-----Original Message----From: jyotirved [mailto:jyotirved@vsnl.

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

-----Original Message----From: jyotirved [mailto:jyotirved@vsnl.com]

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

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

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

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

Nakshatras vis--vis the Vedas

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

S.
N.
1
2
3
4
5
6

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

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

Supposed
Nakshatra
Ashvini
Bharni
Krittika
Rohini
Mrigsh.
Ardra

Actual
nakshat
Ashvini
Bharni
Krittika
Rohini
Mrigsh.
Mrigshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36

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

109
570

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the Junction Stars are outside the limits of the zodiac!
How ridiculous it is to
link these Stars and nakshtra divisions with the zodiac will be clear further from the definition of the
Zodiac itself. Lahiris Ephemeris repeats year after year on page 168 Zodiac: An imaginary belt
stretching about 9 north and 9 south of the ecliptic within which the planets and the Moon remain in
course of their movement. As per the above table, latitudes of as many as thirteen prominent
stars of their nakshatra divisions as on January 1, 2002, are more than 9 degrees. Some of the Stars
like Svati and Dhanishtha have latitudes of more than 30 degrees! Evidently, about fifty per cent of
these Stars are beyond the ken of the Zodiac completely! They cannot therefore be a part of the
zodiac at all.
Then again the distance of these nakshatra Stars ranges from a minimum of 17 light years in
case of Shravana to a maximum of 590 light years in case of Anuradha! It means that if any Star will
affect me at all, it will take it hundreds of years to touch me! Suppose I am born in Krittika
nakshtara, and if the Star Alcyone will affect me at all, it will take at least 541 years for its rays to
touch me, even if those rays travel at lightening speeds---which is the maximum speed possible for
anything to materialize or dematerialize!
Some of these Stars have luminosities hundreds of times more than that of the Sun e.g.
Jyeshtha is 7500 times as luminous as the sun; Svati 115 times more luminous; Punarvasu 60 times
more luminous--- and the much talked about Spica (Chitra) 2100 times as luminous as the sun!
Clearly, they must be at least that many times bigger/larger than our sun, which is 300000 times
larger than the earth, which is hundreds of thousands of times larger than you or me individually! To
say that these Stars have nothing else to do excepting to affect you and me individually is to presume
that the entire Himalayan range of mountains was created to terrorize small ants crawling somewhere
in the Sahara Deserts!
Poor hapless Chitra:
It is relevant to say here something about the much maligned Chitra Star---the main pillar of Chitrapaksha (read Lahiri!) Ayanamsha. As we have seen, this Star is 2100
times larger than the sun. (If it does not scorch us it is only because it is 260 light years away from us
which means that it takes 260 years for its rays to reach us whereas the Sun of our solar system is
just about 8.3 minutes away from us!) With its distance of 260 light years from the solar system, it
defies imagination as to how we can measure the longitudes of even mathematical points like
Rahu/Kethu which are just nodes of the moon without any dimensions---from 180 Opposite a giant
of hundreds of millions times larger than that node and away at least by 260 light years from the
same. We are ignoring such facts at the peril of becoming a laughing stock of the astronomical world!
Astronomical jugglery
The same nirayana bible viz. Lahiris Ephemeris (much like the
Rashtriya Panchanga!) repeats year after year on page 5, So in the sidereal system, the reference
point is fixed point on the ecliptic in relation to some prominent stars, whose position is fixed in the
sky. The nirayana longitudes of stars being nearly invariable the Indian signs always contain the same
star groups in the division. On the same page, however, it says further, On March 22 of 285 AD, the
nirayana and sayana longitude of Star Chitra was the same as 180-00-03.0. In the same breath it
says further, The nirayana longitude of the Star Spica is now 179 59 03 as on Jan 1, 2003.
Anybody can see for himself as to how the main pillar Chitra of Chitra Ayanamsha itself has
been rocked and it has regressed in to nirayana Kanya from nirayana Tula -- which thus negates the
nirayanawalas statement, So in the sidereal system, the reference point is fixed point on the
ecliptic.. . Similarly, it is a self contradiction that the Indian signs always contain the same star
groups as Chitra itself has regressed from nirayana Tula to Kanya! That much for nirayana zodiacs!
If we take the same Lahiris Ephemeris of say 1975 i.e. about 25 years back, we find that it
gives a much different latitude, Right Ascension and Declination of these very Stars than what it gives
today -- though the nirayana longitudes are shown to be the same! Do you know why? Because we
make Ayanamsha adjustments year after year in the longitudes but we cannot make similar
adjustments in the latitudes etc. It is an astronomical fact that for finding the latitudes etc. of the
Stars or planets, only Sayana longitudes can be taken into account!
So nirayana planetary or starry data is neither reliable nor of any use at all!

The genesis of Chitra Ayanamsha:

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Amit jii & other members,

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

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

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

Interested people may read my following related articles in Hindi published in the VedavANii, Haryana.
(1) "

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

------ Narayan Prasad

<<The definition of tropical year is "the time of passage of the earth

in its annual revolution round the sun from Equinox to Equinox" and its
duration is about 365d 5h 48m 44.9s of time (in mean solar days) whereas
a Sidereal year means "The time of passage of the earth from a Fixed
Star to the same Star again" and its duration is 365d 6h 9m and 9.8 s
(in mean solar days). It is thus longer than a Tropical year by 20m
25s. These nirayana jyotishis and Panchangakars say that the two
zodiacs viz the nirayana and the sayana (whatever that may mean!)
"coincided (collided!?)" in March 285 AD i.e. about 1720 years back.
1720 multiplied by 20m 25s
= 34955 minutes = (about) 583 hours
= (about)24 days!
And that is the exact difference these days between the actual Makar
Sankranti and the Lahiri i.e. Rashtirya Panchanga Makar Sanranti!>>

Amit K Agarwal <profamit@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Narayan ji

I do know what is a year.. but I am not aware of

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