Refutation of Nilesh Oak's dating of Surya Siddhanta

[Raja Roy]

Respected members,

I am pleased to share my next blog refuting Nilesh Oak's dating of Surya Siddhanta.

https://rajarammohanroy.medium.com/s%C5%ABrya-siddh%C4%81nta-was-not-written-over-14-000-years-ago-1591a02a293e?source=friends_link&sk=04ba8abe742fda1269cec9e685ca5be5

Best regards,

Raja

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr Roy,

I read your article with interest.  In these days of social media, anything goes out

as research.  I would suggest all researchers to develop their own software and

commit themselves to the theory of almanac in order that they understand and

appreciate their own calculations.  Your observations make sense, but I am in

principle not in favor of drawing historical conclusions through observational

astronomy.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5te2L7wgrkHM0T3XxvgaOPE9ONe3gueAZuh8qpRc8QySA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raja Roy]

Dear Prof. Mishra,

I appreciate your comments. I think astronomy can provide useful information that should be used in conjunction with other sources of information. The problem is that some researchers are coming up with fantastic high chronology due to misinterpretation of texts and misuse of astronomy software. Since mainstream scientists won't bother refuting these absurd claims because they are so absurd that they don't deserve their attention, too many very educated people are being fooled by these claims. I am trying to refute these claims in the hope that better sense will prevail.

Best regards,

Raja

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjVX8kU%2BP1ca4NLBv2YP_uOuMO3iLOMBJKAGtXhNnwz0Aw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

May I remind the following announcement from Indic Academy :

https://www.indicacademy.org/research-project-to-determine-the-date-of-the-mahabharata-by-abhijit-chavda/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5tdXC2s7PxL84Bf7U3X1HAQCOYakpjqPMCq2rStYUBxhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[rupa bhaty]

Dear Mr. Roy,

You said, “I will begin by discussing why Sūrya Siddhānta cannot be older than 2,000 BCE.”, are you sure there were no multiple updates in SUrya Siddhanta itself?

You said, “1. Sūrya Siddhānta cannot be older than Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa”, what has Sūrya Siddhānta to do with Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa? How do you define that Vedāṅga is older and Sūrya Siddhānta is younger? That was a completely baseless argument.

You said, “Even in ~320 BCE Greek navigator Pytheas knew that a star more than 7° away from North Celestial Pole could not be called a Pole star, but Oak and Bhaty have made Agastya (Canopus) a South Pole star in 12,000 BCE that was 12°…” Do you know the story of why Abhjit was named so or Agastya was named so, if you had then you wouldn't have said this. 

You said “If one has read Indian astronomy texts carefully, it would have been obvious that Indian astronomers were describing NCP and SCP which are theoretical points and not North Pole Star and South Pole star, which are actual stars. ”, Do you proclaim that, in Sanskrit, tārā represents the pole points and has nothing to do with the stars?

You said, “The obliquity of earth’s axis can be calculated from the following equation [16]:”, “ε = 23° 26′ 21.448″ − 4680.93″ t − 1.55″ t**2 + 1999.25″ t**3 − 51.38″ t**4 − 249.67″ t**5 − 39.05″ t**6 + 7.12″ t**7 + 27.87″ t**8 + 5.79″ t**9 + 2.45″ t**10”, “where ε is obliquity and t is multiples of 10,000 Julian years from J2000.0 (year 2000 CE). Based on this equation, the obliquity was 23.62° in 580 CE, 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE. Though the formula is valid for 10,000 years from present [17] i.e. 8,000 BCE, we will assume it can be extended to 12,000 BCE.”, “So we have evidence that the obliquity was 24° according to Sūrya Siddhānta and 24.01° in 2,900 BCE and 24.05° in 12,000 BCE according to modern estimates. ” Do you want to say or are you proclaiming that the modern calculation methods are applicable to Sūrya Siddhānta's obliquity? 

You said, “Furthermore, Śrīvāstava also says that Sūrya Siddhānta is wrong in claiming that sun was near in summer [21]”-This is the brilliant observation made by Śhri Śrīvāstava here in his commentary on Sūrya Siddhānta saying "its wrong in claiming that sun was near in summer" which actually is not happening in our times, and not even in 500 CE, thus it suo moto explains that the text is much much older than today's time or even from 500 CE and its all about apsidal precession. You could not even deduce evidence where it was happening during Sūrya Siddhānta's time. So, kindly do not waste our precious time.

You said, “Does Sūrya Siddhānta say what was the speed of sun in summer and by how much it differed in winter?” - Onus is on to you to produce evidence against what you are claiming. Please read the Sūrya Siddhānta text and find it for yourself for how many types of speed are mentioned. We have given one type, Manda, that too in - winters. 

1. It is a pity that you don't even know how to deduce the obliquity with the help of sine table of Sūrya Siddhānta text, instead you are blaming SS people for the same and trying to thrash away our sages' minute observations in the name of rounding of 23.5 to 24 deg, what Burgess had already suggested,  when there are two seperate pieces of evidence available in Sūrya Siddhānta text itself- 1. with 24 deg and another with 23.xx. 

2. It's distasteful that you continued with the Burgess translations instead of looking at the apsidal evidence lying naked in front of your eyes. 

Rupa

Then you also have the burden of refutations of "internal evidence of additions and edits of Surya Siddhanta" research done by Mr. Anil Narayan since you said that the text is not older than 2000 years.

If you care to refute them all then I will write a complete refutation of your refutation. These half baked things don't make any sense and 

what your-goodself wrote is the most childish attempt similar to Burgess. There was no original contribution at all by you. This shows an immaturity in refuting any research paper by an amateur (from the person who deals with metals and their properties). 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjVX8kU%2BP1ca4NLBv2YP_uOuMO3iLOMBJKAGtXhNnwz0Aw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 25 April, 2021 at 4:14:32 pm UTC+5:30 rupabhaty16 wrote:

You said, “Does Sūrya Siddhānta say what was the speed of sun in summer and by how much it differed in winter?” - Onus is on to you to produce evidence against what you are claiming. Please read the Sūrya Siddhānta text and find it for yourself for how many types of speed are mentioned. We have given one type, Manda, that too in - winters. 

Dear Rupa Bhaty Ji

Let me quote from the article co-authored by you with Sh. Nilesh Oak for indiafacts:

“And thus time taken by earth to move rθ will be faster at Peak of grishma along Periapsis (grīṣme tivrakarā raveḥ) slow at Apoapsis side (hemante mandatānyathā)[1]. This explains that Kepler’s law was known and Sūrya-siddhānta carries this information.”

You claim that the Sūrya-siddhānta has knowledge of Kepler’s [second] law. This claim is a very tall and bold claim, and in my view extremely far-fetched and unsubstantiated.  The reference that you offer for this bold claim is the below verse from the Sūrya-siddhānta (12.46):

 

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः।

देवभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दतान्यथा॥

atyāsannatayā tena grīṣme tīvrakarā raveḥ

devabhāge surāṇāṃ tu hemante mandatānyathā

It is clear to anybody with even basic Sanskrit knowledge that this verse has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the earth around the sun during grīṣma or hemanta, but it talks about the intensity of the rays of the sun during grīṣma or hemanta. The original words ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः simply mean “in grīṣma, the sun has fierce/hot rays” with the word ‘kara’ simply meaning “a ray” (as in śītakara = the moon, literally “cool-rayed”). Similarly the mandatā in the second verse refers not to the speed of the earth around the sun but the mildness of the rays of the sun. The verse has nothing to with speed as the word kara does not refer to speed at all. Let us leave aside Burgess for a minute, here is the Gūḍhārthaprakāśa commentary in Sanskrit and a Hindi translation on this verse: https://archive.org/details/surya-siddhanta-with-gudartha-prakash-and-hindi-tika-baldev-prasad-mishra-muradabadi/page/n217/mode/2up. The commentary interprets ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः correctly and also मन्दता correctly as applying to the rays of the sun.

To claim by just citing this verse that Kepler’s law was known to Sūrya-siddhānta is just untenable. It is actually a disservice and disrespect to the mathematical and scientific acumen of ancient Bhāratīyas to ascribe tall claims like they knew about Kepler’s law or speed of light or black holes without any credible proof whatsoever. 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 25 April, 2021 at 6:19:55 pm UTC+5:30 Nityanand Misra wrote:

The reference that you offer for this bold claim is the below verse from the Sūrya-siddhānta (12.46):

 

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः।

देवभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दतान्यथा॥

atyāsannatayā tena grīṣme tīvrakarā raveḥ

devabhāge surāṇāṃ tu hemante mandatānyathā

It is clear to anybody with even basic Sanskrit knowledge that this verse has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the earth around the sun during grīṣma or hemanta, but it talks about the intensity of the rays of the sun during grīṣma or hemanta. The original words ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः simply mean “in grīṣma, the sun has fierce/hot rays” with the word ‘kara’ simply meaning “a ray” (as in śītakara = the moon, literally “cool-rayed”). Similarly the mandatā in the second verse refers not to the speed of the earth around the sun but the mildness of the rays of the sun. The verse has nothing to with speed as the word kara does not refer to speed at all. Let us leave aside Burgess for a minute, here is the Gūḍhārthaprakāśa commentary in Sanskrit and a Hindi translation on this verse: https://archive.org/details/surya-siddhanta-with-gudartha-prakash-and-hindi-tika-baldev-prasad-mishra-muradabadi/page/n217/mode/2up. The commentary interprets ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः correctly and also मन्दता correctly as applying to the rays of the sun.

Another Sanskrit commentary similarly correctly interprets kara as kiraṇa here: https://archive.org/details/suryasiddhantaprof.ramchandrapandey/page/n326/mode/1up

 

[rupa bhaty]

Dear Nityanand ji

As the Suryasiddhanta shows geocentric yest has placed Surya at fourth they are skiing in relative sense.

I would be happy if you would give me "anvaya" of this shloka. It appears to me it is a  मन्दतात् and not मन्दता though. Thanks in advance.

Regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/8adff64c-d721-4546-b5e0-1f0c5b2370f4n%40googlegroups.com.

[rupa bhaty]

Also I will be happy if you find that the verse mentions Asura bhaaga. Again the commentary starts with wrong interpretation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/a3e86cc9-5399-4084-b619-b598f2faed7cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 25 April, 2021 at 6:36:46 pm UTC+5:30 rupabhaty16 wrote:

Dear Nityanand ji

As the Suryasiddhanta shows geocentric yest has placed Surya at fourth they are skiing in relative sense.

I would be happy if you would give me "anvaya" of this shloka. It appears to me it is a  मन्दतात् and not मन्दता though. Thanks in advance.

Regards

Dear Rupa Ji

The reading we have is मन्दतान्यथा. This can be split as मन्दता + अन्यथा = मन्दतान्यथा/मन्दताऽन्यथा

You are suggesting it is मन्दतात्. But then what is the sandhi-viccheda you propose in the reading मन्दतान्यथा? 

If you propose मन्दतात्  + यथा, then by the sandhi rules it will become मन्दताद्यथा, and not मन्दतान्यथा (just like उत् + यम = उद्यम, not उन्यम): the त् in मन्दतात् will change to द्. But are there any manuscripts or edition with the reading मन्दताद्यथा? The editions I have seen all have मन्दतान्यथा only.

 

[rupa bhaty]

Dear Nityanand ji

As the Suryasiddhanta shows geocentric yet has placed Surya at fourth they are observing in relative sense.

I would be happy if you would give me "anvaya" of this shloka. It appears to me it is a  मन्दतात् and not मन्दता though. Thanks in advance.

Regards

[rupa bhaty]

ok

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/25c22e47-2a71-4661-bb22-f225b478abb4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 25 April, 2021 at 6:36:46 pm UTC+5:30 rupabhaty16 wrote:

Dear Nityanand ji

As the Suryasiddhanta shows geocentric yest has placed Surya at fourth they are skiing in relative sense.

I would be happy if you would give me "anvaya" of this shloka. It appears to me it is a  मन्दतात् and not मन्दता though. Thanks in advance.

Regards

Dear Rupa Ji

You had asked for an anvaya, here is the anvaya as I understand

Verse

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः।

देवभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दतान्यथा॥

Anvaya

तेन रवेः अत्यासन्नतया देवभागे ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः। असुराणां तु हेमन्ते [तीव्रकराः]। अन्यथा [कराणाम्] मन्दता। 

Thanks, Nityananda

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 25 April, 2021 at 6:19:55 pm UTC+5:30 Nityanand Misra wrote:

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः।

देवभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दतान्यथा॥

atyāsannatayā tena grīṣme tīvrakarā raveḥ

devabhāge surāṇāṃ tu hemante mandatānyathā

A correction in the reading: second line should read देवभागेऽसुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दतान्यथा

I had copy pasted the verse from Wikisource here which has split देवभागेसुराणां as "देवभागे सुराणां" but it is really देवभागेऽसुराणां = देवभागे + असुराणां

Apologies for not checking it earlier.

[rupa bhaty]

Thank you for the Anvaya.

If your goodself do the english translation that would be a great service to all of us. Also how would you define अत्यासन्नतया, that will define more. असुराणां is not there as it appears to me. Devabhaag should be common for both.

Rgds

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b03597de-f4ba-4ecf-a839-0e25190cfc2fn%40googlegroups.com.

[rupa bhaty]

Also if you are proposing देवभागेऽसुराणां = देवभागे + असुराणां then definitely it is the case of opposite times of Mesha and that gives apsidal precession opposite to our times.

Rgds

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 25 April, 2021 at 7:16:05 pm UTC+5:30 rupabhaty16 wrote:

Thank you for the Anvaya.

If your goodself do the english translation that would be a great service to all of us. Also how would you define अत्यासन्नतया, that will define more. असुराणां is not there as it appears to me. Devabhaag should be common for both.

Rgds

Thanks, I will go through the surrounding verses (and maybe full chapter for the context) and then give you my English and Hindi translation, hopefully in next 2-3 days.

If we take देवभागे + सुराणां then the word तु, which usually denotes a contradiction (but is sometimes also used for pādapūraṇa), needs an explanation. 

[rupa bhaty]

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards

Rupa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/43358694-6d8a-4f9a-9b6e-b770a8cb63a7n%40googlegroups.com.

[rupa bhaty]

To add here devas are seen from Vishuva (vernal equinox ) to vishuva( autumnal equinox)  is much clear even from Suryasiddhanta. That will help your kindself to understand my refutation of Mr. Roy's also.

Samvatsara in Suryasiddhanta also began from Vishuva only as is clear from the screen shots here from the link you provided. My conjecture was that all the Indian texts are consistent with the Year beginning from Vasantasya Vishuva (including Vedaanga).

तयोर्मकरसँक्रान्तेः षण्मासेषूत्तरायणं।

कर्कयादेस्तु तथैव स्यात् षण्मासा दक्षिनायनम्॥९॥

From the sun’s entrance in Capricorn six months are his sun’s progress;

So likewise, from the beginning of Cancer, six months are his southern progress..9.

द्विराशिमानादृतवः षडुक्ताश्शिशिरादयः।

मेषादयो द्वादशैते मासास्तैरेव वत्सरः॥१०॥मानाध्याय—

Thence also recorded the Seasons, the cool seasons and the rest, each prevailing through two signs. These twelve, commencing with the Aries, are the months; of them is made up the year.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Rupa Ji

Wish you a happy new year. Many months ago, you had requested me for the English and Hindi translation of the verse 12.46 of the Sūryasiddhānta (SS) and I had said I will help you. I got busy then and it slipped my mind. Anyway, to answer your request, here is the English translation of SS 12.46. I am not sharing my Hindi translation but will share a link to a Hindi translation.

For easy understanding, I will present the verse, the anvaya, the word-for-word meanings, and then my English translation, followed by two other English translations. From the context of 12.8 (ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरो भानुर्न हेमन्ते तथाविधः) and 12.45 (मेषादौ देवभागस्थे देवानां याति दर्शनम्, असुराणां तुलादौ तु सूर्यस्तद्भागसञ्चरः), there is no way the verse can be explained with the देवभागे सुराणाम् reading that you propose. It has to be देवभागे + असुराणाम् with the अकारप्रश्लेष, otherwise not only is there a needless repetition with देवभागे सुराणाम्, तु will make no sense at all in the verse.

VERSE

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा रवेः।

देवभागेऽसुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दतान्यथा॥

ANVAYA (same as that presented earlier)

तेन रवेः अत्यासन्नतया देवभागे ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः। असुराणां तु हेमन्ते [तीव्रकराः]। अन्यथा [कराणाम्] मन्दता।

WORD-FOR-WORD MEANINGS

तेन = therefore, due to that
रवेः = of the sun
अत्यासन्नतया = due to extreme proximity ()
देवभागे = in the Devabhāga or northern hemisphere
ग्रीष्मे = in the summer
तीव्रकराः = hot rays, hot sunrays
असुराणां = of the Asuras, i.e., in the Asurabhāga or southern hemisphere
तु = but, on the contrary
हेमन्ते = in the winter
[तीव्रकराः = hot rays, hot sunrays]
अन्यथा = Otherwise
[कराणाम् = of the rays]
मन्दता = weakness.

TRANSLATION (Nityananda Misra)

“Therefore, owing to the excessive proximity of the sun, there are hot rays in the Devabhāga (=northern hemisphere) in summer. But for the Asuras (=in the Asurabhāga or southern hemispehere), [the rays are hot] in the winter. Otherwise (=during the summer in the Asurabhāga and the winter in the Devabhāga), there is weakness [of the rays].”

TRANSLATION 2 (Bapu Deva Shastri)

“Owing to this (the Sun’s going northward and southward) the Sun’s rays are vehement in summer in the Gods’ regions and in winter in the Asuras’. Conversely they are weak (in summer in the Asuras’ regions and in winter in the Gods’).”

TRANSLATION 3 (Burgess)

“Hence, owing to his exceeding nearness, the rays of the sun are hot in the hemisphere of the gods in summer, but in that of the demons in winter: in the contrary season, they are sluggish.”

HINDI TRANSLATION

You may consult the Hindi transaltion by Ramachandra Pandeya avaialble on archive (https://archive.org/details/surya-siddhanta/page/n322/mode/1up).

COMMENTS

1) The translations are more or less similar.

2) The verse talks about the hotness or mildness of the sun’s rays in different seasons in the two hemispheres. The word कर in तीव्रकराः has to be explained and no other meaing apart from “ray” of कर fits here. This is a direct answer to the question asked in 12.8 (ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरो भानुर्न हेमन्ते तथाविधः).

3) The verse does not talk about speed of the sun’s rays, the speed of the earth around the sun, or any other speed. There is no way one can interpret the line segment joining the planet and the star sweeping equal areas during equal times of time, which is what Kepler’s second law implies. Hence, the claim by Oak and you that Kepler’s Law was known to the author of the SS is untenable.

If you disagree with my translation or that by Shastri or Burgess of SS 12.46, please let us know where and why.

Coming to your co-authored translation: “The sun is the closest to the Earth during Grishma which causes Sun’s rapidness when in Deva Bhaga i.e, Northern Hemisphere but farthest from the Earth during Hemanta which causes Sun’s slowness otherwise.”

This is incorrect for the following five reasons

1) The translation of तेन (connected with previous verse is missing, this is important, see 5 below)

2) The translation misses out an important word कर (=ray) in the original. The word कर appears as the last part of the word तीव्रकराः

3) The translations of तीव्र and मन्द as rapid and slow are erroneous. They mean hot and mild here. 

4) There is nothing in the verse which can be translated as "farthest from the earth".  

5) You do not translate सुराणाम् at all. It is clear that as देवभागे has already been mentioned, सुराणाम् is needless repetition and so it must be असुराणाम्. The verse is connected with 12.45 (due to तेन), and 12.45 clearly mentions देवभागस्थे in first line and असुराणां तु in second line, just like we have देवभागे + असुराणां तु in 12.46.

Your translation also goes against multiple published translations by scholars who understood the verse correctly.

Your claim that “Also if you are proposing देवभागेऽसुराणां = देवभागे + असुराणां it is the case of opposite times of Mesha and that gives apsidal precession opposite to our times” is also unfounded. Had you understood the Anvaya I had presented (and which other translators also have taken), you would not have made this claim. The words देवभागे and असुराणां तु are to be connected differently, the former with ग्रीष्मे and the latter with हेमन्ते (as I have shown above). 

With this, I hope your misunderstanding of 12.46 is resolved. The verse does not show Kepler's Law was known to the author. Please realize that such claims do not do any service to the true intellectual heritage of India. In fact, they are a disservice to it.

With kind regards, Nityananda

 

[Ecneics]

What if you consider the following anvaya

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गतिः] रवेः।

देवाभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गतेः] अन्यथा ।

As you can see in this anvaya तीव्रकरा then becomes the adjective for गतिः If you consider this kind of anvaya the translation you are trying to refute fits. अन्यथा here could refer to the opposite case to the अत्यासन्नता to mean farthest from the earth. तीव्रकरा is simply the adjective of the गतिः of the sun. How about that?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, 11:52 AM Ecneics <thinkmat...@gmail.com> wrote:

What if you consider the following anvaya
अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गतिः] रवेः।
देवाभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गतेः] अन्यथा ।

If you consider this kind of anvaya the translation you are trying to refute fits. अन्यथा here could refer to the opposite case to the अत्यासन्नता which means farthest from the earth. तीव्रकरा is simply the adjective of the गतिः of the sun. How about that?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/7d69905e-bef3-4422-83eb-042bb0dba4a6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ecneics]

What if you consider the following anvaya
अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गतिः] रवेः।

देवाभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गतेः] अन्यथा ।

If you consider this kind of anvaya the translation you are trying to refute fits. अन्यथा here could refer to the opposite case to the अत्यासन्नता which means farthest from the earth. तीव्रकरा is simply the adjective of the गतिः of the sun. How about that?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2025, 4:55 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/7d69905e-bef3-4422-83eb-042bb0dba4a6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vipin Chaturvedi]

Thanks Mishra Ji for a critical analysis of this verse and sharing with us. Misinterpretations are damaging to our Sanatani traditions and should be appropriately refuted.

Best wishes for the 2025!

Vipin

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2025, at 11:55 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear scholar posting as Ecneics , please share if you have a name other than Ecneics or you may confirm that this is your actual name. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    -- moderator

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGjWMGwZy2y9JoOm9Kwa5chbDxW2Fr4FzoM_pnCtSkVncY1u4w%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

Dean, IKS and Senior Director, IndicA

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Name of the person posting as Ecneics is Abhishek Mehta. Sri Abhishek Mehta ji kindly shared the name with me. 

[Bijoy Misra]

A few other ones are also using pseudo-names.

Please make a policy for people to use real names like in an academic forum.

Happy New year.

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebAY%3DvO%3DVeT0cB%2BUc54S7t3roFw1UfB5Wrjn9-QPfXkpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ecneics]

Also, it seems i can polish my anvaya even further

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गतिः] रवेः देवाभागे | 

सुराणां [भागे] तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गतेः] अन्यथा ।

In this anvaya, your objection that सुराणां is a needless repetition is removed because now सुराणां is simply an synonym or a reference to देवाभाग itself and the translation by Oak seems to work. Also, I would like to add, before anybody objects to my insertion of गतिः in my anvaya, that  if you treat तीव्रकरा as a feminine singular instead of masculine plural like you have then it does give you the sense of speed or movement which is precisely गतिः. So, my insertion of गतिः here is not random anymore. 

[Shashi Joshi]

Maybe you are confusing tiivra to be fast, based on Hindi meaning

That is druta in Sanskrit.

See tiivra meaning below from Apte.

'tiivra' = fast is in music.

You can't just insert anything and make anvayas as you please.

What if you consider the following anvaya

अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गणितः ] रवेः।
देवाभागे सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गणिते ] अन्यथा ।

That would make them fast and slow in maths!

 

 1) तीव्र tīvra (p. 776)

तीव्र tīvra a. 1 Severe, intense, sharp, acute, violent, poignant, pungent, impetuous; विलङ्घिताधोरणतीव्रयत्नाः R.5.48 'strong or violent efforts' &c.; U.3.35; Ś.1. 32,5.7. -2 Hot, warm. -3 Flashing. -4 Pervading. -5 Endless, unlimited. -6 Horrible, dreadful. -व्रः 1 Sharpness. -2 Śiva. -व्रम् 1 Heat, pungency. -2 A shore. -3 Iron, steel. -4 Tin. -व्रम् ind. Violently, sharply, excessively. -व्रा 1 Black mustard. -2 Basil. -3 Helleborus miger (Mar. कुटकी). -4 (in music) N. of a श्रुति. -Comp. -आनन्दः an epithet of Śiva. -गति a. quick, swift. -गन्धा cumin seed. -द्युतिः the sun; P. R.7,83. -पौरुषम् 1 daring heroism. -2 heroism (in general). -वेदना acute or sharp pain. -संवेग a. 1 of strong impulse, resolute. -2 very poignant or sharp.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 9:05 AM Ecneics <thinkmat...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGjWMGz8deQAyG_VfBTw3vvYTyvnx4n%2B20UunOV9RrXG6wJFnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shashi Joshi]

"In this anvaya, your objection that सुराणां is a needless repetition is removed because now सुराणां is simply an synonym or a reference to देवाभाग itself and the translation by Oak seems to work. Also, I would like to add, before anybody objects to my insertion of गतिः in my anvaya, that  if you treat तीव्रकरा as a feminine singular instead of masculine plural like you have then it does give you the sense of speed or movement which is precisely गतिः. So, my insertion of गतिः here is not random anymore. "

Seems more like you have a translation in mind already, and are now force fitting by changing words genders, number etc

When multiple translations and commentaries exist, which have given the obvious straight forward obvious meaning, then why twist and turn it to extract more drops of sugarcane juice?

The meaning is straight forward and matches direct observation as well.

Why convolute? Occam's razor?

Thanks,

~ Shashi

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/07d701ca-8c62-4acf-9ad6-63a49eec17d3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ecneics]

Irrespective of what you say the dictionary meaning of तीव्र is it is clear form the verse that is used in the opposite sense of मन्द and the dictionary meaning of मन्द is indeed slow so therefore, you can take तीव्र to mean fast. And given that this is an astronomical text using तीव्र to mean slow from the conventional dictionary meaning is not unusual or unprecedented. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoAOdHL99_8pq7-K7BXNGfoiBODfETEfnBmaU5MWjR0_rw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ecneics]

Sorry, I meant "... an astronomical text using तीव्र to mean fast different   from the conventional dictionary meaning...." here.

[Ecneics]

I knew someone would object to me inserting the word गतिः hence my message. I don't think I am changing anything. Have you seen me modify any of the words from the verse? And I do not see why you must object to assigning feminine gender to तीव्रकरा when it is the most obvious and natural to assign it as feminine all the while grammatically there is nothing objectionable about it. Isn't invoking 'Shakalaysa Lopa' sutra to imply that it is actually तीव्रकरा: more convoluted? 

And I do not understand why should translating a verse be consistent with the pre-existing commentaries. Shouldn't the translation of the verse be consistent with the context of the text? And what is the context of Suryasiddhanta? I quote the 5th verse of the first chapter

विदितस्ते मया भावस्तोषितस्तपसा ह्यहम् |

दद्यां कालाश्रयं ज्ञानं ग्रहाणां चरितं महत् | |

The word  चरितं can be taken synonymous with गतिः and Lord Surya in this verse promises that He will disclose the movement/speed of the grahas. This is the true context of the text. Then why will He speak of the harshness or the softness of sun rays that has nothing to do with गतिः of the sun? Isn't this accusing the deity of committing मिथ्यावचनम् on His part by going in such unrelated tangent? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoCjDhXAvfz1_Q4dGPRkdsTzBcC8%2BgF0G631FuArNhY37A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

I would strongly suggest and request our members to use their names 

such that the comments/statements don't look anonymous.  India 

created the logic of in-person assembly and debate.  Stating a name 

before speaking is what we can practice and help the world to learn.

Best regards,

Happy New Year.

Bijoy Misra

India Discovery Center, US

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/577fd7e4-6070-4357-a747-03617f9509b8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Sh. Abhishek Mehta

Do you have any experience translating Sanskrit texts and have any of your translations been published? If so, can you please share some information about them? I ask this since your arguments seem to have given little thought to the verses, the context and the subject matter that one expects when translating verses in a text.

Here are my responses.

AM: “What if you consider the following anvaya: अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गतिः] रवेः। देवाभागे [sic] सुराणां तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गतेः] अन्यथा । As you can see in this anvaya तीव्रकरा then becomes the adjective for गतिः If you consider this kind of anvaya the translation you are trying to refute fits. अन्यथा here could refer to the opposite case to the अत्यासन्नता to mean farthest from the earth. तीव्रकरा is simply the adjective of the गतिः of the sun. How about that?”

This force-fitting by bringing in an unrelated word does not make any sense. Even if one takes तीव्र as “quick” or “fast”, गतिः (“motion” or “speed”) cannot be qualified with the adjective तीव्रकरा (“having fast rays”). The sun does not have two types of motion with one having fast rays and the other slow rays. The Sūryasiddhānta (SS) does not say this. Kepler’s law does not say this. Are you proposing that the SS claims that the speed of light is not constant? What is next? Will you say the SS foresaw Variable Speed of Light (VSL) theories, thus even being ahead of Einstein who held that the speed of light is constant in an inertial frame of reference? This would be another preposterous claim, though no claim is preposterous enough for the article's authors. The context of verse 12.46 is clear in the verse 12.8: ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरो भानुर्न हेमन्ते तथाविधः. This means “The sun has vehement/hot rays in summer, but not so in winter”. No mention of गतिः here and तीव्रकरः directly qualifies भानुः. Verse 12.46 answers the question raised in 12.8. If the author of SS really had गतिः in mind in 12.8 and 12.46, verse 12.8 would have read ग्रीष्मे तीव्रगतिर्भानुः and 12.46 would have read ग्रीष्मे तीव्रगती रवेः. They do not. The SS does specify fast speed when it has to, for example the exocentric compound word शीघ्रगतिः is used in verse 9.8 (वक्री शीघ्रगतिश्चार्कात्करोत्यस्त्मयोदयौ). Secondly, what to do with तेन, which relates to previous verse 12.46? Verse 12.45 states the reason behind 12.46. If one reads a statement of Kepler’s second law in verse 12.46, then how can the statement of 12.45 be seen as a reason for  Kepler’s second law? Kepler’s second law follows from the law of conversation of angular momentum and not from the northern or southern movement of the sun as observed from Earth (this movement is due to the axial tilt). Finally, तु is meaningless if both parts refer to the same hemisphere. Verse 12.45 talks about both hemispheres (देवभागस्थे, असुराणाम्). Then it is only natural if 12.46 also talks about both hemispheres.

AM: “Also, it seems i can polish my anvaya even further
अत्यासन्नतया तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [गतिः] रवेः देवाभागे [sic]|

सुराणां [भागे] तु हेमन्ते मन्दता [गतेः] अन्यथा ।

In this anvaya, your objection that सुराणां is a needless repetition is removed because now सुराणां is simply an synonym or a reference to देवाभाग itself and the translation by Oak seems to work. Also, I would like to add, before anybody objects to my insertion of गतिः in my anvaya, that  if you treat तीव्रकरा as a feminine singular instead of masculine plural like you have then it does give you the sense of speed or movement which is precisely गतिः. So, my insertion of गतिः here is not random anymore.”

This also does not make sense for the same reason. Furthermore, your insertion of गतिः is random indeed. Well, Why stick to गतिः? One can even insert मतिः and claim that the sun is more intelligent (तीव्रमतिः) in summer and dull (मन्दमतिः) in winter!! This way, any verse can be enriched with the words of one’s choice to get the desired meaning of one’s choice. Which verse of the SS even hints towards area speed or areal velocity of a planet/body, revolving around the sun/star/another body in an elliptical orbit with the sun/star/other body being at the focal point, being constant? If there is no such hint, reading Kepler's second law in 12.46 is just daydreaming.

AM: Irrespective of what you say the dictionary meaning of तीव्र is it is clear form the verse that is used in the opposite sense of मन्द and the dictionary meaning of मन्द is indeed slow so therefore, you can take तीव्र to mean fast. And given that this is an astronomical text using तीव्र to mean slow from the conventional dictionary meaning is not unusual or unprecedented.  Sorry, I meant "... an astronomical text using तीव्र to mean fast different from the conventional dictionary meaning...." here.

The problem is not with तीव्र being interpreted as “fast”. The problem is with तीव्र being interpreted as fast in the compound तीव्रकरः/तीव्रकराः, which would mean “[having] fast rays”. This is neither the sense of SS 12.46 nor relevant to Kepler's Laws.

AM: “And I do not understand why should translating a verse be consistent with the pre-existing commentaries. Shouldn't the translation of the verse be consistent with the context of the text? And what is the context of Suryasiddhanta?”

A new translation is most welcome if it makes sense and comes from scholars of Sanskrit. By their own public admission, Oak and Bhaty are not scholars of Sanskrit and their translation does not make sense. Even if a new translation comes from scholars and makes sense, if it makes an extraordinary claim (like Kepler’s Law being known to SS), it is to be dismissed unless there is extraordinary evidence for the claim. A peer review or scholarly review helps filter such claims. We have many scholars of Indic knowledge systems on the forum, for example, Prof. K Ramasubramanian of IIT Bombay who is trained in both Sanskrit and Indian astronomy (https://www.kramasubramanian.com/). If such a scholar comes ahead and ratifies the new translation with an extraordinary claim, it can be taken seriously for a start. Till then, it stays a claim.

AM: “I knew someone would object to me inserting the word गतिः hence my message. I don't think I am changing anything. Have you seen me modify any of the words from the verse? And I do not see why you must object to assigning feminine gender to तीव्रकरा when it is the most obvious and natural to assign it as feminine all the while grammatically there is nothing objectionable about it. Isn't invoking 'Shakalaysa Lopa' sutra to imply that it is actually तीव्रकरा: more convoluted? “

लोपः शाकल्यस्य (8.3.19) simply does not even apply in this case!! In the sandhi तीव्रकरास् (तीव्रकराः) + रवेः = तीव्रकरा रवेः, the rule that applies is हलि सर्वेषाम् (8.3.22). Furthermore, this lopa-sandhi is not convoluted at all but very common. On the contrary, reading an additional feminine word गतिः and then taking तीव्रकरा as a feminine adjective is convoluted as even after reading the additional word, the problem with तीव्रकरा (instead of तीव्रकराः now) remains: “motion in which rays are fast” makes no sense.

“Then why will He speak of the harshness or the softness of sun rays that has nothing to do with गतिः of the sun? Isn't this accusing the deity of committing मिथ्यावचनम् on His part by going in such unrelated tangent? “

Does the SS talk only about the motion of planets and nothing else? No. It talks about many other things. See here for a comprehensive index: https://archive.org/details/surya-siddhanta/page/n13/mode/1up. So, this objection is also baseless. In verses 12.45 and 12.46, the SS explains the difference in heat (temperatures, if you will) across seasons. As per SS verse 12.45, the sun is visible in (=closer to) the northern hemisphere in summer and the southern hemisphere in the winter. This is why, as per verse 12.46, the sun’s rays are hot in the summer in the northern hemisphere and mild in the winter.

With kind regards, Nityānanda

[Ecneics]

Hi.

Thank you for your comments but it seems you have missed some of my key arguments. I present them below.

This force-fitting by bringing in an unrelated word does not make any sense.

As I explained this is not force-fitting nor it is unrelated but based on Lord Surya's own words to Mayasura that He would supply Him चरितं ग्रहाणाम् in the first chapter and चरितं is synonymous with गतिः so I do not feel that your argument that I am forcedly adding something works. I am simply contextualizing the verse in question based on a preceding verse in the same text. 

Well, Why stick to गतिः? One can even insert मतिः and claim that the sun is more intelligent (तीव्रमतिः) in summer and dull (मन्दमतिः) in winter!! 

If Lord Surya in the first verse said मतिं ग्रहाणाम् I definitely would have. But He didn't did He now? He said चरितम् ~ गतिः

The problem is with तीव्र being interpreted as fast in the compound तीव्रकरः/तीव्रकराः, which would mean “[having] fast rays”. 

You seem to be hung up on तीव्रकरा being a samas where कर is supposed to light rays. Given that you have agreed that तीव्र being interpreted as fast isn't the actual problem it is a problem when seen in the samas. 

Fine. What if I say तीव्रकरा is something akin to सुकर: meaning 'good-doer' such that तीव्रकर the would mean 'haste-maker' where तीव्रकरा is तीव्रकर with टाप्. I guess that will have no problems.

लोपः शाकल्यस्य (8.3.19) simply does not even apply in this case!! In the sandhi तीव्रकरास् (तीव्रकराः) + रवेः = तीव्रकरा रवेः, the rule that applies is हलि सर्वेषाम् (8.3.22). 

How do you know there was a sandhi of the kind you postulate above? In the light of what I have pointed earlier I think it is equally likely that this samas is feminine singular and not masculine plural.

Secondly, what to do with तेन, which relates to previous verse 12.46? 

This is easy. तेन simply refers to 12.45. As in 

यत् प्रकरणं 12.45-श्लोके उद्धृतं तेन प्रकरणेन 12.46-श्लोकस्थप्रकरणं भवति। 

Where 12.46-श्लोकस्थप्रकरणम् is everything else in 12.46 without तेन. 

Does the SS talk only about the motion of planets and nothing else? No. 

Well I wasn't aware that Suryasiddhanta talks about other things as I am still in the process of reading it.

Finally, तु is meaningless if both parts refer to the same hemisphere. Verse 12.45 talks about both hemispheres (देवभागस्थे, असुराणाम्). Then it is only natural if 12.46 also talks about both hemispheres.

This is your personal preference. I also feel natural that तीव्रकरा be a feminine compound meaning what I explained earlier. Also, you have already agreed that तु can sometimes be used for पादपुरणम् so perhaps this is one of the cases where it does precisely that. 

If one reads a statement of Kepler’s second law in verse 12.46, then how can the statement of 12.45 be seen as a reason for Kepler’s second law? Kepler’s second law follows from the law of conversation of angular momentum and not from the northern or southern movement of the sun as observed from Earth (this movement is due to the axial tilt).

I think you very well know that the translation you are trying to refute is trying to imply a qualitative reference to Keplerian dynamics mentioned in the verse and not the entire mathematical formulation. This is just shifting goal posts. I too can say if what you say about hot rays and cool rays is true why isn't the entire thermodynamics of hot rays and cool rays mentioned in the verse. 

A peer review or scholarly review helps filter such claims. We have many scholars of Indic knowledge systems on the forum, for example, Prof. K Ramasubramanian of IIT Bombay who is trained in both Sanskrit and Indian astronomy (https://www.kramasubramanian.com/). If such a scholar comes ahead and ratifies the new translation with an extraordinary claim, it can be taken seriously for a start. Till then, it stays a claim.

Well can you tell me in which journal Kepler's or Galileo's work were peer-reviewed? And what were the reviewer's comments? What are their h-indicies? Modern peer-review is at best 150 years old. Before that people did not use to asses claims? And let's say even if I get the above interpretation published via peer-review which journal will you accept as authoritative? And given how complex peer-review can be what if I can only manage to publish in a journal which you do not personally consider authoritative? I think any claim must be assessed based on its merit irrespective of whether it is peer-reviewed or not.

Yours sincerely

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/fb6c49c1-b164-4d70-be39-0e85473035b2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Sh. Abhishek Mehta

I see that you have not responded to my first question about your experience in translating and publishing texts. Would appreciate it if you could answer this.

On Thursday, 2 January 2025 at 9:30:24 pm UTC+5:30 Ecneics wrote:

This force-fitting by bringing in an unrelated word does not make any sense.

As I explained this is not force-fitting nor it is unrelated but based on Lord Surya's own words to Mayasura that He would supply Him चरितं ग्रहाणाम् in the first chapter and चरितं is synonymous with गतिः so I do not feel that your argument that I am forcedly adding something works. I am simply contextualizing the verse in question based on a preceding verse in the same text. 

You have ignored the immediate context of 12.8 and 12.45 and have brought in a [questionable] synonym of a word from general verses 1.4 and 1.5. This is on shaky ground. The word चरितम् is an umbrella term and the work already includes many things apart from the movement of grahas. So, there is no need to take a narrow meaning of चरितम् in 1.4 and 1.5 and then take an अध्याहार in 12.46. Verse 12.46 is complete in itself and does not need any such अध्याहार. 

 

Well, Why stick to गतिः? One can even insert मतिः and claim that the sun is more intelligent (तीव्रमतिः) in summer and dull (मन्दमतिः) in winter!! 

If Lord Surya in the first verse said मतिं ग्रहाणाम् I definitely would have. But He didn't did He now? He said चरितम् ~ गतिः

मति is covered under चरितम् = स्वभावः. Anyway, there is no need to ignore immediate context and bring up an imaginary connection of 12.46 and 1.5/1.6.

 

The problem is with तीव्र being interpreted as fast in the compound तीव्रकरः/तीव्रकराः, which would mean “[having] fast rays”. 

You seem to be hung up on तीव्रकरा being a samas where कर is supposed to light rays. Given that you have agreed that तीव्र being interpreted as fast isn't the actual problem it is a problem when seen in the samas. 

Fine. What if I say तीव्रकरा is something akin to सुकर: meaning 'good-doer' such that तीव्रकर the would mean 'haste-maker' where तीव्रकरा is तीव्रकर with टाप्. I guess that will have no problems.

So now you are saying that the sun's movement is a haste-maker? That still has problems. 

 

लोपः शाकल्यस्य (8.3.19) simply does not even apply in this case!! In the sandhi तीव्रकरास् (तीव्रकराः) + रवेः = तीव्रकरा रवेः, the rule that applies is हलि सर्वेषाम् (8.3.22). 

How do you know there was a sandhi of the kind you postulate above? In the light of what I have pointed earlier I think it is equally likely that this samas is feminine singular and not masculine plural.

Every commentator and translator has taken a sandhi as it is obvious. Feminine singular needs an अध्याहार,  that too of a noun which has nothing to do with the context. So it is not equally likely.

 

Secondly, what to do with तेन, which relates to previous verse 12.46? 

This is easy. तेन simply refers to 12.45. As in 

यत् प्रकरणं 12.45-श्लोके उद्धृतं तेन प्रकरणेन 12.46-श्लोकस्थप्रकरणं भवति। 

Where 12.46-श्लोकस्थप्रकरणम् is everything else in 12.46 without तेन. 

The प्रकरण has nothing to do with speed of the sun or the sun's rays. 

 

Finally, तु is meaningless if both parts refer to the same hemisphere. Verse 12.45 talks about both hemispheres (देवभागस्थे, असुराणाम्). Then it is only natural if 12.46 also talks about both hemispheres.

This is your personal preference. I also feel natural that तीव्रकरा be a feminine compound meaning what I explained earlier. Also, you have already agreed that तु can sometimes be used for पादपुरणम् so perhaps this is one of the cases where it does precisely that. 

Problems with feminine adjectival compound have been highlighted.

 

If one reads a statement of Kepler’s second law in verse 12.46, then how can the statement of 12.45 be seen as a reason for Kepler’s second law? Kepler’s second law follows from the law of conversation of angular momentum and not from the northern or southern movement of the sun as observed from Earth (this movement is due to the axial tilt).

I think you very well know that the translation you are trying to refute is trying to imply a qualitative reference to Keplerian dynamics mentioned in the verse and not the entire mathematical formulation. This is just shifting goal posts. I too can say if what you say about hot rays and cool rays is true why isn't the entire thermodynamics of hot rays and cool rays mentioned in the verse. 

Nobody is making claims that modern thermodynamics was known to the author of SS. But Oak and Bhaty are making a claim.

 

A peer review or scholarly review helps filter such claims. We have many scholars of Indic knowledge systems on the forum, for example, Prof. K Ramasubramanian of IIT Bombay who is trained in both Sanskrit and Indian astronomy (https://www.kramasubramanian.com/). If such a scholar comes ahead and ratifies the new translation with an extraordinary claim, it can be taken seriously for a start. Till then, it stays a claim.

Well can you tell me in which journal Kepler's or Galileo's work were peer-reviewed? And what were the reviewer's comments? What are their h-indicies? Modern peer-review is at best 150 years old. Before that people did not use to asses claims? And let's say even if I get the above interpretation published via peer-review which journal will you accept as authoritative? And given how complex peer-review can be what if I can only manage to publish in a journal which you do not personally consider authoritative? I think any claim must be assessed based on its merit irrespective of whether it is peer-reviewed or not.

Kepler or Galileo did not live in the world of peer review. We do. The new claim has already been dismissed on merit. 

 

[Ecneics]

Hi

I think you are again missing the core point that you have not demonstrated why the conventional understanding is correct. You have only affirmed it.

You have ignored the immediate context of 12.8 and 12.45 and have brought in a [questionable] synonym of a word from general verses 1.4 and 1.5. This is on shaky ground.

Well, in 12.8 तीव्रकर is masculine and it is used to mean the sun and in 12.45 तीव्रकरा is feminine and it is used as synonym for गतिः. Then why should 12.8 set the immediate context for 12.45 and not 1.4 and 1.5? I again take my सुकर: example. The masculine version means 'good-doer' and सुकरा the feminine version means cow in the dictionary. As you can see, at this point this is Oak's (let's say even mine) अध्याहार vs Misra's अध्याहार and this is exactly what i wanted to demonstrate initially and the point you seem to be missing. Why do you think Nilesh Oak is wrong and the rest are right? Unless you can demonstrate from some shastra or sutra where your अध्याहार is more acceptable than Oak's then perhaps you will have a point. 

 The word चरितम् is an umbrella term and the work already includes many things apart from the movement of grahas. So, there is no need to take a narrow meaning of चरितम् in 1.4 and 1.5 and then take an अध्याहार in 12.46. Verse 12.46 is complete in itself and does not need any such अध्याहार. 

 I can say the same thing regarding your choice of कर as being rays. कर too have multiple meanings.

मति is covered under चरितम् = स्वभावः. Anyway, there is no need to ignore immediate context and bring up an imaginary connection of 12.46 and 1.5/1.6.

This is again similar to Oak's अध्याहार vs Misra's अध्याहार. I can say the same about your context as well. 

So now you are saying that the sun's movement is a haste-maker? That still has problems. 

No. I am saying 'haste-maker' is synonymous to गतिः as in speed. Speed is the haste-maker. Isn't this obvious? And given that you have not objected to the grammatical construction it simply means that the anvaya I presented is equally grammatically valid. The rest of the objection you have is with the method of contextualization which is again Oak's अध्याहार vs Misra's अध्याहार. And you still have to demonstrate which of them is better.

Every commentator and translator has taken a sandhi as it is obvious. Feminine singular needs an अध्याहार,  that too of a noun which has nothing to do with the context. So it is not equally likely.

This is a consequence of your first point. It won't hold if you change your first point.

Nobody is making claims that modern thermodynamics was known to the author of SS. But Oak and Bhaty are making a claim.

No one is making a claim about the entire mathematical formalism of Keplerian dynamics beyond the qualitative description which possibly stems from the author's possible knowledge of some mathematical formulation in this regard.

Kepler or Galileo did not live in the world of peer review. We do. The new claim has already been dismissed on merit.

That only proves peer-review is not an essential component of verifying claims. The dismissal of the claim is based on an application of the methodology (which is same as mine as I demonstrated and grammatically sound) which you think is acceptable based on the consensus it has amongst the commentators. You have not demonstrated why this application that has wide consensus is somehow more correct apart from pointing out its wide usage amongst the commentators.

Yours sincerely

[Ecneics]

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Thursday, 2 January 2025 at 11:29:22 pm UTC+5:30 Ecneics wrote:

You have ignored the immediate context of 12.8 and 12.45 and have brought in a [questionable] synonym of a word from general verses 1.4 and 1.5. This is on shaky ground.

Well, in 12.8 तीव्रकर is masculine and it is used to mean the sun and in 12.45 तीव्रकरा is feminine and it is used as synonym for गतिः. Then why should 12.8 set the immediate context for 12.45 and not 1.4 and 1.5? I again take my सुकर: example. The masculine version means 'good-doer' and सुकरा the feminine version means cow in the dictionary. As you can see, at this point this is Oak's (let's say even mine) अध्याहार vs Misra's अध्याहार and this is exactly what i wanted to demonstrate initially and the point you seem to be missing. Why do you think Nilesh Oak is wrong and the rest are right? Unless you can demonstrate from some shastra or sutra where your अध्याहार is more acceptable than Oak's then perhaps you will have a point. 

First, a correction: In 12.8 तीव्रकर does not mean the sun, but is used as an adjective for the sun in the summer. तीव्रकरो भानुः in the question in 12.8 goes completely well with रवेः तीव्रकराः in 12.45. Secondly, what is your understanding of the word अध्याहार/supplying an ellipsis? Which extra word I have brought in without which the translation would not be complete? It is really a case of no अध्याहार versus Ecneics/Abhishek Mehta's अध्याहार. 

Oak and Bhaty have only rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit and they cannot even string together a proper anvaya. Their translation is wrong and so is the claim.

 

 The word चरितम् is an umbrella term and the work already includes many things apart from the movement of grahas. So, there is no need to take a narrow meaning of चरितम् in 1.4 and 1.5 and then take an अध्याहार in 12.46. Verse 12.46 is complete in itself and does not need any such अध्याहार. 

 I can say the same thing regarding your choice of कर as being rays. कर too have multiple meanings.

Apart from "ray", which meaning of कर do you propose in the context of the sun? Why don't you provide a word-for-word and full translation so that we can compare? 

 

मति is covered under चरितम् = स्वभावः. Anyway, there is no need to ignore immediate context and bring up an imaginary connection of 12.46 and 1.5/1.6.

This is again similar to Oak's अध्याहार vs Misra's अध्याहार. I can say the same about your context as well. 

Again, you need to first understand what अध्याहार = supplying an ellipsis means. Context is almost always immediate and rarely remote. If you claim that verse 1.5/1.6 provides the context for 12.46 but not 12.8 and 12.46, it is another exceptional claim.

 

So now you are saying that the sun's movement is a haste-maker? That still has problems. 

No. I am saying 'haste-maker' is synonymous to गतिः as in speed. Speed is the haste-maker. Isn't this obvious? And given that you have not objected to the grammatical construction it simply means that the anvaya I presented is equally grammatically valid. The rest of the objection you have is with the method of contextualization which is again Oak's अध्याहार vs Misra's अध्याहार. And you still have to demonstrate which of them is better.

First, you brought in a new word गतिः and then read तीव्रकरा as a feminine adjective of गतिः. Then you say तीव्रकरा is synonymous to गतिः. Do you know what a synonym means and how it differs from being a qualifier? In the phrase "मन्दबुद्धिः बालकः" (sandhi broken for clarity), is मन्दबुद्धिः synonymous to बालकः or is it a qualifier? 

 

The rest of your email has some generic points which are not much relevant . 

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

I wanted to alert Sri Nityananda Misra and others that this group of people (engaged in sensational date research)

uses foul language and name calling.  They have some fixed views and maintain some audience through social 

interaction.  Any interaction would be a waste of personal time.  I suggest it best to ignore.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra   

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/24bcaf40-b6e9-4521-a4ef-a6274cfead06n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Nagaraj Paturi Garu,

I do not know if you are still moderating the group or if there is somebody else. If you are, here are my questions regarding some recent posts. If you are not, please direct them to the moderator.

Q1) How did you ensure whether this person who claims to be Abhishek Mehta is genuine? Could this not be an imposter with a fake name? With an email address of thinkmat...@gmail.com and a display name of Ecneics, it could be anybody and the person can claim to be Abhishek Mehta. 

Q2) Are such email addresses and display names allowed? The BVP group policy states: "Your profile picture should be your photo or it should be blank. Post using your real names. Posting with nicknames is not allowed." I am sure the group policy was put in place to make sure we have genuine scholars and researchers posting without hiding their public identity. Such posts with no idea about the identity of the poster are a clear violation of group policy.

Q3) Do the members of this respected forum not need to know who they are engaging with in a debate and what their credentials and/or affiliations are? If such people do not reveal their credentials and/or affiliations, can they be taken as scholars or researchers? Why allow them to post on BVP with a pseudo name? If they cannot or refuse to reveal their credentials and/or affiliations, why are they being allowed as members? If any random person with just an email address can join and post with anonymity, then this list has been compromised.

I am no longer a member of the INDOLOGY list, but they had a basic verification process to check the credentials of every new user. Should we not do something here to increas the quality of the discussions?

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 3 January 2025 at 12:17:59 am UTC+5:30 Bijoy Misra wrote:

Friends,

I wanted to alert Sri Nityananda Misra and others that this group of people (engaged in sensational date research)

uses foul language and name calling.  They have some fixed views and maintain some audience through social 

interaction.  Any interaction would be a waste of personal time.  I suggest it best to ignore.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra   

Thank you, Dr. Bijoy Misra Ji. I have requested the moderator Dr. Nagaraj Paturi to make sure we know the credentials of this user Ecneics.

Dear Dr. Paturi,

A search on BVP tells me that this user Ecneics has posted on the group only today and is trying really hard to defend Oak and Bhaty. Does not not smell fishy? The user has written posts on two other threads, including one post tracing the root of the English word devil in the Sanskrit word Devala, throwing all linguistics as we know out of the window. Next we may see users citing P N Oak to claim AM and PM originally stood for आरोहणं मार्त्तण्डस्य and पतनं मार्त्तण्डस्य. 

As a member of the list, I request you and the moderators to make sure the user reveals their full identity, credentials and affiliations so that we can see if they are indeed a researcher or scholar. If the member refuses to reveal these basic details or is not found to be a scholar or researcher, should they be allowed to post at all?

[Ramesh Rao]

I believe it is Mr. Abhishek Kumar Mehta:

https://groups.google.com/g/samskrita/c/Fgw0h02Yuw8/m/s8kvSFnXBQAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer&pli=1

Ramesh Rao

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/43d64f81-db66-4bf9-ab7a-1e6baaf0b93fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityānanda Miśra]

Namaste

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025, 00:59 Ecneics, <thinkmat...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is really a case of no अध्याहार versus Ecneics/Abhishek Mehta's अध्याहार. 

Even if we have it your way, introducing an अध्याहार isn't something illogical and without merit. 

An अध्याहार or supplying the ellipsis is needed, and is welcome, when a verse or sentence is incomplete and bringing an additional word or two makes it complete. If the verse or sentence is already complete, an अध्याहार is not needed and may in fact end up distorting the meaning, as it the case with your proposed अध्याहार of गतिः. As a result of this needless and baseless अध्याहार, you end up concluding that the verse is talking about the change in the speed of the sun (or the rays of the sun) across seasons, when it is really the change in the temperature across the seasons that SS 12.46 s talking about. I showed that a similar baseless अध्याहार of मतिः would lead us to conclude the sun or the sun's rays are intelligent and stupid in different months. The method of अध्याहार can give great results when used correctly. Your use of the method to SS 12.46 is faulty since the new word you propose to bring in completely alters the meaning of the verse.

 Context is almost always immediate and rarely remote.

By this logic I shouldn't contextualize Lord Rama's breakdown in the Aranyakanda about the Vanvasa He got in the Ayodhyakanda.

I wrote "almost always" and "rarely", not "always" and "never". If you ask about the context of a verse in the Aranyakanda, you will most likely get answers about the immediate context (surrounding verses and sargas). 

First, you brought in a new word गतिः and then read तीव्रकरा as a feminine adjective of गतिः. Then you say तीव्रकरा is synonymous to गतिः. Do you know what a synonym means and how it differs from being a qualifier? In the phrase "मन्दबुद्धिः बालकः" (sandhi broken for clarity), is मन्दबुद्धिः synonymous to बालकः or is it a qualifier? 

In दिवाकरः सूर्यः is दिवाकरः synonymous to सूर्यः or an adjective or qualifier? There is only one दिवाकरः who else is a दिवाकरः. Alpha Centauri? It is the same with तीव्रकरा गतिः 

The examples are not at all comparable. The word दिवाकर is a well-known synonym of सूर्य, as attested in many dictionaries. But मन्दबुद्धि is not known to be a synonym of बालक. Similarly, तीव्रकरा is not known to be a synonym of गति. On what basis do you make the claim that तीव्रकरा is synonymous with  गति? Are there any examples in Sanskrit texts, astronomical or otherwise, where the word तीव्रकरा is used for गति? Does any dictionary support this strange claim? The word तीव्रकर is used in several astronomical texts, why don't you check all references and show one instance (from a standard commentary or translation, not from your interpretation), where the word तीव्रकरा is used for गति. If we cannot find one, can your proposal be taken seriously. Claims come a dime a dozen but a claim needs to be convincing to be considered seriously.

You asked who else is दिवाकर. The Arka tree is also called दिवाकर and a crow is also called दिवाकर. All three meanings are attested in numerous dictionaries and texts. Now if somebody claims that even a चण्डाल and a barber are दिवाकर because a चण्डाल and a barber are known to be दिवाकीर्ति,‌ and so they are दिवाकीर्तिकर and hence also दिवाकर. Would such a claim be credible? 

Thanks, Nityānanda 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Abhishek Kumar Mehta, 

I saw your posts on the Samskrita list where I too post.  If you are under the impression that I am the moderator of that list too , may I clarify that I am not. 

I remember you requesting on that list if someone could add you to the BVP list. 

I see from the managing dashboard of this list that you joined this list on the 15th of November, 2024. 

Glad to see you sharing your credentials in this thread. 

It is ideal if you can figure out how you can change your display name from Ecneics to your actual name Dr Abhishek Kumar Mehta and change it. 

-------------------------------------------

So far, the interaction between aadaraNeeya Sri Nityanand Misra ji and Dr Abhishek Kumar Panda ji has not involved any foul language or any such thing. 

--------------------------------------------

Yes, Prof Bijoy Misra, 

You are right in your observation that "  this group of people (engaged in sensational date research) uses foul language and name calling.  They have some fixed views and maintain some audience through social (media) interaction. "  (word in parentheses mine)

It is also true that this thread is also connected to some sensational date research and its refutation. 

The thread had a post on 25th April, 2021 and there was a pause. The thread got revived with a post on 2nd January, 2025 by aadaraNeeya Sri Nityanand Misra ji. 

Dr Abhishek Kumar Mehta , as mentioned earlier joined this group recently on the 15th of November, 2024. 

He responded to Sri Nitanyanand Misra's recent thread reviving post. 

Moderation can be done when needed. 

Thanks for your understanding .

Regards, 









  

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:42 AM Ecneics <thinkmat...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sorry what is the frustration here. I used to post on a separate sanskrit mailing list with the same moderator frequently. And it is today I happen to know that i can post here as well. Otherwise I was under the impression that I have no permission.

And let me have you know that I am Dr. Abhishek Kumar Mehta and I hold a doctorate in theoretical physics from IISER, Pune. You can have a look at my publications here https://inspirehep.net/authors/2132210

This is simply unruly behaviour from such a personality as you just because you do not like how I am testing the limits of your formulation within which you interpret sanskrit texts. And as a matter of fact, my post on the Devil vs Devala was a thought experiment which i just shared and wanted some feedback. There is no reason to just lose you cool over such trivial a matter.

Utterly, utterly ridiculous behvaiour this is.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/43d64f81-db66-4bf9-ab7a-1e6baaf0b93fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ecneics]

I am sorry what is the frustration here. I used to post on a separate sanskrit mailing list with the same moderator frequently. And it is today I happen to know that i can post here as well. Otherwise I was under the impression that I have no permission.

And let me have you know that I am Dr. Abhishek Kumar Mehta and I hold a doctorate in theoretical physics from IISER, Pune. You can have a look at my publications here https://inspirehep.net/authors/2132210

This is simply unruly behaviour from such a personality as you just because you do not like how I am testing the limits of your formulation within which you interpret sanskrit texts. And as a matter of fact, my post on the Devil vs Devala was a thought experiment which i just shared and wanted some feedback. There is no reason to just lose you cool over such trivial a matter.

Utterly, utterly ridiculous behvaiour this is.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/43d64f81-db66-4bf9-ab7a-1e6baaf0b93fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ecneics]

Hi,

Your use of the method to SS 12.46 is faulty since the new word you propose to bring in completely alters the meaning of the verse.

Imagine you and I stumble upon SS when there are no commentaries available and there are no translations available. I use my अध्याहार to get the meaning of SS 12.46 and you use your method to get yours. In such a scenario, by what criteria you will call my method faulty? You might say that my method is complex hence it is faulty. But that argument means nothing because a text can be as complicated as possible. How do you know before hand SS is optimized to be as simple as you are making it to be? 

From this thought-experiment it is clear your understanding of my method being faulty is based on consensus and like I said you are simply affirming the consensus and not demonstrating it to be better than mine.

I wrote "almost always" and "rarely", not "always" and "never".

How do you know that SS is not in the "rare" category but in the "almost always"? Again go back to the thought-experiment.

The word दिवाकर is a well-known synonym of सूर्य, as attested in many dictionaries.

So you need to know something is a synonym from a dictionary? Before dictionaries were written there was no way of knowing what is a synonym ?  For a Vaishnava परमात्मा is synonymous with कृष्णः now you will not take Vaishnava texts seriously because the dictionary doesn't say so? All your arguments are based on dictionaries, commentaries etc. and not the first principles.

The Arka tree is also called दिवाकर and a crow is also called दिवाकर. All three meanings are attested in numerous dictionaries and texts.

Well, so what? हरिजनः is synonymous with some specific lower castes as well. These are synonyms established due to historical reasons. From the first principle basis, can you justify why a crow is दिवाकर or a lower caste person हरिजन? As in based on the construction and the meaning that comes from the construction? Of course, not. Then there is some historical reasons why such synonyms occur.

The word तीव्रकर is used in several astronomical texts, why don't you check all references and show one instance (from a standard commentary or translation, not from your interpretation), where the word तीव्रकरा is used for गति.

An argument that was almost valid until you brought your commentaries and dictionaries again. I will give you a counter proposal. Name one text apart from SS and if possible the verse were तीव्रकरा appears and I will give see if using it to mean गतिः leads to a consistent meaning or not.

All your arguments are just commentaries and dictionaries and do not involve any first principles. In theoretical physics, whenever we look at a paper on arXiv we do an independent computation to see if the results in the paper are correct or not. The paper may cite many other papers to justify their computation but we still verify it independently. 

Your argument essentially is all those computations are cited with all the papers they come from. Just check the papers have those computations or not and that is all. Everything must be checked from first principles which I don't think you are keenly doing.

Yours sincerely 

[Ecneics]

It is really a case of no अध्याहार versus Ecneics/Abhishek Mehta's अध्याहार. 

Even if we have it your way, introducing an अध्याहार isn't something illogical and without merit. 

 Context is almost always immediate and rarely remote.

By this logic I shouldn't contextualize Lord Rama's breakdown in the Aranyakanda about the Vanvasa He got in the Ayodhyakanda.

First, you brought in a new word गतिः and then read तीव्रकरा as a feminine adjective of गतिः. Then you say तीव्रकरा is synonymous to गतिः. Do you know what a synonym means and how it differs from being a qualifier? In the phrase "मन्दबुद्धिः बालकः" (sandhi broken for clarity), is मन्दबुद्धिः synonymous to बालकः or is it a qualifier? 

In दिवाकरः सूर्यः is दिवाकरः synonymous to सूर्यः or an adjective or qualifier? There is only one दिवाकरः who else is a दिवाकरः. Alpha Centauri? It is the same with तीव्रकरा गतिः 

I will share my word to word translation tomorrow. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/24bcaf40-b6e9-4521-a4ef-a6274cfead06n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Paturi,

Foul language does not come here.  It goes in outside social outbursts.

They have a wide network to tarnish people.

Just alerting, (I was alerted and then observed).

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZqq%2BfAn1OpbY-kFKpzAwLmvh-TQUtp-q77PrPV9_NTsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There was a member related to this thread who was using social media outside this list to respond to the posts in this list. While being a member of this list, he never preferred to respond here. 

I removed that member from the list for considering this list not worth his responses and instead use the other platforms to respond to the posts here.

Such actions shall be taken when such a situation arises.  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjU-bdkB9M_jSY7BLfdanCaTvH5i_kWBAwCTou6tZVqg5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ecneics]

Sir. 

Can you please keep your doomsday scenarios to yourself and stop instigating people to be suspicious for no reason? In academic circles it is considered rude to interject with two people are discussing something serious with irrelevant hypotheticals.

Yours sincerely 

Dr. Abhishek Kumar Mehta

[Nityānanda Miśra]

Namaste

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025, 09:07 Ecneics, <thinkmat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Imagine you and I stumble upon SS when there are no commentaries available and there are no translations available. I use my अध्याहार to get the meaning of SS 12.46 and you use your method to get yours. In such a scenario, by what criteria you will call my method faulty? You might say that my method is complex hence it is faulty.

Good to see that finally you are using the word अध्याहार correctly and admitting that my translation does not depend on an अध्याहार and yours does. I will not say that your method is complex and hence faulty. I will say that your application of अध्याहार alters the meaning of the text and hence, is faulty. An अध्याहार is used to make an incomplete sentence complete, not to change the meaning of a complete sentence altogether by bringing in a new and unrelated word. Such an approach goes against the principles of interpretation.

But that argument means nothing because a text can be as complicated as possible. How do you know before hand SS is optimized to be as simple as you are making it to be? 

I did not say the SS is simple. My position is that the SS does not know Kepler's second law. The argument that "a text can be as complicated as possible" is another slippery slope. Every text like the SS has to be situated in its time and context and interpreted correctly before we can claim specific things like it knows of Kepler's laws. Otherwise, people have claimed that the speed of light is mentioned in Sayana's commentary on Rgveda.

From this thought-experiment it is clear your understanding of my method being faulty is based on consensus and like I said you are simply affirming the consensus and not demonstrating it to be better than mine.

My statement is not based on consensus around the SS but on linguistic principles. Yes, you are challenging the consensus by resorting to a faulty application of an interpretive technique.

I wrote "almost always" and "rarely", not "always" and "never".

How do you know that SS is not in the "rare" category but in the "almost always"? Again go back to the thought-experiment.

I was talking about context in general, not any work in particular. 

The word दिवाकर is a well-known synonym of सूर्य, as attested in many dictionaries.

So you need to know something is a synonym from a dictionary? Before dictionaries were written there was no way of knowing what is a synonym ?  For a Vaishnava परमात्मा is synonymous with कृष्णः now you will not take Vaishnava texts seriously because the dictionary doesn't say so? All your arguments are based on dictionaries, commentaries etc. and not the first principles.

When did I say one needs a dictionary to know a synonym? I just said the synonym is attested in dictionaries. That is not the same.

If one knows a language well enough, one does not need a dictionary to know if a word is a synonym of another or not. But dictionaries do confirm synonyms and are taken as evidence. Most Sanskrit commentaries cite Nirukta or koshas (इत्यमरः, इति मेदिनी, etc.). 

Now if you claim the word तीव्रकरा is a synonym (not even a qualifier or adjective) of गति, you need to back it up with a literary citation or a kosha, right?

The Arka tree is also called दिवाकर and a crow is also called दिवाकर. All three meanings are attested in numerous dictionaries and texts.

Well, so what? हरिजनः is synonymous with some specific lower castes as well. These are synonyms established due to historical reasons. From the first principle basis, can you justify why a crow is दिवाकर or a lower caste person हरिजन? As in based on the construction and the meaning that comes from the construction? Of course, not. Then there is some historical reasons why such synonyms occur.

Do you any historical reason based on which तीव्रकरा can be considered a synonym of गति?

The word तीव्रकर is used in several astronomical texts, why don't you check all references and show one instance (from a standard commentary or translation, not from your interpretation), where the word तीव्रकरा is used for गति.

An argument that was almost valid until you brought your commentaries and dictionaries again. I will give you a counter proposal. Name one text apart from SS and if possible the verse were तीव्रकरा appears and I will give see if using it to mean गतिः leads to a consistent meaning or not.

I said commentaries and translations, not commentaries and dictionaries. Anyway, as you are proposing a new meaning and not me. It is up to you to find occurrences of तीव्रकर in other texts. If you come and make claims like तीव्रकरा means गति and the English word devil is from Sanskrit Devala, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

All your arguments are just commentaries and dictionaries and do not involve any first principles. In theoretical physics, whenever we look at a paper on arXiv we do an independent computation to see if the results in the paper are correct or not. The paper may cite many other papers to justify their computation but we still verify it independently. 

Theoretical physics and textual interpretation are very different. I have independently validated the Sanskrit commentary and two English translations and find them to be correct. 

Your argument essentially is all those computations are cited with all the papers they come from. Just check the papers have those computations or not and that is all. Everything must be checked from first principles which I don't think you are keenly doing.

You have competely misunderstood my arguments. I have provided an anvaya, word-for-word translation, prose translation, and context. I have evaluated and rejected the faulty interpretation of Oak and Bhaty and yourself purely on linguistic principles. 

Thanks, Nityānanda 

[Ecneics]

Sorry for the initial spam. It was by mistake

...not to change the meaning of a complete sentence altogether...

In absence of any commentaries and translations available, what meaning are you talking about that I have 'changed'? There is just my अध्याहार and your method.

Yes, you are challenging the consensus by resorting to a faulty application of an interpretive technique.

Theoretical physics and textual interpretation are very different.

So you agree that it is faulty by consensus only. And not by first principles. That is exactly my point.

Do you any historical reason based on which तीव्रकरा can be considered a synonym of गति?

Isn't that the point of this discussion? I am trying to establish SS to be the historical reason.

Anyway, as you are proposing a new meaning and not me. It is up to you to find occurrences of तीव्रकर in other texts. If you come and make claims like तीव्रकरा means गति and the English word devil is from Sanskrit Devala, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I will not go into the intricacies of theory and evidence here but I accept your challenge.

Now if you claim the word तीव्रकरा is a synonym (not even a qualifier or adjective) of गति, you need to back it up with a literary citation or a kosha, right?

This I agree. However, given how words can be constructed in the sanskrit language using the Paninian grammar, including new synonyms, I believe that this extreme reliance on literary citation or kosha is detrimental to discovering the true meanings of these texts. 

You have competely misunderstood my arguments.

I don't think so. You only argued in the favour of affirming the consensus rather than independently working out the meaning of the verses and then checking with the commentaries. It is like we used to do in school sometimes. Look at the answers at the back of H C Verma and affirm that it is correct. The answer would tell us what we need to do to get to it. But at the cost of practicing applying the first principles. I see you doing the same. Again go back to the thought experiment. Are you sure if you did not have access to the commentaries and translations you would have come up with the same translation? 

Yours sincerely

[Raja Roy]

Dear Misra ji,

I guess you are talking about this.

Regards,

Raja

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjU-bdkB9M_jSY7BLfdanCaTvH5i_kWBAwCTou6tZVqg5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shashi Joshi]

Ecneics ji,

Just in light hearted 'debate'/discussion:

And let me have you know that I am Dr. Abhishek Kumar Mehta and I hold a doctorate in theoretical physics from IISER, Pune. You can have a look at my publications here https://inspirehep.net/authors/2132210

The link given does not prove anything.

Where is the proof that the person at that link is you?

Since, here, you are identified simply by your email !

Nothing personal.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

[Ecneics]

The Internet is the ultimate maya. Anyone can be anyone. No amount of pramana is sufficient in this maya that can make you an astika regarding anyone's existence.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoDdZKWr6xBDF39eYkhYFXMBRGMVY2tYVj53dMEjzL44Uw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Raja Roy, 

The person screenshot of whose post you are sharing is no longer a member of this list. 

The screenshot is not relevant to the present discussion between Dr Abhishek Kumar Panda ji and aadaraNiya Sri Nityanand Misra ji. It is not fair and is not recommended  to make such posts with such screen shares here in this group. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5vqE2KCpCH_ZO5ZJUxJGHd0Tuwj3A6V8BsjuLbhUb52cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ecneics]

Ok. I looked chapter 12 more carefully in SS. It seems 12.8 which you were insisting sets the context for तीव्रकरा mentioned in 12.46 was a question posed by Mayasura and not a statement made by Lord Surya which means that 12.8 is a question made in ignorance of celestial mechanics by Mayasura to Lord Surya who is knowledgeable in it. If you interpret तीव्रकरः of 12.8 as the 'heat-maker' like you insist then that fits because this is a question made in ignorance. 

12.46 on the other hand is part of the answer to 12.8 and therefore should be seen as a resolution abd correction to it. The use of feminine तीव्रकरा (compared to masculine तीव्रकरः) and it's opposing usage to मन्दता in 12.46 serves as a correction to Mayasura's original statements. Therefore to use the words of an ignorant Mayasura to set the context for words used by a knowledgable Lord Surya is fundamentally flawed.

Compare that to my usage of 1.5 which are the statements of Lord Surya themselves to set the context of 12.46. Irrespective of how immediate your contextualization using 12.8 is you cannot deny that this is erroneous due to what I stated above.

Yours sincerely 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/24bcaf40-b6e9-4521-a4ef-a6274cfead06n%40googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Friday, 3 January 2025 at 10:46:56 am UTC+5:30 Ecneics wrote:

Sorry for the initial spam. It was by mistake

...not to change the meaning of a complete sentence altogether...

In absence of any commentaries and translations available, what meaning are you talking about that I have 'changed'? There is just my अध्याहार and your method.

The meaning I have in mind is the स्वारसिक (natural or evident) meaning, as it appears to me, without looking at any other translations or commentaries. When it is not needed, an अध्याहार obviously brings in something new which is not there in the original text, thereby imposing a meaning on the original text. 

 

Yes, you are challenging the consensus by resorting to a faulty application of an interpretive technique.

Theoretical physics and textual interpretation are very different.

So you agree that it is faulty by consensus only. And not by first principles. That is exactly my point.

I never said your translation is faulty because it goes against the consensus. I was clear in saying “My statement is not based on consensus around the SS but on linguistic principles.” Your translation also goes against consensus, but this is not why I find it faulty. I need not tell you that correlation is not causation. 

 

Do you any historical reason based on which तीव्रकरा can be considered a synonym of गति?

Isn't that the point of this discussion? I am trying to establish SS to be the historical reason.

You are trying very hard, indeed. But do you even have a historical date for the SS in mind to start with? To establish if the SS is the historical reason for तीव्रकरा = गति, one has to first establish that the word तीव्रकरा is a synonym of गति. For that, we have to find some historical textual evidence. And that evidence cannot be your claim in the 21st century.

 

Anyway, as you are proposing a new meaning and not me. It is up to you to find occurrences of तीव्रकर in other texts. If you come and make claims like तीव्रकरा means गति and the English word devil is from Sanskrit Devala, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I will not go into the intricacies of theory and evidence here but I accept your challenge.

I think this is a positive approach. Any such evidence would be welcome.

 

Now if you claim the word तीव्रकरा is a synonym (not even a qualifier or adjective) of गति, you need to back it up with a literary citation or a kosha, right?

This I agree. However, given how words can be constructed in the sanskrit language using the Paninian grammar, including new synonyms, I believe that this extreme reliance on literary citation or kosha is detrimental to discovering the true meanings of these texts. 

One does not always need dictionaries. Many synonyms are naturally understood without resorting to citations or dictionaries because similar words are attested. But this example sounds very strange, hence my request to you to see if you have any citations available. 

 

You have competely misunderstood my arguments.

I don't think so. You only argued in the favour of affirming the consensus rather than independently working out the meaning of the verses and then checking with the commentaries. It is like we used to do in school sometimes. Look at the answers at the back of H C Verma and affirm that it is correct. The answer would tell us what we need to do to get to it. But at the cost of practicing applying the first principles. I see you doing the same. Again go back to the thought experiment. Are you sure if you did not have access to the commentaries and translations you would have come up with the same translation? 

I can affirm with confidence I would have come up with more or less the same translation of SS 12.46 without looking at any commentaries or translations. I do not accept commentaries and translations, when I use them, blindly. Many times in the past I have questioned and/or contradicted past translations and commentaries.

(1) An example where I have contradicted five translations of a verse (1.100.20 in the Gita Press edition, 1.94.18 in the critical edition) in the Mahabharata by K M Ganguli, M N Dutt. J A B van Buitenen. P. Lal, and Bibek Debroy can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5T-0aJK_Y  

(2) An example where I, with my co-author Kushagra Aniket, have contradicted Nilakantha's interpretation of a verse (8.69.59) in the Mahabharata can be found in endnote 8 on pages 187 and 188 of our book Krishna-Niti: Timeless Strategic Wisdom.

In the case of SS 12.46, I do not find any reason to question or contradict the two other translations I quoted, though I think the word sluggish used by Burgess can be replaced with a better word. But at least from a conceptual view, the translations by Shastri and Burgess seem correct.

Thanks, Nityānanda

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Friday, 3 January 2025 at 3:40:27 pm UTC+5:30 Ecneics wrote:

Ok. I looked chapter 12 more carefully in SS. It seems 12.8 which you were insisting sets the context for तीव्रकरा mentioned in 12.46 was a question posed by Mayasura and not a statement made by Lord Surya which means that 12.8 is a question made in ignorance of celestial mechanics by Mayasura to Lord Surya who is knowledgeable in it. If you interpret तीव्रकरः of 12.8 as the 'heat-maker' like you insist then that fits because this is a question made in ignorance. 

I have not interpreted तीव्रकरः in 12.8 as "heat-maker". I have never used this expression anywhere on this thread. I would translate तीव्रकरः as "hot-rayed" or "having hot rays".

12.46 on the other hand is part of the answer to 12.8 and therefore should be seen as a resolution abd correction to it. The use of feminine तीव्रकरा (compared to masculine तीव्रकरः) and it's opposing usage to मन्दता in 12.46 serves as a correction to Mayasura's original statements. Therefore to use the words of an ignorant Mayasura to set the context for words used by a knowledgable Lord Surya is fundamentally flawed.

Does 12.46 offer a correction of 12.8 or an explanation of 12.8? You say it is a correction based on your debatable interpretation based on a claimed synonym for which we do not have evidence. You have said you will look for evidence (" I accept your challenge"), though I do not think I challenged you (I only questioned you). I do not think it is a correction.

 

[Abhishek Mehta]

Sorry I meant your interpretation of तीव्र as 'heat'. You may choose to translate तीव्रकरः as however you like but it doesn't change the fact that  तीव्रकरः  is a terminology that is coined by a person ignorant of the celestial mechanics namely Mayasura in the verse 12.8 which is posed as a question. Therefore, you cannot use this to contextualize and define the appearance of the same word in the verse of Lord Surya who is knowledgeable in celestial mechanics without giving the benefit of doubt that He might mean it in a different way.

It is like if someone ignorant of physics asks a physicist 'You have told me the speed of light but can you also tell me the speed of darkness?' you cannot use the term 'speed of darkness' coined by an ignorant person to insist that the physicist's answer must necessarily contain the term 'speed of darkness' in the same context and meaning without any correction. Irrespective of whether you agree or not with what I am trying to claim your method is fundamentally flawed due to this. And if you do not think there is a correction or even a possibility of it, it simply means that you are not willing to honestly acknowledge the expertise of Lord Surya within the SS. 

[Raja Roy]

Dear Dr. Mehta,

>And if you do not think there is a correction or even a possibility of it, it simply means that you are not willing to >honestly acknowledge the expertise of Lord Surya within the SS. 

Are you seriously implying that the Sun can dictate a text? A dialogue with the Sun is simply a device to generate reverence for what is being said. Both Mayasura and Sun are actors imagined by the writers of the text Surya Siddhanta. The aim is simply to elucidate the then current understanding of the principles described in the text. 

Regards,

Dr. Raja Roy

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b9f27cde-82b3-4b38-877b-089f8064bc26n%40googlegroups.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

What I think is of no consequence. The point is there are two personalities - one is an expert and one isn't. If the non-expert coins a term that is not sensible then there is a possibility that the expert will correct it. To insist that he won't and continue to use the same terminology is a flawed thinking.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5t2CQjQCBvcELjWVJe6JgDxvpRCpcKPwNVFwxtRCmBS0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr Mehta,

When two people are discussing, they can do it privately.

You seem to argue to gain some approval.  

You are not aware that your interpretation of तीव्रकर is faulty.

The object has a property, when the property gets dense it is  तीव्र.

The motion is not a property of the sun, the properties of the sun are 

heat and light. Motion is a property of air, the clouds or the flames (not fire).

Please refer to the Vedas to understand and appreciate how words 

come in use.  My view has been that each Vedic word has a neural

image behind it.    तीव्र and  क्षिप्र are two different concepts,

neurologically separate.  English lumps them since the language 

is not object-based, you check dictionaries etc. In the Vedas 

it is done through sound, Sanskrit has carried on.    

Since you are a physicist, it would help to dive through वैशेषिक

to appreciate objects and properties in cognition.  

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Friday, 3 January 2025 at 10:11:17 pm UTC+5:30 Abhishek Mehta wrote:

Sorry I meant your interpretation of तीव्र as 'heat'. You may choose to translate तीव्रकरः as however you like but it doesn't change the fact that  तीव्रकरः  is a terminology that is coined by a person ignorant of the celestial mechanics namely Mayasura in the verse 12.8 which is posed as a question. Therefore, you cannot use this to contextualize and define the appearance of the same word in the verse of Lord Surya who is knowledgeable in celestial mechanics without giving the benefit of doubt that He might mean it in a different way.

Once again, Dr. Mehta, you misrepresent my position. I have not interpreted तीव्र as “heat”. The word तीव्र is an adjective (विशेष्यनिघ्न-विशेषण) and it means “hot”, “intense”, etc. “Heat” is an abstract noun (भाववाचक-संज्ञा), like “intensity”. The word for “heat” or “intensity” would be तीव्रता, and not तीव्र. Let us be careful as this is an important distinction. 

The wording towards the end of your last sentence is important. The answer might use a term that was used in the question differently. But then one would expect a clarification or clear definition of the term in the answer if the term was incorrectly used in the question. In the absence of any such clarification in the answer, what are the chances that the answer intended to use the term differently? We need concrete evidence and not possibilities to challenge the accepted and well-known meaning of a term in astronomical texts. 

 

It is like if someone ignorant of physics asks a physicist 'You have told me the speed of light but can you also tell me the speed of darkness?' you cannot use the term 'speed of darkness' coined by an ignorant person to insist that the physicist's answer must necessarily contain the term 'speed of darkness' in the same context and meaning without any correction. Irrespective of whether you agree or not with what I am trying to claim your method is fundamentally flawed due to this. And if you do not think there is a correction or even a possibility of it, it simply means that you are not willing to honestly acknowledge the expertise of Lord Surya within the SS. 

Will the physicist not clarify this misconception in the question in his/her answer? 

I look forward to your word-for-word translation of SS 12.46 and any usages of the word तीव्रकरा for गति in astronomical texts. 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 3 January 2025 at 9:29:18 am UTC+5:30 Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

There was a member related to this thread who was using social media outside this list to respond to the posts in this list. While being a member of this list, he never preferred to respond here. 

I removed that member from the list for considering this list not worth his responses and instead use the other platforms to respond to the posts here.

Such actions shall be taken when such a situation arises.  

Dear Dr. Nagaraj Paturi Garu 

I think you are alluding to Sh. Nilesh Oak, who was removed from the list on 23 September 2021. 

I would like to bring up a false claim regarding this removal from the list. In a recent podcast on Jaipur Dialogues, Sh. Oak claimed that Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy and I demanded that he be removed from the list and the list moderators (i.e., Dr. Paturi and other moderators) agreed to our demand and removed him from the list. This was said by Oak between 13:25 to 14:25 seconds in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747jJec9cl0&t=13m25s. The truth is that while both Dr. Roy and I had debates with Sh. Oak on this list, neither Dr. Roy nor I ever demanded that Sh. Oak be removed or expelled from this list. 

Your recent post also shows that it was an independent decision by you and not based on any such demand from Dr. Roy or me.

Thanks, Nityānanda

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, aadaraNeeya Sri Nityananand Misra ji, 

Someone brought this to my notice some days ago by sharing one of your tweets where you shared my announcement of removing Sri Nilesh Oak from the list. I confirmed to that person that it was my decision as a moderator . I was not pressurized by any member to do so. 

The thread is https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/rGbg3NWwqxk/m/ZyDibcRpCwAJ



 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/efce0f07-b3f6-4c0c-a44b-05ef919472bfn%40googlegroups.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Will the physicist not clarify this misconception in the question in his/her answer? 

There are many ways of clarifying a misconception. You can clarify a misconception by a poetic reply as well. Take the question of the speed of darkness in Sanskrit.

- प्रकाशस्य गतिस् त्वया आख्यता भौतिकशास्त्रिन् किन्तु का भवेत् तमसो गतिर् इमामपि आख्याहि।

- तमोगतिर् इति या पापिनां गतिर् भवति।

As you can see the clarification uses a different grammar compared to the questioner. The physicist uses a samas तमोगतिः compared to the questioners usage of तमसो गतिः to indicate not just higher knowledge in Sanskrit and physics as well but also to indicate a difference in his usage of the same terminology. And his answer in a poetic way clarifies that तमसो गतिः is not a physical quantity but can be a metaphysical quantity.

But you are insisting I should interpret that answer as 'the speed of darkness is whatever is the speed of the sinfuls'. You can clearly see how flawed your argument is as there is a similar grammatical shift in the verse of Lord Surya. Mayasura says तीव्रकर भानुः while Lord Surya says तीव्रकरा रवेः this shift in the grammar should be enough for us to realize that Lord Surya is meaning something else.

I look forward to your word-for-word translation of SS 12.46 and any usages of the word तीव्रकरा for गति in astronomical texts. 

Let me work on that.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1609d996-f125-4249-9c46-13aa6baf0484n%40googlegroups.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

First of all you have not even bothered to understand my position on why I think तीव्र meaning fast is correct and at the same time you are trying to be an antaryami about why I am discussing this which is beyond annoying is insulting.

I am doing this to test the limits of the formalism and methodology of the other side of the discussion. I know what is the flaw of Oak's side it is lack of knowledge of sanskrit. I don't have to test that as he has demonstrated that in many of his interviews. But Oak has some really good intuition to come up with a translation that comes close to being a possibility. I respect this intuition of his.

I wish to know on what basis apart of consensus the other side is rejecting it. So if you please let me do my investigation. You are jeopardizing it with your prophecies and psychic abilities.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjXYxirVq5S6dUpcZzTj6H92Ai3EdWWFUYA5FvnX5mZ8dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

(Sorry i accidently sent you my reply from my anonymous ID)

I look forward to your word-for-word translation of SS 12.46

Ok here is my anvaya first of all

अत्यासन्नतया ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [इति वेगपूर्णगतिः] रवेः देवभागे | हेमन्ते तु तेन मन्दता सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा |

I am using the tritiya vibhakti of the शतृ version of the मन्द dhatu in the above which goes with तेन answering your question what happens to तेन.  मन्द is however an aatmanipade dhatu in bhavadigana but I use the शतृ instead of शानच् because I am invoking the sutra न गतिहिंसार्थेभ्यः  (1.3.15) as  मन्द dhatu is referring to मन्दगति: here. Therefore, तेन मन्दता is referring to 'the sun who is slowing down'. This also justifies my insertion of [इति वेगपूर्णगतिः] in the above and grammatically establishes तीव्रकरा as a synonym for गतिः itself with the sense of it being fast. The word to word translation is as follows

अत्यासन्नतया - अतिसामीप्य द्वारा

ग्रीष्मे - ग्रीष्मकाल में 

तीव्रकरा - वेगपूर्णगति

 रवेः - सूर्य का

देवभागे - उत्तरी गोलार्ध में 

हेमन्ते - हेमन्तकाल में 

तु - तो

तेन मन्दता - उस गति में मंद होते हुआ द्वारा

सुराणां [भागे] -  उत्तरी गोलार्ध में

अन्यथा - विपरीत स्तिथि 

Let's say you disagree with my usage of तीव्रकरा as वेगपूर्णगतिः and insist that I use it to mean hot rays. Even then due to the usage of the sutra न गतिहिंसार्थेभ्यः  (1.3.15) for मन्द dhatu the context of गति: is retained and the meaning remains the same. The anvaya now is 

अत्यासन्नतया ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः रवेः देवभागे | हेमन्ते तु तेन मन्दता सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा |

with the following word to word translation 

अत्यासन्नतया - अतिसामीप्य द्वारा

ग्रीष्मे - ग्रीष्मकाल में 

तीव्रकराः - तेज किरणें

 रवेः - सूर्य के

देवभागे - उत्तरी गोलार्ध में 

हेमन्ते - हेमन्तकाल में 

तु - तो

तेन मन्दता - उस गति में मंद होते हुआ द्वारा

सुराणां [भागे] -  उत्तरी गोलार्ध में

अन्यथा - विपरीत स्तिथि 

As you can see the qualitative aspect of Keplerian dynamics is still retained even when I agree to your translation of तीव्रकराः as 'hot rays' or 'blazing rays' or whatever the dictionaries say.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1609d996-f125-4249-9c46-13aa6baf0484n%40googlegroups.com.

[Shashi Joshi]

Abhishek ji,

I know this topic has stretched beyond the linear slope of the Young modulus, let me add a few more points for consideration.

Hope you have time and mood to read just one more mail.

Apologies in advance for any typos, or mistakes in the mail below.

1. Very different times

Since these works were composed many centuries ago, those who commented on it earlier (closer to the work) than say today, would have a better chance of understanding the usage. Language, including Sanskrit, is not just about grammar, but also about usage. Does any commentary, or other work after SS mention this as well, in the sense of speed? Did all other astronomers miss it, to say more about this?

2. Two ways to interpret words with "kara" as the last compound.

"kara" means the hand, and because we do with the hands, by extension it means the "doer" when used as the last word of the compound. since rays are outstretched, they are also called 'kara' or hands (like the long arms of the law :)  ) 

doer (bahuvriihi samAsa -> word means a third entity):

दिनकर / दिन--कर mf( ई )n. making day or light

अर्थकर / अर्थ--कर mf( ई )n. ( Pa1n2. 3-2 , 20 Sch. )producing advantage

कफकर / कफ--कर mfn. producing phlegm

क्षुधाकर / क्षुधा--कर mfn. causing hunger Veda7ntas. Dhu1rtas. 

क्षेत्रकर / क्षेत्र--कर mfn. cultivating a field Pa1n2. 3-2 , 21

दिवाकर / दिवा--कर m. " day-maker " , the sun AV. MBh. R. etc

rays (could be both karmadhAraya or bahuvriihi, so, adjective of the ray, or the third entity):

उष्णकर / उष्ण--कर m. " hot-rayed " , the sun Ka1d.

अरुणकर / अरुण--कर m. " having red rays " , the sun Ka1d.

अमृतकर / अ-मृत--कर m. " nectar-rayed " , the moon Ka1d.

चण्डकर / चण्ड--कर m. " hot-rayed " , the sun

तीक्ष्णकर / तीक्ष्ण--कर m. " hot-rayed " , the sun Katha1s. civ , 203. 

शीतकर / शीत--कर m. " cool-rayed " , the moon( अम्भः-शीत-क् , the -mmoon reflected in water Prab. ) 

3.

If you say that 'tiivrakarA' is the adjective of the missing word 'gatiH', then what does it mean?

That gati that "does tiivra" (fast)?

If it was to be an adjective of gati, it would be just tiivragatiH, and would fit the meter as well.

So, instead of "tiivrakarA raveH" it could very easily have been "tiivragatiH raveH" (Sun's fast speed).

4.

As I mentioned earlier, tiivra is not used for fast but intense in Sanskrit.

This confusion is mainly because of Hindi, but even there it is used with the word gati or vega (meaning with intense speed, aka fast speed)

raveH tiivra-karAH would mean Sun's intense rays (intense in what? heat of course, since apart from the obvious of vision, rays have heat, and also from the context of griiShma and hemanta that is clear.

5.

Also, when you look at 12.8 , it becomes clear that the tiivrakaraH is synonymous with the Sun, "one with intense rays".

In 12.46 it is said to be the Sun's intense rays. Both are the same in final meaning.

In 12.8 "tiivrakaraH bhAnuH" is not about the speed of the Sun, because tiivrakaraH here means "One with intense rays". Moon and Sun are called shiitakaraH and tiivrakaraH respectively due to the the 'heat' or heating effect of their rays (In case of the moon, it is the night temperature and lack of Sun that cools it, and not presence of moon, since it is cooler than the day, even on amAvasyA night with no moon)

If tiivrakaraH is taken as "makes faster" it would be an adjective for what?

And if we take it as tiivrakarA, then it must be an adjective for the missing gatiH, but then how can gatiH "MAKE faster", it can "BE faster."

6.

And MayAsura is not ignorant in framing the question. Of course, he is asking because he doesn't know the answers (apparently in the dialog form), but the question is not wrong.

In summer, the rays are indeed intense, as an experience.

7.

The "mandatAt + yathA is incorrect" has already been covered via sandhi rules earlier.

8.

Now, manda and tiivra are indeed antonyms, and they both refer to the intensity of something.

Shabdakalpadruma gives the first meaning as 'a-tiikShNa'

If manda in itself meant slow (which is about speed of motion) then you won't have words like:

- मन्दप्रेमन् / मन्द--प्रेमन् mfn. having little affection Ka1vya7d. 

- मन्दफल / मन्द--फल mfn. bearing little fruit or having unimportant results Vet. Var. 

- मन्दबल / मन्द--बल mfn. having little strength , weak MBh

- मन्दवृष्टि / मन्द--वृष्टि f. slight rain Var. 

- मन्दस्मित / मन्द--स्मित n. a gentle laugh , smile W. [#164606] [Img:788,1] 

9.

Word meaning and usage is not just from the dictionary. That is not how literature is written. The correct usage is best learnt from past great writers. Specially, in Sanskrit since there are many words with subtle differences. This view is held by the great writers of Sanskrit themselves.

Also, the writers and commentators of SS were all experts in Sanskrit, more so compared to us all today. They would not use tiivra and manda for speed (without the mention of gatiH; and no we can't imagine it to be there with no context), when in all other literature they are used for intensity. And in 12.8 and 12.46, the ask is about the intensity (temperature) and not speed.

10.

Is it possible, and you need to be honest with yourself, that you are searching for some way to explain it as speed, since that is what you have already made up your mind (for whatever reason).

It is like looking for evidence when the verdict has been given!

Hope you take this post as objective, and not personal anything.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

[Abhishek Mehta]

Hi

1. Very different times

This is a bad argument as this argument relies on external inferences to guide our translation and interpretation of sanskrit text when the ashtadhyayi should be enough. Resorting to this argument implicitly means that we do not credit the sanskrit grammar to be complete enough to help us translate these texts satisfactorily. According to the verses of the SS the SS was composed in the Satyuga of this Chaturyuga so from the text's internal standards even the commentaries that are centuries old are not contemporary enough to be reliable.

As I mentioned earlier, tiivra is not used for fast but intense in Sanskrit.

I am perfectly aware of this but scientists frequently use common words differently when describing natural phenomena. The phrase 'Big Bang' simply refers to an explosion in the common tongue but in cosmology it has a completely different meaning. My intuition tells me the same is happening here.

Word meaning and usage is not just from the dictionary. That is not how literature is written. The correct usage is best learnt from past great writers. Specially, in Sanskrit since there are many words with subtle differences. This view is held by the great writers of Sanskrit themselves.

This argument may apply to non-sanskrit literature but in a language such as sanskrit where the grammar axiomatically allows construction of words and sets a preliminary meaning of the said constructed words this is meaningless especially for the texts that are claimed to be written yugas ago. There is no other option but to rely on the grammatical formalism and have faith in the superior intellect of the Gods who wrote them or spoke them.

Is it possible, and you need to be honest with yourself, that you are searching for some way to explain it as speed, since that is what you have already made up your mind (for whatever reason).

I can say the same for you. And I haven't made up my mind on anything as I have not reached the 12 chapter as I am still in first. I am merely testing the limits of your favorite methodology.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoDr%2BAQ8wCKA4YtQ4VfKi9nT0kb7%2BuhihjNDdRLR4js%3Daw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shashi Joshi]

"I am merely testing the limits of your favorite methodology"

That says it all. 

Have fun. I am not interested anymore.

"Never mudwrestle with a pig, for no matter who wins, the pig is having fun, and you get dirty" -- and I clarify even before the doubts be raised, this has nothing personal to it, and I am not making any comparison,  beyond that you are having fun, and others are putting time and effort trying to help with translation.

I withdraw with all humility of an utter loser.

Shame on me, to take on an esteemed Dr in my childish ignorancy.

🙏🏻🙏🏻

Thank you,
Shashi

[Abhishek Mehta]

This response if representative of this side of the debate speaks volumes about the extent of the intellectual capacity they have put in formulating a rigorous argument.

It is very obvious that this side has not been rigorously cross-examined by the virtue of their 'credentials' and now when someone who shares the same 'credentials' as them tests the extent of the argument only to better understand it comparisons to 'mudwrestling a pig' must be made for God knows what.

This is nothing but extreme intellectual dishonesty. Please do not engage in any discussion with me if you do not enjoy the limits of your methodology be tested. 

[Shashi Joshi]

1. You assume I am on some side, like Bush you would be championing "You are with me, or against me."

2. The discussion is more about Sanskrit translation than astronomy, and all involved apparently are not Sanskrit experts by any extent (Oak, Bhaty and Mehta)

3. So what are you challenging about testing limits of people's methodology?

And expect me to hang around as your pinata?

4. Language and literature is NOT just by grammar book and dictionary. If you think so, and want to not see other side of this, then hari om indeed , and maybe you should not saunter much on the subjective sides of 'language use'

5. What credentials have you shared about your Sanskrit expertise? That you can quote some Panini sutra? What about the credentials of so many commentators of SS from the past then?

6. Just because you have a PhD in one field doesn't mean you are an expert in all other fields! This is the biggest fallacy, a psychological bias! It is aptly summed up by a Sanskrit nyaya "ananya-labhyaH shabdArthaH" - sometimes your past intelligence in one domain just doesn't do much in another, and you have to learn the steps in the new domain from scratch. 

Only after some ground work, one gets adhikAra to test the limits with apt questions. But you come across (maybe it is just the tone-less written word) as someone who doesn't want to see a point, but just test the limits of others. That is very easy to do for anyone, but leads to no fruitful result, except for entertainment for one!

And I assume you have just recently got your PhD. Hence the newly found tiivrakarA !

7. "comparisons to 'mudwrestling a pig' must be made for God knows what."

I think I clarified very, very clearly what part of that famous saying I wanted to use. You are having fun, while others are trying to help. If you can't get that either, then what can I say!

8. "This is nothing but extreme intellectual dishonesty"

I gave many points, with elaborations, but all you have to say is 'Naah, I don't like this, I don't think so, ..." to a select few, without even trying to understand the spirit of my point.

But, I don't blame you. It may simply be time related, you need more time in a new field to start making sense.

Imagine me testing your limits, on some Physics topic and using the English grammar and dictionary to diss you! 

That would be funny, indeed, won't it! 😂😂

9. Anyway, enough said. Since you are here to just test people's helmets with your cricket bat, and nothing much - good luck to you sir!

I shall, tiivrakarA, steer away from this discussion for now.

Signing off on a positive note, no hard feelings, I think I understand your position a bit better now.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

[Abhishek Mehta]

Oh God. Please let Nithyananda Misra ji speak for himself.

[Shashi Joshi]

Why do you assume I am any side or trying to take his side?

Being a Ecneics man, you should not jump to conclusion and still hold your tiivrakarA objectivity.

Thank you,
Shashi

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 3:47:56 pm UTC+5:30 Abhishek Mehta wrote:

(Sorry i accidently sent you my reply from my anonymous ID)

Ok here is my anvaya first of all

अत्यासन्नतया ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकरा [इति वेगपूर्णगतिः] रवेः देवभागे | हेमन्ते तु तेन मन्दता सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा |

The anvaya is problematic.

(1) Is इति वेगपूर्णगतिः an insertion (अध्याहार), as you state below, or is it your explanation? If it is an insertion or अध्याहार, 

     (a) why is it not a part of the words on the left side of your word-for-word translation below, unlike [भागे], but on the right side? 

     (b) out of तीव्रकरा and वेगपूर्णगतिः, which word is विशेषण and which one is विशेष्य? Does तीव्रकरा qualify वेगपूर्णगतिः or is it the other way round? If none of them qualifies the other, then are these to be construed independently of each other?  

If not an insertion but an explanation, why do you include it in the anvaya and call it an insertion, marking it in square brackets like [भागे]? 

(2) Are you reading two sentences here, separated by the virama (।) sign? If so, you are moving तेन, which occurs in the midst of the first sentence, to the midset of second sentence. While the word order in Sanskrit is flexible, words of a sentence are contiguous and not scattered across sentences. Do we know any examples like W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 being broken down in two sentences, with W1 W3 and W4 forming one sentence and W2 W5 and W6 forming another? 

 

I am using the tritiya vibhakti of the शतृ version of the मन्द dhatu in the above which goes with तेन answering your question what happens to तेन.  मन्द is however an aatmanipade dhatu in bhavadigana but I use the शतृ instead of शानच् because I am invoking the sutra न गतिहिंसार्थेभ्यः  (1.3.15) as  मन्द dhatu is referring to मन्दगति: here. Therefore, तेन मन्दता is referring to 'the sun who is slowing down'. This also justifies my insertion of [इति वेगपूर्णगतिः] in the above and grammatically establishes तीव्रकरा as a synonym for गतिः itself with the sense of it being fast. The word to word translation is as follows

This interpretation is also far-fetched. Rule 1.3.15 has the अनुवृत्ति of कर्तरि कर्मव्यतिहारे. You cannot simply use आत्मनेपद without explaining how कर्मव्यतिहार (reciprocity or interchange of action) applies here. is the Sun doing the task of another agent (कर्तृ) by being मन्द, as you claim? If so, who is the other agent who should have been मन्द during हेमन्त in देवभाग,  but the Sun is doing instead? Is there some other planet or heavenly body which should have done it instead of the Sun? I doubt if you understood the conditions of 1.3.15 before applying 1.3.15 here, just like you did not understand the conditions of 8.3.19 लोपः शाकल्यस्य before applying it to explain the elision of विसर्ग/स् in तीव्रकराः (तीव्रकरास्) + रवेः? 

 

अत्यासन्नतया - अतिसामीप्य द्वारा

ग्रीष्मे - ग्रीष्मकाल में 

तीव्रकरा - वेगपूर्णगति

 रवेः - सूर्य का

देवभागे - उत्तरी गोलार्ध में 

हेमन्ते - हेमन्तकाल में 

तु - तो

तेन मन्दता - उस गति में मंद होते हुआ द्वारा

सुराणां [भागे] -  उत्तरी गोलार्ध में

अन्यथा - विपरीत स्तिथि 

The second part is still incomplete. तेन मन्दता [sic] सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा ... what? तेन अन्यथा क्रियते? तेन अन्यथा भूयते? तेन अन्यथा गम्यते? तेन अन्यथा हस्यते? And how can 

Earlier you said तीव्रकरा was a synonym of गति (motion/speed). Now you explain तीव्रकरा as वेगपूर्णगति (fast motion/speed). Why has your position changed? 

Was the question (challenge) of finding evidence to support your claim of तीव्रकरा = गति not enough that you want another question (challenge) to find evidence to support तीव्रकरा = वेगपूर्णगति (implying that कर//करा means गति)? Do you accept this question (challenge) also?

 

 

Let's say you disagree with my usage of तीव्रकरा as वेगपूर्णगतिः and insist that I use it to mean hot rays. Even then due to the usage of the sutra न गतिहिंसार्थेभ्यः  (1.3.15) for मन्द dhatu the context of गति: is retained and the meaning remains the same. The anvaya now is 

Again, you do not think or explain how कर्मव्यतिहार applies and you just apply the rule to distort the innate sense of the verse and by hook or crook arrive at the meaning you desire. This is just verbal gymnastics, that too incomplet and flawed, and nothing else.

 

with the following word to word translation 

अत्यासन्नतया - अतिसामीप्य द्वारा

ग्रीष्मे - ग्रीष्मकाल में 

तीव्रकराः - तेज किरणें

 रवेः - सूर्य के

देवभागे - उत्तरी गोलार्ध में 

हेमन्ते - हेमन्तकाल में 

तु - तो

तेन मन्दता - उस गति में मंद होते हुआ द्वारा

सुराणां [भागे] -  उत्तरी गोलार्ध में

अन्यथा - विपरीत स्तिथि 

As you can see the qualitative aspect of Keplerian dynamics is still retained even when I agree to your translation of तीव्रकराः as 'hot rays' or 'blazing rays' or whatever the dictionaries say.

You say you agree with my translation of तीव्रकराः = 'hot rays' but in your word-for-word translation you write तीव्रकराः = तेज किरणें. What do you mean by तेज here?

Also, if you agree with तीव्रकराः = 'hot rays', your position is that the sun has hot rays in summer in the northern hemisphere and slow speed in winter. Is this Kepler's second law?

Do you seriously think with so many problems, your position is convincing? 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 7:13:18 pm UTC+5:30 Abhishek Mehta wrote:

Oh God. Please let Nithyananda Misra ji speak for himself.

Come on, Dr. Mehta! What on earth made you think Sh. Shashi Joshi Ji is speaking on my behalf or representing my position? Just because he challenged you like I did? He is independently trying to show you the multiple weaknesses in your interpretation and approach and has made very valid points. It would be better if you try responding objectively to the objections raised by him rather than claiming that he is speaking on my behalf.

[K S Kannan]

(a) 

I did not want to take part in in this discussion,

but the stand and tenor of Dr. Abhishek Mehta is stubborn and unrelenting, reminding one of the proverb:

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still,"

and is a veritable waste of time and energy for many.

(b) 

If Dr. Mehta is trying to use the lexicon to buttress his arguments,

let me try to provide the evidence of Amara-kośa, the most famous thesaurus.

The work juxtaposes, almost contrastively - perhaps in order to help scholars exactly like Dr. Mehta - 

the separate sets of synonyms for 1."speed", 2. "fast", and 3. "intense"! 

All these occur in the opening Varga of the opening Kāṇḍa.

(c) 

1. speed =5 synonyms=raṁhas/taras/raya/syada/java

2. fast = 11 synonyms=sīghra/tvarita/laghu/kṣipra/ara/druta/satvara/capala/tūrṇa/avilambita/āśu

3. intense = 15 synonyms=atiśaya/bhara/ativela/bhr̥śa/atyartha/atimātra/udgāḍha/nirbhara/tīvra/ekānta/nitānta/gāḍha/bāḍha/dr̥ḍha

(d) 

If you look into the very text Sūrya-siddhānta which is under discussion,

the word tīvra occurs only 2 times in the entire text 

- in a text which ought to discuss about the different/varying speeds frequently;

whereas śīghra occurs around 20 times, invariably in the sense of speed:

also see how the SS-text contrasts manda and śīghra (as also mandatara and śīghratara) multiple times,

but not tīvra and manda even once!

(f)

Hope this provides sufficient grounds for the ascertainment of the contrasting senses 

of the two words śīghra and tīvra.

tīvra-kara cannot mean speedy ray either; 

that can accord neither with grammar nor with physics; 

it can only mean sharp ray/hot ray.

(g)

It is perhaps time to close the discussion. The text-torturing is 

almost tending towards, if not  bordering on or amounting to,

ad hominem attacks.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoCv7qG9pTD69LG2wJCoURpQHywhQ%2Bqv_vHCpiQiLBNUxg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Dr. K.S.Kannan  D.Litt.

​Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Chair Professor (Retd.), IIT-Madras.

Member, Advisory Board, "Prof. A K Singh AURO Chair of Indic Studies", AURO University, Surat.
Member, Expert Committee for Review of Criticism of Indian Knowledge Traditions, Central Sanskrit University (under MoE, GoI), Ganganath Jha Campus, Prayagraj.
Adjunct Faculty, Dept of Heritage Science and Technology, IIT Hyderabad.

Nominated Member, Academic Committee, Kavi Kula Guru Kalidasa University, Ramtek.
Member, Academic Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthana.
Academic Director, Swadeshi Indology.
Nominated Member, IIAS, Shimla.

Former Professor, CAHC, Jain University, Bangalore.

Former Director, Karnataka Samskrit University, Bangalore.

Former Head, Dept. of Sanskrit, The National Colleges, Bangalore.

https://sites.google.com/view/kskannan

[Kushagra]

Let’s universalize the tools of interpretation applied by Dr. Mehta to this particular verse, such as (1) अध्याहार (supposition) of arbitrary words and (2) incongruent breaking of words of the verse. 

What shall be the outcome? Any meaning will be drawn from any verse and absurdities like apple=orange will be proved. 

This reminds one of the controversy created around “उद्यतायुधदोर्दण्डैराधावन्तो भटान् मृधे.” At least Aniruddhacharya was seeing something visible to the naked eye (राधावन्तः), though erroneous. But the above mentioned tools will lead us to the land of pure imagination.

At that time, I had written a verse:

वैयाकरणकैवर्त्तादपशब्दजलेचराः।

भीताः कलिकथावक्तुर्मुखपङ्कमुपागताः॥

The sentiment remains applicable.

On Jan 4, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 7:13:18 pm UTC+5:30 Abhishek Mehta wrote:

Oh God. Please let Nithyananda Misra ji speak for himself.

Come on, Dr. Mehta! What on earth made you think Sh. Shashi Joshi Ji is speaking on my behalf or representing my position? Just because he challenged you like I did? He is independently trying to show you the multiple weaknesses in your interpretation and approach and has made very valid points. It would be better if you try responding objectively to the objections raised by him rather than claiming that he is speaking on my behalf.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/aaa8cfb4-07e8-48ed-b803-4a4b9b17a2e3n%40googlegroups.com.

[K S Kannan]

typo:

read

whereas śīghra occurs around 20 times, invariably in the sense of speed:

as

whereas śīghra occurs around 20 times, invariably in the sense of speedy:

[K S Kannan]

possible misunderstanding averted:

in the phrase

"in order to help scholars exactly like Dr. Mehta",

help must be understood as

knock sense into.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5573D60B-D824-42CA-A1CD-868D7BE4119F%40cornell.edu.

[Abhishek Mehta]

 Does तीव्रकरा qualify वेगपूर्णगतिः or is it the other way round?

I don't see why that matters. They both mean the same thing.

(2) Are you reading two sentences here, separated by the virama (।) sign? If so, you are moving तेन, which occurs in the midst of the first sentence, to the midset of second sentence. While the word order in Sanskrit is flexible, words of a sentence are contiguous and not scattered across sentences. Do we know any examples like W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 being broken down in two sentences, with W1 W3 and W4 forming one sentence and W2 W5 and W6 forming another? 

This is a nonsense argument. Consider the following verse from Srimadbhagwatam, 7th skandha

ॐ नमो भगवते तुभ्यं पुरुषाय महात्मने |

हरयेऽद्भुतसिम्हाय ब्रह्मणे परमात्मने | |

तुभ्यं is in the middle of the first line. What if I made a sentence ॐ नमो भगवते तुभ्यं ब्रह्मणे परमात्मने |? It is a perfectly valid statement and the meaning of the verse is unchanged. 

You cannot simply use आत्मनेपद without explaining how कर्मव्यतिहार (reciprocity or interchange of action) applies here. is the Sun doing the task of another agent (कर्तृ) by being मन्द, as you claim? If so, who is the other agent who should have been मन्द during हेमन्त in देवभाग,  but the Sun is doing instead? Is there some other planet or heavenly body which should have done it instead of the Sun? I doubt if you understood the conditions of 1.3.15 before applying 1.3.15 here, just like you did not understand the conditions of 8.3.19 लोपः शाकल्यस्य before applying it to explain the elision of विसर्ग/स् in तीव्रकराः (तीव्रकरास्) + रवेः? 

Obviously! The sun is doing the task of Earth. In the हेमन्त it is the earth that is supposed to slow down. But from the Earth's coordinate system it is the sun that is doing the job of slowing down. This is another subtle correction to Mayasura's question in 12.3

अहोरात्रव्यवस्थां च विदधाति कथं रविः |

कथं पर्येति वसुधां भुवनानि विभावयन् | |

where He asks how the Sun revolves around the Earth. Since, this entire mechanics is described in the geocentric coordinate system, this sutra  न गतिहिंसार्थेभ्यः  (1.3.15) is used as a subtle correction to explain that the sun is doing the job of slowing down in this coordinate system. When in the Heliocentric coordinate system it is the earth that actually slows down. I doubt that you have even read the entire 12th chapter on your own independently.

The second part is still incomplete. तेन मन्दता [sic] सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा ... what? तेन अन्यथा क्रियते? तेन अन्यथा भूयते? तेन अन्यथा गम्यते? तेन अन्यथा हस्यते? 

This is just shifting goal posts now. I can ask the same about your anvaya to Rupa Bhati ji. तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः ....what? कृताः ? वमिताः ? 

Why has your position changed? 

Why is that the issue? Are you worried my arguments are getting more refined? Actually, I had forgotten to mention that it is supposed to mean fast speed before.

Again, you do not think or explain how कर्मव्यतिहार applies and you just apply the rule to distort the innate sense of the verse and by hook or crook arrive at the meaning you desire. This is just verbal gymnastics, that too incomplet and flawed, and nothing else.

This is just ridiculous. You were complaining that Rupa Bhaty and Oak are not well-versed in sanskrit grammar and they are not formulating their arguments correctly. Now when I am trying to argue on the basis of grammar instead of taking it seriously you are dismissing it as verbal gymnastic. What do you want ultimately?

You say you agree with my translation of तीव्रकराः = 'hot rays' but in your word-for-word translation you write तीव्रकराः = तेज किरणें. What do you mean by तेज here?

Sorry. Bad choice of words.

Also, if you agree with तीव्रकराः = 'hot rays', your position is that the sun has hot rays in summer in the northern hemisphere and slow speed in winter. Is this Kepler's second law?

It seems you are not reading the anvaya completely. The second line establishes the importance of गति: in the sun having तीव्रकराः in the ग्रीष्म while in the हेमन्त the अन्यथा or opposite. Since, in the हेमन्त the slow speed leads to अन्यथा then तीव्रकराः in the ग्रीष्म is due to the fast speed. Now here you just have to associate the hot rays and the cold rays with the distance between the sun and earth to get to the keplerian dynamics. That is an extra step but it is close enough qualitatively and that is the point.

You will not see these many problems if you think about my points seriously.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/3f554b2e-1862-4bae-88f1-9e4afa4cb810n%40googlegroups.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Why counter real-men arguments when you can instead counter straw-man arguments? Followed by स्वच्छन्दप्रलापः.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5573D60B-D824-42CA-A1CD-868D7BE4119F%40cornell.edu.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr Mehta,

I can see that you belong in the school that believes that

words make a sentence (Aristotle).   In Indian thinking (Panini)

a sentence causes the words to appear.  A sentence is a 

total thought, it's a structure. Ordering has information,

we call it here neural syntax.  

You have to contemplate on this for some time if you wish 

insight.  Our physical thinking of a stone and a tree does not

make nature.  

If you are fundamentally interested, you can join me in exploring 

why different words exist and why one is not replaceable by 

the other.  Please read the Vedas to appreciate how thoughts

convert to syllables.

I admire your enthusiasm in debate.  But I would like you to

appreciate the Indian literary context (which I have to come to

respect as most scientific.)  The word is not a label, it is a

concept, It is neural, and it is independent, So is each syllable.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

   

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANVU6xK6p4deCTQYF6Ug4aJDaBB7ZBVy0LBwO9NWGwC5r3TGMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Dear Retd. Professor,

Please enjoy your retirement. Let us young men battle it out in peace. Chitrangada and a Gandharva whose name I forget battled with each other for a year in Kurukshetra. I have enough veerya to operate the same way. 

Yours Sincerely

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6LQHtwW0vKMmXD5cNPEfxP_ZLpkF9fFYO11s1uNyK6eg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

I am sorry you are telling this to me? I have been arguing from the first principle since the beginning. You should tell this to Nithyananda ji who is arguing based on commentaries and translations. I am arguing based on construction and grammar. If anyone understands what you are suggesting it is me here. I am arguing based on the internal consistency of the text. I am not bringing external inferences here. I am arguing why तीव्रकरा can be synonym for fast speed or speed even based on first principles not based on commentaries and translations.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjX5zZzHhbfYcdf2MO94SyVNK0HKLqLvhY8OjasdNu5xgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K S Kannan]

labheta sikatāsu tailam api yatnataḥ pīḍayan.

[Shashi Joshi]

🤣🤣🤣

Thank you,
Shashi

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAN47gm6oOpLaW_Ba4LsTFmZFcvN8B0JnyTb-X1Lmfu-7Rhy11Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Namaste

On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 9:23:03 pm UTC+5:30 Abhishek Mehta wrote:

 Does तीव्रकरा qualify वेगपूर्णगतिः or is it the other way round?

I don't see why that matters. They both mean the same thing.

It does matter if is an insertion or अध्याहार. If they mean the same thing (as you say now), then this is not an insertion or अध्याहार. Supplying the ellipsis is not inserting a synonym of a term already present, but bringing in words to make an incomplete sentence complete. It is clear from your multiple posts that you did not and do not understand what अध्याहार means and are using the term loosely and not precisely. 

 

(2) Are you reading two sentences here, separated by the virama (।) sign? If so, you are moving तेन, which occurs in the midst of the first sentence, to the midset of second sentence. While the word order in Sanskrit is flexible, words of a sentence are contiguous and not scattered across sentences. Do we know any examples like W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 being broken down in two sentences, with W1 W3 and W4 forming one sentence and W2 W5 and W6 forming another? 

This is a nonsense argument. Consider the following verse from Srimadbhagwatam, 7th skandha

ॐ नमो भगवते तुभ्यं पुरुषाय महात्मने |

हरयेऽद्भुतसिम्हाय ब्रह्मणे परमात्मने | |

तुभ्यं is in the middle of the first line. What if I made a sentence ॐ नमो भगवते तुभ्यं ब्रह्मणे परमात्मने |? It is a perfectly valid statement and the meaning of the verse is unchanged. 

This example is not comparable as this whole verse is one sentence. Your anvaya you gave had two sentences. I was talking about two sentences, not two lines or two hemistiches. 

 

You cannot simply use आत्मनेपद without explaining how कर्मव्यतिहार (reciprocity or interchange of action) applies here. is the Sun doing the task of another agent (कर्तृ) by being मन्द, as you claim? If so, who is the other agent who should have been मन्द during हेमन्त in देवभाग,  but the Sun is doing instead? Is there some other planet or heavenly body which should have done it instead of the Sun? I doubt if you understood the conditions of 1.3.15 before applying 1.3.15 here, just like you did not understand the conditions of 8.3.19 लोपः शाकल्यस्य before applying it to explain the elision of विसर्ग/स् in तीव्रकराः (तीव्रकरास्) + रवेः? 

Obviously! The sun is doing the task of Earth. In the हेमन्त it is the earth that is supposed to slow down. But from the Earth's coordinate system it is the sun that is doing the job of slowing down. This is another subtle correction to Mayasura's question in 12.3

Why is the earth *supposed to* slow down in winter in the northern hemisphere? The earth is closer to the sun and speeds up in its orbit during the winter of the northern hemisphere as per Kepler's law. Or do you now want to refer to हेमन्त of the southern hemisphere? Or does your statement that the earth is *supposed to* slow down during हेमन्त imply that you subscribe to Oak and Bhaty's wild claim that the SuryaSiddhanta dates to 12,000 BCE? Why don't you make your position clear on what you think of the date of the Surya-Siddhanta? 

 

अहोरात्रव्यवस्थां च विदधाति कथं रविः |

कथं पर्येति वसुधां भुवनानि विभावयन् | |

where He asks how the Sun revolves around the Earth. Since, this entire mechanics is described in the geocentric coordinate system, this sutra  न गतिहिंसार्थेभ्यः  (1.3.15) is used as a subtle correction to explain that the sun is doing the job of slowing down in this coordinate system. When in the Heliocentric coordinate system it is the earth that actually slows down. I doubt that you have even read the entire 12th chapter on your own independently.

I doubt if you even realise your arguments are now more and more amusing with each email. Not just to me, but to many scholars on the list. 

 

The second part is still incomplete. तेन मन्दता [sic] सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा ... what? तेन अन्यथा क्रियते? तेन अन्यथा भूयते? तेन अन्यथा गम्यते? तेन अन्यथा हस्यते? 

This is just shifting goal posts now. I can ask the same about your anvaya to Rupa Bhati ji. तेन ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः ....what? कृताः ? वमिताः ? 

Your counter-question shows a lack of understanding of Sanskrit grammar and usage. In my anvaya तेन रवेः अत्यासन्नतया देवभागे ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः, तेन is not कर्तरि तृतीया but a conjunction meaning "therefore, for that reason". Whereas in your anvaya, in the part “तेन मन्दता [sic] = उस गति में मंद होते हुआ द्वारा”, तेन is कर्तरि तृतीया which happens in either कर्मणि  प्रयोगः  or भावे प्रयोगः. So the two तेन are not the same. Now in ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः, the verbal form सन्ति is understood. ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः = ग्रीष्मे तीव्रकराः [सन्ति]. Verbal forms of अस् are often omitted in Sanskrit literature in कर्तरि प्रयोगः as they are often, perhaps more often than not, implied. For example त्वमेव माता च पिता त्वमेव is complete in itself; it is obvious that त्वमेव माता [असि] च त्वमेव पिता [असि]. This is not the case with कर्मणि प्रयोगः  or भावे प्रयोगः when the agent is in the तृतीया, as is in the case in the second part of your anvaya. त्वयैव मात्रा च त्वयैव पित्रा is not complete in itself and expects something more to make complete sense. Ask yourself now if the question and the counter-question are comparable and then answer if the instrumental in तेन मन्दता [sic] सुराणां [भागे] अन्यथा is due to कर्मणि प्रयोगः  or भावे प्रयोगः. If कर्मणि प्रयोगः, what is the object and verbal form you want? If भावे प्रयोगः, what is the verbal form you want?

 

Why has your position changed? 

Why is that the issue? Are you worried my arguments are getting more refined? Actually, I had forgotten to mention that it is supposed to mean fast speed before.

As I said, your arguments are not getting more refined, they are getting more amusing. The loose terminology, the forgotten mentions, the bad choice of words, the changes of position, the accepted but unanswered challenge: what do you think all this is leading to?

 

Again, you do not think or explain how कर्मव्यतिहार applies and you just apply the rule to distort the innate sense of the verse and by hook or crook arrive at the meaning you desire. This is just verbal gymnastics, that too incomplet and flawed, and nothing else.

This is just ridiculous. You were complaining that Rupa Bhaty and Oak are not well-versed in sanskrit grammar and they are not formulating their arguments correctly. Now when I am trying to argue on the basis of grammar instead of taking it seriously you are dismissing it as verbal gymnastic. What do you want ultimately?

I agree you are trying to argue, you are not arguing effectively. I for one do not buy your grammatical arguments. I do not think people like Neelesh Bodas do either (but I do not speak for them). Furthermore, your posts have shown that you are not very comfortable in either Sanskrit grammar (you cited लोपः शाकल्यस्य instead of हलि सर्वेषाम्) or Sanskrit usage. Let me ask you a question. Do you think a Sanskrit grammar expert who is also well-versed in Sanskrit usage and literature will buy your grammatical arguments? Think of people like Georga Cardona or Rama Nath Sharma or Umashankar Sharma Rishi. I think they will just laugh them off. 

 

You say you agree with my translation of तीव्रकराः = 'hot rays' but in your word-for-word translation you write तीव्रकराः = तेज किरणें. What do you mean by तेज here?

Sorry. Bad choice of words.

Trust me, that has happened many times on this thread. 

 

Also, if you agree with तीव्रकराः = 'hot rays', your position is that the sun has hot rays in summer in the northern hemisphere and slow speed in winter. Is this Kepler's second law?

It seems you are not reading the anvaya completely. The second line establishes the importance of गति: in the sun having तीव्रकराः in the ग्रीष्म while in the हेमन्त the अन्यथा or opposite. Since, in the हेमन्त the slow speed leads to अन्यथा then तीव्रकराः in the ग्रीष्म is due to the fast speed. Now here you just have to associate the hot rays and the cold rays with the distance between the sun and earth to get to the keplerian dynamics. That is an extra step but it is close enough qualitatively and that is the point.

Again, you say slow speed in हेमन्त and fast speed in ग्रीष्म. As of today, it is slow speed in summer of northern hemisphere and fast speed in winter of northern hemisphere. Was this also not the case at the time of the accepted date of SS (4th to 5th cent. BCE)? Burgess states that the SS knows that the earth is closer to the sun during the winter [of the northern hemisphere. So what do we make of your conclusion of slow speed in हेमन्त and fast speed in ग्रीष्म?

[Yogananda CS]

Namaskara, 

वाक्यार्थः सुविचार्यतां श्रुतिशिरःपक्षः समाश्रीयतां दुस्तर्कात्सुविरम्यतां श्रुतिमतस्तर्कोऽनुसंघीयताम् ।

ब्रह्मास्मीति विभाव्यतामहरहर्गर्वः परित्यज्यतां देहेऽहम्मतिरुज्झ्यतां बुधजनैर्वादः परित्यज्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥

Regards.  . . . .yoga

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoA-OVQJHsF9uwRCwKR2WXgGqrFMmRAmyiyMQ8PRmNQ15g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Why is the earth *supposed to* slow down in winter in the northern hemisphere? The earth is closer to the sun and speeds up in its orbit during the winter of the northern hemisphere as per Kepler's law. Or do you now want to refer to हेमन्त of the southern hemisphere?

Oh yes. You are right here. I think this is it then. This is not salvageable.

Ok. Fair enough. I am now convinced that this verse is not what Oak and Bhaty claim it to be. Sorry for taking so much of your time.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/9c221794-28b4-4264-a8a3-e1db70eecb75n%40googlegroups.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

I just wanted to be sure.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 4 January 2025 at 9:51:02 pm UTC+5:30 Abhishek Mehta wrote:

Dear Retd. Professor,

Please enjoy your retirement. Let us young men battle it out in peace. Chitrangada and a Gandharva whose name I forget battled with each other for a year in Kurukshetra. I have enough veerya to operate the same way. 

Yours Sincerely

This post is in poor taste. Referring to a senior member pejoratively as "Retired Professor", mocking his retirement, and then contrasting it with one's youth and using a double entendre is highly unbecoming and shows a lack of basic civility that this group expects. 

Dear Dr. Mehta, if you have any conscience, you should immediately apologise for this post and take back your words. If you are so proud of your youth and enough/overflowing vīrya, you should be responding to the points raised by Prof. Kannan and not mocking his age. Do you speak to your father or your mother in the same manner when they debate with you, boasting about your age and vīrya? 

PS: How can one forget the name of the Gandharva who Chitrangada battled with? The name was the very cause of the battle! 

[Abhishek Mehta]

Excuse me. He was the one who suggesting violent intervention to help me out. What does knock some sense into me means? If he is so serious about having a conversation he must be civil about it.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/fbbee268-8782-41ef-8a92-35f92f9bf617n%40googlegroups.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Oh right. The Gandharva had the same name.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Abhishek Mehta, 

addressing a senior person even if you leave aside the fact that he is an ambidextrous polymath colossal scholar venerable just for that reason, is not a good way of behaviour in this forum. 

Since I see in some recent posts of you , openness to learn, I am hopeful that you will not repeat such behavior in future. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANVU6x%2BHbZkPyaYykCxJKAqhHLehf0_2bt8gHjBa1nQzXQGFNg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

Dean, IKS and Senior Director, IndicA

 

 

 

[Shashi Joshi]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knock%20some%20sense%20into%20someone

knock some sense into someone
: to cause someone to stop thinking or behaving foolishly
I tried to knock some sense into the boy, but he just wouldn't see reason.

---

There is nothing violent about it.

If you got ticked off by this, it indeed shows your immaturity in understanding language, Sanskrit or English. You learn 1/4th from the AchArya, 1/4th from colleagues, 1/4th from self study/effort, and 1/4th only with time. Time is not on your side yet, O fresh Dr.!

And you told me -- "otherwise please refrain from your uncle jokes. It is exhausting and irrelevant to the conversation."

I give you an objective list of points, and this is all you can say?

What kind of a stupid kid are you to assume it is exhausting only for you, O tiivrakaraH viiryavAn ? It is no picnic for me!

Your ignorant arrogance is in a class of its own.

Thanks,

~ Shashi

On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 11:09 PM Abhishek Mehta <abhishe...@students.iiserpune.ac.in> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANVU6x%2BHbZkPyaYykCxJKAqhHLehf0_2bt8gHjBa1nQzXQGFNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Abhishek Mehta]

Oh yeah come at me when I have lost the debate entirely. Don't pretend that Prof. Kannan was innocent in this. I saw his post full of snide remarks and imprecise judgement about my character. None of you had the decency or the patience to wait for things to settle before making judgement calls unlike Nithyananda ji here.

And I told you I wanted to test the formalism based on which Oak is being rejected and they are indeed watertight as I have understood.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoACrHOZyrC_GRFai-DYSGcx403ENQRc%3DHnfnV%2BSOeSTww%40mail.gmail.com.