Talk:Vedanga Jyotisha

Michael Witzel

Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies is Michael Witzel in-house journal, and it is not peer reviewed.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

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

DATING VEDANGA JYOTISHA

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

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

Datings

Jayakumar RG.. Witzel is no where claiming any dating like "700 BCE-600 BCE" according to the information he's just saying that current form(extant) can be dated to final centuries BCE(2nd or 1st). But it's just his unconfirmed opinion and likely going to be removed because source is incomplete and one user has raised concern about his unreliability above. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Witzel claims ca. 500/400 BCE; he does not speak of "the current (extant) form. The qualification "it's just his unconfirmed opinion" betrays a lack of academical understanding; Witzel is a top-academic, and a standard as for what a reliable is. Regarding the other sources:

• Klostermaier: academic, but definitely not as reliable as Witzel
• Bhanwar Lal Dwivedi: unreliable; potpourri of "information" and opinion
• Subbarayappa : Cambridge University Press; reliable. He writes: "probably 1400-1200 BC; in its present form, maybe 700 or 600 BC." (p.29)

Witzel gives an elaborate explanation, the others don't; so, I trust Witzel is right.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I had regarded it as Unconfirmed opinion as the source wasn't fully cited, I knew that there is some reliability, that's why I didn't removed, and last century BCE was not correct representation because he cited the period of Buddha, still few centuries ahead.

Traditionally it is dated to 1400-1200 BCE It doesn't seem to be traditional, but based on a common estimate, it can be told as Some have dated it back to 1400-1200 BCE, Variously dated to 1400-1200 BCE.

Extant form can be dated to 600 - 700 BCE, this information cannot be attributed to Subbarayappa alone, C. V. Vishveshwara is also the writer, and 2 others of the same books.

I wouldn't say that quoting is actually necessary. Witzel has explained, others have done too, if we were to find, but at least the 2nd quote can be taken off, as his chapter comfortably ends after dates it to the last centuries BCE. Even the first one can be summarized, but it is ok to have, for providing the commonly accepted idea that they were written after vedas in current form. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Subbarayappa is the author; Vishveshwara is the editor;
• The second Witzel-quote gives a neat overview of his arguments.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem with the whole article except the second quote. His whole point is pretty much about the tone of the book. It can be rephrased, now or later. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Witzel is a fallible human subject to imperfect senses, illusion, error and propensity to cheat, like every materially conditioned person. So I would not put much credence in the view that witzel locuta causa finita.24.139.24.163 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vedanga Jyotisha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501084408/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_s1.pdf to http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_s1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)