva and Rg that the Vedics had 27 ecliptic constellations, into which Vega (Abhijit) was also often included.
This very simply and obviously illustrates my point that the sidereal chakra has 27 divisions [not 13, or 14, and certainly not 12].
Vraja Kishor das
PS. Regarding the quote from Brhat Jataka, you are repeating that from the article itself and I have already stated my opinion of your use of that quote.
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 23.10.2012 @ 00:33
Your article was well written and researched. Thank you for the excellent effort. In it you have clearly demonstrated that 30 degree units called rashis can also be used to make sidereal measurements. However you failed to counter-argue the fact that rashis by definition are inherently tropical, as presented in my argument (http://vicdicara.com/12-signs-of-the-zodiac-1.php).
If this discussion of the zodiac helps us remember Krishna it is useful. Since you are both, Syamasundar and Antardwipa, dear servant of the servant of Krishna, my hope is that the dust of your feet will always be falling towards my lowered head. Please forgive the academic nature of discussion in which this person speaks up with an equal voice in a spirit of healthy debate.
Vraja Kishor das
Comment Posted By Vraja Kishor On 22.10.2012 @ 03:25