Talk:Vedanga Jyotisha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Michael Witzel

Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies is Michael Witzel in-house journal, and it is not peer reviewed. I don't think it is proper to quote this journal to for anything authoritative.MarcAurel 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Witzel is himself considered to be a peer by dint of being in Harvard, and therefore his views must be heard, although he has a habit of taking extreme views, ignoring other mainstream views, and the manner in which he presents his views generally lead to heated controversies . A scholar should present all important views, and not a lopsided view. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 09:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DATING VEDANGA JYOTISHA

Vedanga Jyotisha mentions that bright half of the month of Mägha started when Sun and Moon entered into Dhanishtha (sidereal 293°:20') and winter solstice was also observed(i.e.,tropical Sun was at 270°). It must be remembered that modern theory of precession was not used for deducing tropical sun from sidereal sun in India, and as in ancient Near East and Greece, Indians believed that the maximum possible value of trepidation (ayanamsha) was ±27° only (±8° in Greece and Alexandria).According to modern astronomy, ayanamsha was zero in AD 285 (in AD 499, according to Surya Siddhanta or Aryabhatiya). 1800 years before that,ayanamsha was -27°(1301 BCE as per Surya Siddhanta or Aryabhatiya) . Before that it gradually increased, to get back to zero after next 1800 years in past(3101 BCE as per Surya Siddhanta or Aryabhatiya). Before that, it was positive, +27° in 4901 BCE as per Surya Siddhanta or Aryabhatiya), zero in 6701 BCE,and so on,according to traditional Indian reckoning. Alternatively, one may use modern astronomy, in which ayanamsha changes according to precession and not according to trepidation(oscillation of the equinox,now discredited in physical astronomy).I request readers to find out the time when this concurrence was possible. On this basis, accurate dating of not only original Vedanga Jyotisha can be fixed, but it may also help in determining the date of related Vedas as well. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To DAB : You deleted my contribution to this article, without telling me on talk page what was wrong in my version. Your account of dating of Vedanga Jyotisha is not incorrect, and it is based upon a recent view of M. Wiztel, which is not his discovery but an old view. All the major indologists from Colebrooke onwards opined that the extant version, on account of its unaccented language, belongs to a last centuries BCE, but the astronomical phenomena mentioned in it belonged to circa 1400 BCE according to all notable experts. Wiztel did not refute this view, but simply ignored this side of the story, and highlighted the other. I had given both the views in a neutral way, which is a Wiki norm, and also pointed to some unresolved problem mentioned in the text. You could have asked me for references if you doubted my additions.But you take extreme steps without talking. - Vinay Jha.VinJha 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)