Talk:Indian astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Astronomy And Cosmology

Please do not mess "Astronomy" and "Cosmology" again. They are entirely different things. deeptrivia (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagoreans And India

The school of Pythagoras definitely had the idea of the Earth not being the centre. Some of its rules suggest some sort of link with Hinduism: "They lived at the school, owned no personal possessions and were required to assume a vegetarian diet." Also their theory of the transmigration of souls, another common point and with no other cases I know about existing at the time.--GwydionM 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Other ideas of Pythagoras may have similarities with Indian thought, but as far as Geocentricism is concerned, Vedic-Puranic Indian view was neither Geocentric nor Heliocentric, it was Merucentric. According to Surya Siddhanta, Meru was situated at equator in Zamboodwip where Zamboonadi flowed ( Zamboonadi > Zamboozi > Zambezi ; Zamboodwip was related to Zambia, Mu-zambique, Zimbabwe, *Zombo > *Gongo > Congo,etc. At equator, Meru town still lies at Mt Kenya, the highest mountain in Africa on equator. There are many other sanskrit place and tribe names in central Africa, which Indo-Europeanists ignore. Since Meru was at or near Earth's surface, this model may be loosely called Geocentric. Meru was believed to be centre of all universes. -Vinay Jha 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very well known in the vedas that they considered Kailash as meru and not Zamboodwip or any such stuff, for example http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/tibet/mt_kailash.html, "How long have people been coming to this sacred mountain? The answers are lost in antiquity, before the dawn of Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism. The cosmologies and origin myths of each of these religions speak of Kailash as the mythical Mt. Meru, the Axis Mundi, the center and birth place of the entire world. " its NOT zamboodwip - nothing to do with africa Mukherjee

This anonymous user from USA without an account in Wiki should have read this article before reacting. Only the later portions of Epic-Puranic texts refer to Kailash as Meru, For instance in Mahabharata. But verses related directly to the main story of Mahabharata refer to Meru as abode of Kuber, not of Shiva. Do not impose later traditions upon antiquity, please. -Vinay Jha 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPEED OF LIGHT

Regarding the speed of light, the claim arouses scepticism because there is no obvious way they could have known. Unless they developed telescopes and used something like Ole Rømer's method based on the moons of Jupiter.--GwydionM 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sayana (14th century AD), the greatest Sanskrit commentaor of Rg Veda, quoted a SHRUTI in Suryasukta of the Rg Veda ( Mandala 1, Sukta 50) which stated that Sun travels 2202 yojanas in half a nimisha. According to reckoning of Amarkosha (written by Amar Singh,a colleague of Kalidas in Gupta period), it amounts to 297270 yojanas per second. According to Indian Astronomy(e.g, Surya Siddhanta) motion of all heavenly bodies are equal and condtant,equal to 324000 yojanas in a sidereal lunar month. Hence 297270 yojanas per second cannot be speed of Sun, it must be the speed of light. Sayana did not mention the source of this shruti (a Vedic saying). During all historical periods, a yojana varied between 5 to 7 miles. Even in the main story of Mahabharata, Surya Siddhantic yojana (7.97274625 kilometres) is employed, and Earth's diameter amounted to 1600 yojanas in this measure. But in an interpolated verse of Mahabharata, Zamboodwipa is said to measure 18600 yojanas. A continent cannot be bigger than the Earth. Hence this interpolated section belonged to some other era when the value of yojana was nearly equal to 1 kilometre, because if we assume Africa-Eurasia to be a Zamboodwip than the distance from Cape Town to Bering is nearly 19000 kilometres. We do not know to which historical period this value of yojana and this interpolated text of Mahabharata belonged, but it must precede the Gupta period by a wide margin, and must not belong to the period of main story of Mahabharata War because of the value of yojana. We should examine this statement of Sayana more seriously. -Vinay Jha 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on Arabic and Latin translations

Thanks to User:60.49.35.220 for adding sources for the reported translation of the Aryabhatiya into Arabic and then into Latin. These do much to clear up the nature of the claim but, unfortunately, the sources cited do not support the assertion of a translation of the Aryabhatiya.

The Arabic numeral system mentions the translation of an unnamed text, tentatively identified as Brahmagupta's Brahmasphutasiddhanta (The Opening of the Universe), so it provides no support for a translation of the Aryabhatiya.
Indian Astronomy Through Ages refers to the production of astronomical tables (or zijes) by al-Khwarizmi and others based on unspecified Indian techniques (again Brahmagupta and his Brahmasphuta-siddhanta are emphasized as having been influential in the Arabic-speaking world). It's been a while since I've looked at al-Khwarizmi's zij, but it provides techniques for astronomical calculations without the theory.

In sum, neither of these sources provide any evidence for a translation of the text of the Aryabhatiya into Arabic or Latin. They do provide evidence for the transmission of Indian computational techniques (but not cosmological ideas) to Arabic and Latin speakers. --SteveMcCluskey 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I had read about 'Jije Al Arzbahar' being mentioned as the Arabic translation of Aryabhatiya in a lot of books during my student life. Unfortunately, at present I can quote only two instances : Ramnivas Rai wrote a Hindi commentary on Aryabhatiya published by Indian National Science Academy, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, Delhi, India, in which he qouted David Pingree that Aryabhatiya was translated into Arabic around 800 AD under the title 'Jije Al Arzbahar'. You may search for it in following two books by Pingree :(1)Census of the Exact sciences in Sanskrit. Four volumes. Amer. Phil. Soc. Philadelphia, 1970-1981. (2) Jyotihsastra, Astral and Mathematical Literature, Otto Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, 1981.

Gunakar Mule wrote in 'Itihaas'(a journal of Indian Historical Research Council, vol-3,1994) that "Jija Al Arzbahar was an Arabic translation of Aryabhatiya which is not extant now". Perhaps 'Jija Al Arzbahar' is lost now, I am not sure. Please search for its earliest references. -Vinay Jha 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs discussion of Indian epicyclic theory

One would come away from this article completely unaware of the dual-epicycle geocentric planetary theories used by the Indians, and the innovative methods by which these models were preserved in oral tradition. The further transmission of these dual-epicycle models as the method of the Sind-Hind are also ignored.

These important, and well documented, elements of Indian astronomy should be discussed rather than have dubious claims attributing undocumented aspects to Indian astronomy. --SteveMcCluskey 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I had started editing the article 'Surya Siddhant' with following aim stated at the start :

"This article aims at providing a thorough (but not verse by verse) exposition of most important topics of and problems related to Surya Siddhanta and its comparison with ancient and modern astronomy, together with its use in astrology. Concrete proofs are provided in this article concerning many cardinal problems in the field of ancient astronomy." Unfortunately, I also included a section "Deduction of Modern Astronomical Constants from Surya Siddhanta" ,(which I was planning to shift elsewhere) which was unpalatable to some users. Not only this section, but each and every word contributed by me was deleted, before I could explain my points, which you can see from the history tab. The debate is over, but now I am in no mood to publish (even outside Wiki) the exact Indian method of converting mean planet into true one and other secret things not known to Burgess &c. I am asked of taking approval from peers . I will be grateful to you if you can find such a peer who knows these practical methods of ancient Indian astronomy because I will be able to explain things only to such a person. Crude equations are easy (but even they are little known), but the exact ancient method is very intricate, not suitable for Wiki or anything else.

Today I was surprised to find the words 'oral tradition' of planetary theories used by the Indians in your talk. How you came to suspect it ? Even 'stalwarts' on Indian astronomy could not suspect it. This oral tradition can be easily proven to be ancient and genuine on the basis of ancient texts and tables from which traditional almanacs are still being made, but I was prevented from discussing it in Wiki. I was advised to contact Physics Department of Cornell University for approval of my views about Surya Siddhanta ! Read the talk page of 'Surya Siddhant' , and see the article(by anonymous user,in history). I am told that Wiki does not need truth, it needs only 'notable' opinions. Earlier,I believed that opinions do not count in mathematics. -Vinay Jha VJha 10:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian heliocentrism evidence? Seek Merucentricism.

I have recently looked for sources supporting and criticizing a number of myths appearing in discussions concerning the History of astronomy. If you know of any sources related to these myths, please add them to the discussion at Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. --SteveMcCluskey 19:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why no one is interestested in studying Indian Merucentricism, which was the bedrock of Indian astronomy ? -Vinay Jha 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard this claim about Indian astronomy. If you can find a reliable source to support it, feel free to edit the article with appropriate citations. --SteveMcCluskey 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Rig Veda

I have seen this quotation given several times on different websites, but does anyone know of the reference to the actual text in the Rig Veda? So far there is nothing I have found to confirm that it even exists?

"Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaha, Suryaha, Suryaha."

Translation: "Every direction, only Suns, Suns, Suns." - Purportedly refering to the stars? Any other variations on the translation, or any fixed references? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The term 'Dishanaam' does not occur in the Rg Veda, I have searched thoroughly ; search elsewhere in the Vedic literature. -Vinay Jha 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merucentric Universes

The importance of Meru was highlighted by every ancient Indian (Hindu, Buddhist and Jain) text which cared to mention astronomy, as well as by almpot every Purana and epic. Some ancient texts even devoted entire chapters to it. But modern commentators do not even mention it, because most of ancient refences are literary and fabulous. But Meru can be easily located where ancient texts mention it. The exact mathematics of Merucentric astronomy has been lost to a great extent, but some of it has been reconstructed and published (partially) in Hindi. But I fail to find its reference in secondary Western sources; I hope other editors will help me in sourcing. As SteveMcCluskey noted ,we write history from our modern point of view. Thus, we miss the point of view of ancients, esp when those view are wrong or incomprehensible to us. -Vinay Jha 13:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I reverted a number of recent edits and accidently hit the minor button when clicking 'save page'. I thought I would thus bring it to attention of user editors here. I have had no input into this article, but the edits did not look like improvements from what I could see, as certain information was removed from the text. Gouranga(UK) 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As these have just now been reverted I would request someone more knowledgeable on this subject to please take a look. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Discuss before you revert genuine contributions of others : I have abstained from edit wars, and if you will try to engage me into an edit war I will better like to quit than to fight with you. Reverting everything is the last step one ought to take a recourse to, and I request you to discuss whatever points you have to discuss either on the talk page (or though email). Seven governmental and non-governmental almanacs are being published from my softwares based on modern scientific as well as traditional methods (for which I charge nothing) . My research paper 'A New Approach to Rain Forecasting' has been accepted by Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (of Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore) at an international monsoon conference held last month. I am an expert of the actual method of computation which ancient masters of India actually used : you will not recognise the meaning of this statement unless you waste years over this topic. This article (Indian Astronomy)is grossly misleading. Besides, structure and placing of sections is also haphazard. I generally do not touch the statements of other editors, but in this article, I found a few factual errors which I had to change, and it is just a beginning. I will welcome a discussion with anyone who is interested in improving this article. But wholesale reverting without discussion is not a good thing. Can you find a person who can deduce the true position of planets according to Aryabhatiya or Surya-Siddhānta or SiddhāŚnta-Śiromani ? Many people think that these are trivials. But try to find an expert. You are reverting the words of such a person without trying to understand and discuss the topic. I do not rely upon secondary sources only, although secondary sources are a must for Wiki. I touch a topic only when I have a first hand knowledge (mastery) of it, although I am not omniscient. I have plenty of primary and secondary sources for whatever I say.-Vinay Jha 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements

A lot of important statements in this article are unsourced. I request all editors to help in proper sourcing of this article. Some of my own sentences are unsourced, because each and every sentence cannot and should not be sourced. I request editors to point out all such statements which actually need proper sourcing. Please do not revert such statements at once; give some time for searching the sources after issuing warnings. -Vinay Jha 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meru in Africa

I had read in some anthropology textbook two decades ago that central Africa has many Sanskrit names for places and tribes (e.g, Meru, Kinyangiri in Tanzania, Meru in Kenya and Ethiopia, Meru in pre-Christian Sudan which was the seat of a great empire; compare Mombāsā and Mumbā snake with Mumbādevi > Mumbai or Bombay, etc). Unfortunately, I cannot find that reference now, although I have added one reference to Negritian which finds African and Indian elements in it, but this reference is too short. If possible, please help me in finding such references. I hope neutral editors will accept that the original humans were blacks and originated somewhere around Meru (Mt Kenya) nearly 4 million years ago, which is what fossil records suggest. Central-East African languages do not have recorded histories and it is not possible to reconstruct their pre-Christian linguistic pre-history. -Vinay Jha 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so , see: http://www.sacredsites.com/asia/tibet/mt_kailash.html its kailash and not mt kenya, I think the lingustic relation may be a coincidence. and beside, jambudwip is an island in the sunderbans 75.22.81.240 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mukherjee

Read this article before reacting. Only the later portions of Epic-Puranic texts refer to Kailash as Meru, for instance in Mahabharata. But verses related directly to the main story of Mahabharata refer to Meru as abode of Kuber, not of Shiva. Do not impose later traditions upon antiquity, please. Martin Gray's website is not a reliable reference for Wikipedia. -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jyotisha and Astronomy

RandomCritic has inserted a tag proposing a merger of this article (Indian astronomy) with Jyotisha. Jyotisha includes astronomy, but it also includes much more. Hence a merger will result in a giant and unmanageable article. A merger will cause confusion. --Vinay Jha 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss Before Reverting

User Bharatveer "reverted to saner version". This article is not about modern scientific astronomy, but about India's traditional astronomy. Hence, it is wrong to impose modern viewpoint upon ancient texts and delete them from history if they do not conform to modern standards. A well sourced section 'Merucentric Astronomy' was added by me at the insistence of SteveMcCluskey, but Bharatveer did not like this topic. Moreover, Vārāh Mihir and Brahmagupta were wrongly described as followers of Āryabhata (author of Āryabhatiya) which I corrected with reference to reliable sources. Bharatveer should not replace a sourced and correct version with an unsourced and false one. If he has sources, he should discuss instead of reverting and abusing. Moreover, his comment "reverted to saner version" does not specify whether the implied epithet 'insane' was intended at me or at the ancient and modern sources whom I used. This article is lopsided and many important aspects of ancient and mediaeval Indian astronomy are not even mentioned which I plan to add. It is wrong to confine Indian astronomy to Āryabhata alone and delete everyone else. --Vinay Jha 11:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bharatveer probably reverted because your additions are, as usual, completely loopy and uncencyclopedic. Hell, if even Bharatveer (talk · contribs) thinks so, this means that you'll probably receive the Ig-Noble Prize soon. dab (𒁳) 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jha , I think your edits are too un-encyclopedic to be included here .

User:bAd, This quotation is for you - "No change of circumstances can repair a defect of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson - Bharatveer 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Bharatveer 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to a message on my talk page - for kind information of the editors concerned. --Bhadani (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting the section 'Merucentric Astronomy' because some editors not only disliked it, but used insulting remarks for me (above,esp DAB). This is their style of discussion. These editirs are deleting, without discussion, some important details of history of astronomy. It will not harm me. And their use of foul language is also not going to harm me . -Vinay Jha 14:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinay Jha (talk • contribs).

Since Vinay Jha emailed me and posted on my talk page, I have posted my response on his talk page. Abecedare 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User Abecedare quoted by reference to Burgess and said that Meru on equator is my WP:OR, I am here citing Burgess again :(Surya Siddhanta: Bhoogoladhyaya-34) : "a mountain of gold, is Meru, (The primary source also uses Giri which means mountain). Burgess translated "Bhoogolamadhya " as "middle of the earth-globe". Burgess could not mean that a mountain could lie in the core of the earth. Hence, middle of earth here means equator. Besides, in Indian languages, equator is even today translated as Bhoomadhya-rekhā which is same as Bhoogolamadhya-rekhā . If Burgess translated Bhoogolamadhya as 'middle of the earth globe', it was merely because he was not interested in fabulous things (a mountain of gold) and passed to next verse just by giving an approximate literal translation. I am, however, not going to add it in the article because editors are against this topic, and are using foul language as well. -Vinay Jha-Vinay Jha 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick read of the introductory paragraphs indicates completely unreferenced, uncited, original research. PLEASE fix. I know the Vinay Jha has a lot of thoughts on this topic, and if any sources could be used that are in books, magazines, journals, newspapers, television programs, anything that is not original research it would be fantastic. Otherwise, please remove it and cite appropriate sources for an article that clearly summarizes historical indian astronomy. --Rocksanddirt 01:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha's Reply : Rocksanddirt posted a message to my talk page expressing his shoch over my "nearly completely void of references, (which) qualifies as original research". The section "Merucentric Astronomy" had 17 citations, all from modern secondary sources, mostly Western, and wherever primary sources have been cited they have been taken from the secondary sources, and if primary sources are also counted then the number of sources will almost double to 33 in just one section. I wonder why Rocksanddirt calls my contribution unsourced. If he refers to the lead of the article, it was totally unsourced even before I touched it. Generally, leads do not contain sources. Rocksanddirt is resting his comment upon the views of DAB over my first ever contribution to Wiki (Surya Siddhanrta) when I did not know Wiki's policies well. Rocksanddirt should have reviewed this article before passing any comments.

Second charge is of WP:OR. Here too, Rocksanddirt is just repeating Abecedare and disbelieving my clarification, supposing me to be a false person. Abecedare said that Burgess meant Meru lied at the core of earth, because I had provided only partial citation to him. In my clarification above, I have provided citation from Burgess (as well as from primary source) which shows Meru was stated to be a mountain (and a mountain must lie at the surface of earth and not not in its core). Secondly, I had provided references which stated Mt Meru lied in Jamboo-dvīpa. Again, a dvīpa (island or continental island)cannot lie in earth's core. Meru lied at bhoogolamadhya, which may mean equator as well as earth's centre at the core, but when other proofs are also considered, it is clear that Mt Meru lied at the surface of earth and at the middle of earth too, hence on the equator. There are many places on earth which are named Meru, but there is only one place on equator which bears this name, which even Abecadare has accepted. If all proofs point to this conclusion, how it can be my POV or WP:OR ?

One editor had contended that Mt Meru was Pamīr. I said Pamīr was not the Mt Meru of Surya Siddhanta because Pamīr was far away from earh's middle (from core or equator both).

DAB had once expressed surprise (elsewhere) over the view that Mt Meru was believed to be North Pole. I have sourced account of this shift in opinion, but I possess only primary sources and no commentator discussed it, hence I did not add this topic in my contribution (although primary source may be cited if there are no secondary sources; moreover the primary source I am referring to has been translated into dozens of Indian and Western languages).

Braratveer reverted all my contributions without reading the whole, which indicates I am being viewed as a vandal. This article contained false and unsourced statement about Varah Mihir and Brahmagupta being followers of Aryabhatiya. I corrected it. Unfortunately, none of the editors above have thanked me for rectification of this error, and three editors have used insulting remarks about me, starting with DAB.

It is possible to work with those who have resolved to use foul language, as I have hitherto done, but it is not possible to contribute well sourced accounts and then get reverted and labelled "unsourced", "ignoble", "not sane", "defect of character", "WP:OR", etc. Those who have not read original books related to these topics have declared an war upon me just because I committed the sin of reading original books . I am in no mood to contribute now. I fail to understand why some editors use foul language without any provocation ! Thanks to all ! (I really thank User Jagged 85 for his recent efforts in the lead section). -Vinay Jha 07:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea on what Vinay is basing the following comments on:

"Abecedare said that Burgess meant Meru lied at the core of earth"
"there is only one place on equator which bears this name, which even Abecadare has accepted."

For anyone interested here are the only comments I have ever made regarding this article, which contained a quote from content Vinay added to it. I hope no further thoughts will be misattributed to me. Abecedare 07:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare is right, I quoted from what he is reffering to.-Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The introduction

Here is the introduction as of now....with a few italic comments and questions to help tighten it up and cite the references as availible.

Indian astronomy refers to the study of astronomy in the Indian subcontinent, which began during the Vedic period, followed by remnants of 18 or 19 traditional siddhantas or astronomical theories which are mentioned in various ancient texts.^{[citation needed]} this sentence starts with refering to a time period and ends by talking about texts Only a few of these ancient siddhāntas can be adequately reconstructed and some of them might have been vitiated (? edited? recreated?) by later interpolators.^{[citation needed]} The first named authors writing treatises on astronomy emerge from the 5th century BCE? AD?, the date when the classical period of Indian astronomy can be said to begin.said by whom? this is the sort of statement that needs a reference ^{[citation needed]} Besides the theories of Aryabhata in the Aryabhatiya and the lost Arya-siddhānta, we find the Panch-Siddhāntika of Varahamihira which mentions some siddhāntas in detail. all these non-english words need some definition or clarification From this time on, we find a predominance of geocentric models, and possibly heliocentric models, in Indian astronomy, in contrast to the Merucentric astronomy of Puranic, Jaina and Buddhist traditions whose actual mathematics has been largely lost and only fabulous accounts remain.^{[citation needed]}

The astronomy and the astrology of ancient India (Jyotisha) is based upon sidereal calculations, although a tropical system was also used in a few cases.^{[citation needed]} another thing that needs a reference For example, Uttarayana (Uttarāyana उत्तरायण) was determined according to a tropical system in the Mahabharata, or by Lagadha in the Vedanga Jyotisha. But even then, sidereal astronomy was the mainstay. Now, even Uttarāyana is determined according to the sidereal system of Hindus. The sidereal astronomy is based upon the stars and the sidereal period is the time that it takes the object to make one full orbit around the Sun, relative to the stars. This is considered to be an object's true orbital period. the last two sentences also need references

yes, from Rocksanddirt sorry.

The above talk is from Rocksanddirt, he forgot to sign. Rocksanddirt's comments on introduction are welcome. But lead does not need citations, the defect with this article is that topics mentioned in the lead have not been properly dealt with in the subsequent sections, where citations ought to be given. This article is incomplete. But the present discussion was on well sourced section 'Merucentric Astronomy', which has been deleted without discussion and with abuses. Vinay Jha--Vinay Jha 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. The introduction or lead does need references. see the guidelines for Featured Articles. --Rocksanddirt 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science v. History of Science

This article is really about the history of science, particularly astronomy in india during antiquity. It is not a study of current indian astronomy or astrology, or of indian astronomers working today. As such, some of the requests for merging to other articles or for different sorts of information in this one are misguided. I think if all the editors focus on the history aspects of it, there will be increased harmony as to how to make it a good article (that's my opionion and WP:OR). --Rocksanddirt 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My well sourced section Merucentric astronomy was deleted together with citations, and now Rocksanddirt has tagged the only reference to Meru. I had provided dozens of sources which were removed, and now sourtces are being demanded. Why editors hate any reference to Meru, which all ancient Indian astronomers, without a single exception, described prominently ? We have no right to change history. -VJha 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

the rules have been explained to you many times. this was your version. You plastered the article with a huge unwikified OR discussion of a marginal topic. I would support restitution of a part of your text in an appropriate place. striking the hilarious piece on "Meru=Meroe", we are left with the following,

all classical astronomers continue to mention Mt Meru in their treatises, from Aryabhata to Bhaskara-II. Some make a passing reference, such as in Aryabhatiya ()^[1] Golapāda-16), while others devoted entire chapters to Meru and related geography of Jamboodvipa which was already a mythological fable even in those days. Varaha Mihira devoted a chapter to 'On the Construction of the Universe'^[2] in which it is equated with Sumeru at North Pole in verse-2 but called Meru in verse-5. In verse 18, Varaha Mihira explicitly says "The sun when at the equinoctial point revolves round so much (3200 yojanas) of the earth from Meru as centre"^[3] and Thibaut comments "The sun when moving in the celestial equator revolves round the terrestrial equator, of which Meru is the pole"^[4]. There are many more references to Meru in Pañchsiddhāntikā in which Varaha Mihira uses both terms Sumeru and Meru for the same entity. in the verse-18 of chapter-18, Varaha Mihira says "The sun ...revolves round...the earth from Meru as centre" Burgess renders the Surya Siddhāntic version of Meru as follows : "Meru, passing through the middle of the earth-globe, and protruding on either side".^[5].

which could well be inserted into the Mount Meru article. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indika : Megasthenes did not belong to ca. 400 AD

At 10:51 UTC on 25 January 2007, a casual user Gv365 added following statement to the section Mahabharata which I removed today :

This period would stand or fall according to who the Sandracouttus described by the Greek Megasthenes really is. Scholars normally assume that he is Chandragupta Maurya. However, it is a debatable issue by itself, since the Greek shows no knowledge of Kautilya. If it is Chandragupta Gupta, then the entire history of the dynasties of India would get pushed back by at least 600 to 1200 years.

This user had no knowledge of Arrian, Strabo, Diodorus, Pliny the Elder, etc, who preceded Chandragupta Gupta by 3-5 centuries and quoted Megasthenes extensively. -VJha 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this user is parroting the crank theory given life by KD Sethna. The "issue", conjured out of thin air, is not the date of Megasthenes, but which Chandragupta he visited. Sethna's basic contention here was that the Gupta period had to be dated to the 4th-3rd BCE, pushing Ashoka, the Mauryas and the Buddha back well into the 2nd millenium BCE. Necessarily, by questioning the Sandrocottos == Chandragupta Maurya identification, he also had to cast doubt on other evidence, such as the independent synchronisms based on the Ashokan inscriptions (e.g. names of Near East rulers). There was just too much special pleading, so it isn't even worth discussing. rudra 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

KD Sethna or Gv365 may derive temporary chauvinistic satisfaction by pushing dates this side or that side, but in the long run such persons are discredited. -VJha 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Philosophical discussions" and crank sources

the section "Philosophical discussions" belongs deleted. It pretends to discuss heliocentrism and gravitation, but is really a florilegium of dodgy attempts (Blavatsky, Teresi, Kak) to distill "knowledge of Newton's gravitation" out of various cherry-picked Brahmana verses. The actual discussion of heliocentrism surrounds Aryabhata, and is given in the Aryabhatan model section. I am not sure about "Joseph (2000)". Bhaskara II (1114–1185) expanded on early models in his astronomical treatise Siddhanta-Shiromani, where he mentioned the law of gravity, discovered that the planets don't orbit at a uniform velocity, and calculated many astronomical constants based on this model, such as the solar and lunar eclipses, and the velocities and instantaneous motions of the planets. is an extraordinary claim. By "law of gravity", the inverse-square law is implied. This is an extremely tall claim, and needs better attribution than "Joseph (2000)". dab (𒁳) 12:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is in serious need of deKakification and deFrawleyfication. rudra 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DAB has pointed towards some serious shortcomings, but there are more shortcomings. I have first hand knowledge of these sources, I intend to rectify such errors gradually. -VJha 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Vishnu Purana is too late a text to be relevant. It isn't even clear what the quote is trying to say.
Dick Teresi is some kind of "gee golly science" writer in the Graham Hancock mold. His book is on Google Books. Lightweight pap. Not clear what his sources are without actually getting the book.
The AB citation is wrong. AB 2.7 is about the blood from the animal sacrifice "belonging" to the rākṣasas. The correct reference is AB 3.44. Blavatsky actually gets the reference right, citing Haug's translation, which I suspect is the genesis of the vague "Haug(1863)" ~~footnote~~ cite-citing.

The passage has been discussed in the literature. Keith (in Rigveda Brahmanas, p.193) references "Speyer, JRAS. 1906, p.723; Vedic Index, ii.466; MS iv.6.3; KS xxvii.8; TS vi.4.10.2,3; ŚB iv.2.1.18; Caland, VOJ. xxvi. 119.". (The Vedic Index reference is to the entry on sūrya.) Keith's translation runs:

“

The (sun) never really sets or rises. In that they think of him 'He is setting', verily having reached the end of day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again in that they think of him 'He is rising in the morning', verily having reached the end of night he inverts himself; thus he makes day below, night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets, union with him and identity of form and world he attains who know thus.

”

The ŚB iv.2.1.18 reference clarifies what's going on. The sun shines only on one side. At sunset it flips (shining "away" from the world) and returns East, where in the morning it flips again. That's why it never "sets" or "rises".

The ŚB 8.7.3.10 reference is a play on words. "Worlds" here is lokān (the "three worlds" of earth, atmosphere and heaven), not planets. Kak has pulled a fast one (while quoting the original passage, no less!)
Dating Kanada is neither here nor there, as the Vaiśeṣika Sūtra is not a 6th BCE text, but from much later. At any rate, the quote is not from the sūtra but from Praśastapāda's commentary (the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha) of the 7th CE. (Kak footnotes "PP 129", but I have no idea what 129 translates to in the standard numbering.)
The bit about Al-Biruni on Brahmagupta is very confused. Is it about gravitation, or about heliocentrism, or about Aryabhata's theory that the earth rotates on its axis? At any rate, with the separate section on Aryabhata, this passage can be tossed.
gruhtvaakarshan looks like quasi South Indian (or Marathi?) orthography for gṛhtvākarṣaṇa, an equally impossible form. There may be some term combining a derivative of graha with ākarṣaṇa, but until someone comes up with the correct form, duly cited, we should toss this.

Conclusion: get rid of the entire section. rudra 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User Rudra , Please avoid comments like this "This article is in serious need of deKakification and deFrawleyfication. rudra 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC) " -Bharatveer 07:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

why? it obviously is (was). dab (𒁳) 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to highlight few points in this connection :

DAB was not sure of claims made in the name of Bhaskara-II &c and wanted a discussion. I was not sure of some sources cited in this section because these sources were not available to me. But it is wrong to delete this entire section. I am providing some primary and secondary sources about Bhāskara-II, which show he had a clear-cut knowledge of the law of gravitation. It is perhaps too much to claim that Bhāskara's notions were same as those of Newton. But it is wrong to deny Bhāskara a recognition he deserves on account of his theory of gravity. He was not the first to propound this theory because he made no such claim.
I have not checked all the sources, for instance Dick Teresi who may be a non-serious writer as Rudrasharman claims (I have not read Teresi, neither Rudrasharman has.). Teresi's sources ought to be verified before rejecting him without examining.
I have not reverted Rudrasharman. Many ideas about Heliocentricism may be true, but I am not restoring this sub-section because I have not checked all the sources.
Some sources in "gravity" sub-section still need scrutiny. Rudrasharman's suggestion "get rid of the entire section" is tantamount to throwing the baby together with the bath-tub. I had requested earlier that I have first hand knowledge of these sources and I intend to rectify such errors gradually. Rudrasharman's attempt of deKakification should not lead to de-FACT-ification.
Rudrasharman is partially right is saying "The bit about Al-Biruni on Brahmagupta is very confused". But Bhaskara's example showed that theory of gravity existed in India and Bhaskar never claimed that he discovered it. Hence this theory might have existed before Bhaskara. Brahmagupta's words are "...patanti",i.e., things will fall down if Earth left its place while revolving round the Sun, which shows that although Brahmagupta was discussing heliocentricism -vs- Geocentricism, he was aware of things falling down torards Earth/Sun, which presupposes a force of attraction, otherwise why things should fall down and not remain in sky without any support ?
(To everyone :)Please do not use terms like deKakification, ass ,urchin, etc. Personal attacks are not advisable. -VJha 06:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- rudra's "deKakification" was not a personal attack, but a call to remove crank sources, such as Kak and Frawley, from this article. This is a serious topic of the history of science, and WP:UNDUE applies for non-peer-reviewed sources. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The only item of some substance in the deleted section was the quote of Brahmagupta, but that belonged in the section on Aryabhata's model. As for the model, and what Brahmagupta et al criticised, it looks like the material in Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions is being deliberately ignored. rudra 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

excellent summary, I hadn't seen that link. It is telling that a talkpage summary (less visible to the driveby clueless masses) is classes better than the actual article. We could move the summary of the notion of Indian heliocentrism" to its own article. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the entire section because of "confusion" is completely unnecessary. If the quotes have been taken out of context by the "crank authors", then just discredit or debunk their claims in the article itself to make it clear to the readers why these claims are inaccurate. The evidence and counter-evidence here should not just be restricted to the talk page, but should always be present in the article itself. Jagged 85 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. This article is not about debunking cranks. This is an article on a serious subject with plenty of scope for legitimate material. rudra 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed. we can "debunk cranks" in articles about cranks, but not in articles that should discuss a serious topic (WP:UNDUE). Too often, Wikipedia articles get sidetracked by fringe topics. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating claims based on archaeoastronomy

I agree with the suggestion to move this material to a separate article. There is some fringe scholarly material from a century ago (Jacobi, Tilak, Whitney, Dikshit), and after that, a veritable parade of cranks. None of it is relevant to Indian astronomy as a historical subject. It will also help purge this article of its remaining kookery. rudra 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the only reason I haven't done it yet is because I couldn't think of a "npov" title yet. Vedic crank parade probably won't fly. Vedic archaeoastronomy may be too discrediting to the term "archaeoastronomy", which I understand can also cover actual historical astronomy. Still, mostly "archaeoastronomy" is fringe stuff, while actual scholarship passes as "history of astronomy". thoughts? --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The section from Bryant so assiduously cited here is titled "Astronomy and Vedic Chronology". Not bad, except that it suggests a subject more serious than warranted by the material. rudra 05:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone really went to town in this section. Bryant has been used to showcase Frawley and Kak, especially the latter. Kak is king of self-referencing. It seems he hashed and rehashed his stuff in some journal articles on and around the time he published the first edition of his "astronomical code" book, and he had cited as many of them as he can ever since. Unfortunately, no one bothered to check or challenge his nonsense early enough; with the "biblio trail" in place, it seems he was able to "contribute" to a volume in Selin's "Science across cultures" series, of apparently an encyclopedic bent. (The book is searchable at Amazon. For some chuckles, try 'naksatra' <-- note spelling!) The Current Science stuff is available on line, as is an index of the IJHS. It's pretty clear that when the smoke has cleared, he has cited himself as the Vedic authority of record on practically every deductive "conclusion". Wow. rudra 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kak can blow your mind just by his tenacious imperturbability :) I think the point is that in the 1990s, when this was all just scattered fringe literature, nobody anticipated just how much criminal energy the VoI authors would invest into orchestrating this, and academia only started to take note when the whole edifice was in place, at or around 2001. That's 6 years ago now, and things have pretty much fallen back into place. This whole thing raised its head and died within Wikipedia's lifetime... dab (𒁳) 09:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned out some of the crud (from the Rgveda, Yajurveda, Brahmanas, and Krittika constellation sub-sections).

Some of the material left is now quite banal, and needs to be replaced with better information.
There is still some residual confusion, because the texts are elliptic and people continually talk about some solstice or equinox being "in this or that nakshatra" without specifying sun or moon as referent object (Bryant's material is worth reading for this important clarification alone.) MaitriU.6.14 is a case in point. The original text is quite unhelpful with its elision of subjects and avoidance of finite verbs, and reads like a catechism (not surprising, as the section begins with athānyatrāpyuktam "and thus it has been said elsewhere"). Of the vatsaram (year) as apparently manifested by the motion of the Sun, it says: etasyāgneyam ardham ardhaṃ vāruṇam maghādyaṃ śraviṣṭhārdham agneyam krameṇotkrameṇa sārpadyaṃ śraviṣṭhārdhāntam saumyam, literally "of this of-Agni half half of-Varuna Magha-beginning Sravistha-half of-Agni seriatim-(counter)seriatim Sarpa-beginning Sravistha-half-end of-Soma." Sārpa is a variant name of Āśleṣa or Āśreṣa, the asterism to the west (i.e. "before") of Magha in the usual listing. Radhakrishnan's translation shows how much interpretation has to be put in to get anything out, but the last sentence is inscrutable anyway:

“

Of it one half (when the Sun moves northward) belongs to Agni, the (other) half (when the sun moves southward) belongs to Varuna. The course from the asterism Magha (the sickle) to half of Sravistha (the drum) belongs to Agni. In its northward course from Sarpa (the serpent) to half of Sravistha belongs to the moon.

”

[Note, in particular, that Radhakrishnan and Aiyar have taken diametrically opposite views of which way the sun is moving in the two halves! rudra 06:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)]

For good measure here is another translation, by that object of unbounded wrath in certain quarters, F. Max Müller:

“

Of the year one half (when the sun moves northward) belongs to Agni, the other to Varuṇa (when the sun moves southward). That which belongs to Agni begins with the asterism of Maghā and ends with half of the asterism of Sravishṭhā, the sun stepping down northward. That which belongs to Soma (instead of Varuṇa) begins with the asterism (of Aśleshā), sacred to the Serpents, and ends with the half of the asterism of Sravishṭhā, the sun stepping up southward.

”

And Aiyar himself, as quoted by Bryant:

“

One half of this year is Āgneya (the warm half) and one half Vāruṇa (watery or cold). When the sun moves from the beginning of Maghā to half (the segment of) Sravishṭhā in the regular order... it is Āgneya [warm]. When the sun moves from the beginning of Śārpa (Āślesha) to the end of Sravishṭhā half, in the inverse order, it is Saumya [cool].

”

Finally, Radhakrishnan says of the MaitriU, "The sixth and seventh chapters are treated as supplementary". A diplomatic way of saying that the "Vedic" status of these two chapters is dubious. Well, whaddyaknow... rudra 21:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been selective citing of the material in Bryant. On p.257, he provides Keith's counterargument to Tilak, Jacobi and Dikshit. Why wasn't this included too? Clearly the editor responsible for this Kak-fest was not contributing in good faith. rudra 04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, splitting to Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the neglected Scientific foreknowledge in Sacred Texts which might serve as a future merge target for Vimana/Swami Dayananda style "Vedic science". --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the amount of material available (the Miracle of Quran site, e.g, barely scratches the surface), Scientific foreknowledge in Sacred Texts may evolve into an umbrella article with summaries and pointers. rudra 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

What is the point of this section? It seems to be a random grabbag, possibly to increase Kak's ref-count. Etymologies of nakshatra names hardly qualify as "terminology" anyway. rudra 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pliny and Arrian (Calendars)

Sigh. This part is a minor reworking of some more baloney from Kak, who didn't know, or couldn't work out, that Gaius Plinius Secundus was Roman, not Greek. Kak's breezy speculations are on p.312 of Selin's book, the only hit for Arrian from a full text search of the book at Amazon. So, we can't tell offhand where the footnote "Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 6.59-60, Arrian, Indica, 9.9" came from. It's wrong anyway.

There is no Pliny NH 6.59-60. Bostock's translation of Pliny is available online. Book VI ends with Chapter 39. The real passage at issue is in VI.21: "From the time of Father Liber to that of Alexander the Great, one hundred and fifty-three kings of India are reckoned, extending over a period of six thousand four hundred and fifty-one years and three months."
Arrian 9.9 seems to be the ninth fragment(?) in section 9 of Indica. Arrian says: "From Dionysus to Sandracottus the Indians counted a hundred and fifty-three kings, over six thousand and forty-two years, and during this time thrice [Movements were made] for liberty . . . this for three hundred years; the other for a hundred and twenty years; the Indians say that Dionysus was fifteen generations earlier than Heracles;[...]".

The subject in both cases is not calendars, but time frames, based on (presumed) genealogical lists. That's it. The rest is all random speculation by Kak. rudra 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson(2003) and Phillimore(1912)

The blurb gives ample notice of the real contents of Thompson's book. Phillimore's book is the translation of a celebrated hoax (or romance): the Apollonius (not Appolonius) in question, even if he existed, was not an astronomer, and that he is described as a "Neo-Pythagorean" had nothing to do with either astronomy or Pythagoras. rudra (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring needed

Many refences are mentioned in NOTES, which ought to be mentioned under REFERENCES. I want to rectify this error but I am too busy nowadays. Is anyone interested in doing this job ? VJha (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.