Talk:Indian astronomy/Archive 1

Astronomy And Cosmology

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

Pythagoreans And India

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

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

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

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

SPEED OF LIGHT

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

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

Sources on Arabic and Latin translations

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

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

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

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

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

Needs discussion of Indian epicyclic theory

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

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

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

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

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

Indian heliocentrism evidence? Seek Merucentricism.

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

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

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

Quote from Rig Veda

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

• "Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaha, Suryaha, Suryaha."

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

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

Merucentric Universes

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

Unsourced statements

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

Meru in Africa

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

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

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

Jyotisha and Astronomy

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

Discuss Before Reverting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The introduction

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

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

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

• yes, from Rocksanddirt sorry.

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

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

Science v. History of Science

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

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

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

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

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

Indika : Megasthenes did not belong to ca. 400 AD

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

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

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

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

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

"Philosophical discussions" and crank sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to highlight few points in this connection :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dating claims based on archaeoastronomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Aiyar himself, as quoted by Bryant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

Pliny and Arrian (Calendars)

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

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

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

Thompson(2003) and Phillimore(1912)

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

Restructuring needed

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

More than one articles on the same subject?

I think the following articles dealing with Indian astronomy deal with the same subject:

• Rtu and Ritu (Indian season).
• Achyuta Pisharati and Achyuta Panikkar.

I was taking a look at the article before moving on and could not help but notice what appears like two cases of two articles with a single subject. This also creates linking problems for the Indian astronomy article.

JSR (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How does an article on astrology exist without charts and star-naming practices? Correlations with Western/Arabic star names would also be appreciated.

Further, if the Lalla mentioned here is the poet also known as Lalleshwari (the period is the same, not enough information in this article), then you should know that this person is female.

Zaivala (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vedas

The present statement mentioning a spherical earth may be correct, but CPS Menon points out that the earth is described in various ways, eg four-corned, a wheel, etc. "rig+veda"+spherical++earth&as_brr=3&ei=NF6BS8axF6a8M7n98ekP&cd=9#v=onepage&q=%22rig%20veda%22%20spherical%20%20earth&f=false Also bowl-shaped "rig+veda"+spherical++earth&as_brr=3&ei=NF6BS8axF6a8M7n98ekP&cd=9#v=onepage&q=spherical%20%20earth&f=false Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Scientific Discourse

This section is distinctly unbalanced. It rightly discusses Indian influences on the astronomies of other cultures but does not describe the influences of the astronomies of other cultures (e.g., the Greek astronomies found in the Paulisa and Romaka Siddhantas) on Indian astronomy. Some indication of how astronomical concepts went both ways is essential to a meaningful discussion of global scientific discourse. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But for some reason, I am not surprised. I will try and remedy this situation over the next few days. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Now this section is distinctly unbalanced in the other direction - that the Indians borrowed their astronomy entirely from the Greeks. With someone calling himself Athenean "remedying the situation", I am not surprised.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just the usual crap piling up. For some reason, people will insist on spending paragraphs expressing their awe about the fact that the Vedas had a concept of "Sun" and "Moon", and of the four cardinal directions, rather than discussing the actual article topic.

It is true that the Vedas mention the Sun and the Moon, and it is true that the Shulba Sutras are aware of the directions of the compass, but this isn't "astronomy". The earliest evidence of Indian astronomy as an ancient scholarly discipline is Lagadha. The heyday of Indian astronomy was the 6th to 8th centuries. Its late phase is the 12th to 14th centuries, in Kerala extended until the 16th.

Certainly true that the Sun Moon and Nakshatra Mandala are mentioned in the Vedas and that isn't "astronomy". It is a calendraic reference (since rituals need to be performed as per a calendar). The calendar is lunisolar and hence the references to the Sun and the Moon (mostly full new moon days really, placed with respect to the Nakshatra Mandala). Makes sense to use calendraic references for dating a text. There are other issues with using them, but to say these references are entirely irrelevant is not kosher.

As for Lagadha's Jotisha Vedanga, internal references to the position of the solstices in the text dates it at 1180 BC. Pingree (who is extensively quoted in this wikipedia article) agrees elsewhere, but then says "if Lagadha made a 10 degree error in the position of the equinox or a 10 day error in the date of the equionox then the date of Jotisha Vedangs is 500 BC". This is a POV, the other POV being "if Lagadha did not make any errors, then the date of Jotisha Vedangs is 1180 BC". Which POV do you like? Neither can be proved or disproved but if you take the POV that points to 1180 BC then the Hindu calendar pre-dates Greece! So the question really is, on what conclusion are you basing your facts? Or will you state both POVs?

Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE dictates that this article needs to dedicate its attention to the classical period of the 6th to 8th centuries. During this time, Indian astronomy was leading worldwide. There was no better astronomy to be had anywhere. This isn't true either before or after this period. Before Aryabhata, we have some modest beginnings, plus absorption of Hellenistic astronomy. After this period, there is mostly a leftover tradition inasmuch as it hadn't been exposed to the progress made elsewhere. But for 200 years, Indian astronomy was the very bleeding edge of scientific advance. Yes, they had got the torch from the Greeks and passed it on to the Persians, just like the Greeks had got it from the Babylonians, and the Persians passed it on to Early Modern Europe. These things happen, and nobody would have a problem with treating this dispassionately as the way things go in the history of science, if it weren't for the cranky ideology that the Vedas somehow contain everything, and obviuosly if anything good ever came out of India it must obviously be derived from the Vedas. But this is religious ideology, and has no business spreading itself on the pages of an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinion that the Hindu's "got the torch" from the Greeks is contradicted by Rev. Ebenezer Burgess, the translator of Surya Siddhanta. In the "Concluding Note by the Translator" Burgess says "And yet, from the light I now have, I must think the Hindus original in regard to most of the elementary facts and principles of astronomy as found in their systems, and for the most part also in their cultivation of the science; and that the Greeks borrowed from them, or from an intermediate secondary source, to which these facts and principles came from India". If Burgess is correct, the Greeks got the torch from Indians, Babylonians and Persians. "These things happen, and nobody would have a problem with treating this dispassionately as the way things go in the history of science" :-)) The problem is Vedanga Jyotisha; it is an undated work and hence opens up scientific history to uncertainty. This section misleads by claiming certainty where there is a significant element of doubt. Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Vedas being concerned with rituals make calendraic observations in order to specify the timing of rituals. These observations refer to the sun, moon and the nakstatra mandals (zodiac with 27 segments). This is certainly not high-wattage astronomy but dismissing these references as "cranky ideology" is not a smart thing to do. For instance, many of the Vedas place Krittika at the start of the Nakshatra Mandala (whereas today Ashwini is placed at the start of the nakshatra Mandals) and also at the start of a solar year. Speculation as to why this was done eventually leads one to a possibility that the Vedas were composed at a time when the Vernal fell within Krittika, i.e. 2000 BC ("The Orion", or a Research into the Antiquities of the Vedas, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 1893). If you accept this speculation, Indian knowledge of equinoxes preceded Greek's by a millennium. If you do not accept this speculation, the question remains open "why indeed was Krittika placed at the start of the Nakshatra Mandala and also at the start of the solar year"? Such is the fuzzy nature of research into antiquity. Claiming absolute certainty that the Indians learnt from the Greeks is, to say the least, rather naive.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Indian and Greek Astronomy

The reference to Garga Samhitha points to the same verse as an earlier cited reference to Brihat Samhita. If this is an error, and there really is a source in Graga Samhitha, pls fix this error. Else, I will conclude that the same Brihat samhitha reference (while itself was previously misquoted, now I have fixed that) is being recycled, and remove it.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actual etymology of yavana: http://books.google.com/books?id=FdIkaccgneAC&pg=PA1418&lpg=PA1418&dq=yavana+meaning&source=bl&ots=cqPeLbgbUj&sig=7ulvGBHOG3W3PoZodM0I5kHLUz4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yJwUUYuMB8ik2gWtx4DICg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yavana%20meaning&f=false

Term was used for assorted heterodox native peoples and later foreigners, not specific to greeks. Devanampriya (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What does the above have to do with your changes to the article wording? Fact is, Indian astronomy was heavily influenced by Greek astronomy. Not "may have been", not "probably". Your above source has nothing whatsoever to do with this. For the influence of Greek astronomy on Indian astronomy, please consult Pingree (source in the article). Thank you. Athenean (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? You said yavana means greek, I said it doesn't. This link demonstrates the actual etymology and use of the term yavana--no mention of greeks at all. That's why it's problematic to say "yavanajataka" was a greek text.

In addition, there is a lot of uncertainty about this theory. I noticed you deleted a previous reference ([here]) that actually said the influence was the other way around and that Indian astronomy actually influenced greek astronomy. The difference is, I thought we should be reasonable about things and give them fair wording, instead of getting into an edit war with me restoring the referenced source that cited this and insist that Indian astronomy influenced greek astronomy. Since wikipedia is premised upon NPOV, I gave a suitably neutral wording to it. So let's avoid an unnecessary edit war and recognize the uncertainty associated with these theories. Devanampriya (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, there is an entire section called "Greek and Indian Astronomy" in the text, which is sourced to several top notch sources, such as Pierre Cambon, Jean-François Jarrige. "Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés: Collections du Musée national de Kaboul". Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 2006 - 297 pages. p269 [1] "Les influences de l'astronomie grecques sur l'astronomie indienne auraient pu commencer de se manifester plus tot qu'on ne le pensait, des l'epoque Hellenistique en fait, par l'intermediaire des colonies grecques des Greco-Bactriens et Indo-Grecs" (French) Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés", p269. Translation: "The influence of Greek astronomy on Indian astronomy may have taken place earlier than thought, as soon as the Hellenistic period, through the agency of the Greek colonies of the Greco-Bactrians and the Indo-Greeks., D. Pingree: "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India", Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 533−633 (533, 554f.), and Glick, Thomas F., Livesey, Steven John, Wallis, Faith (eds.): "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, New York 2005, ISBN 0-415-96930-1, p. 463. There is no "uncertainty about this theory", none whatsoever. Fact is, Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy, whether the "Out-of-India" types like it or not. For example, the concept of a spherical Earth arrived to India from Greece (where it originated), and that's a fact. I suggest you consult these references, they may, just may, change your mind. As for the reference I deleted, it said absolutely nothing on whether Greek astronomy was influenced by Indian astronomy. I went over the source and found nothing of the kind. Did you read the source? I bet you didn't. Can you point the exact passage where it says that Indian astronomy influenced Greek astronomy? I bet you can't, because the source was misused by whoever added it. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As for "Yavana" not meaning Greek, I suggest you start consulting better sources, because we have [2] [3] [4]. Yes, it's true that "Yavana" had other meanings as well, but since we know that Greek astronomy influenced Indian Astronomy, in the context of astronomy, Yavana clearly means Greek (unless you can find sources that specifically rebut that, which I doubt). Athenean (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"we know that Greek astronomy influenced Indian Astronomy"--no, we don't know this, and of course there is uncertainty--the article itself touches on this with Van der Waerden--is he an "out of india" type too? Did you remember that was in the article?--I bet you didn't. Furthermore, textual discrepancies were not the reason you deleted the Burgess reference. Why the discrepancy?

The fact remains that on the theorization of some western scholars, greek influence over indian astronomy is being asserted as historical fact (rather than theory) on bad faith. These theories began in the colonial period, and continue today with eurocentric types.

Neutral wording allows for all theories to be touched on with appropriate weight. Look at the reasons afforded for your pet theory--sun dials in afghanistan and the yavanajataka (which does not even mean greek). Even the spherical earth came to india from greece trope is ridiculous, since the Rig Veda (which even westerners date to 1800-1500 bce) itself refers to the earth as a sphere. This misinterpretation of yavanas and "greek contributions" is not a new point: Source 1 Source 2, p.246 and 275-9.

The Burgess citation you contest was actually discussed by a previous editor upthread--but you did not even do him the courtesy of responding to his arguments. The actual text was provided by the editor--so why delete it then?--because it actually turns your paradigm on its head and states that it was in fact the Indians who influenced Greek astronomy? Even if you have reason--why not respond to him on the talk page--you did not.

Even Britannica, which you cite, is also not maximalist in its use, recognizing that there is some uncertainty about the use of the word yavana. So rather than recommending that I peruse "better sources", I suggest you avoid perpetuating outdated colonial theories as "fact" and do more comprehensive research. There clearly is disagreement even within western scholarship.

"in the context of astronomy, Yavana clearly means Greek (unless you can find sources that specifically rebut that, which I doubt". Doubt less, collaborate more. The Asiatic Society Article I provided clearly rebuts this precise notion of yavanas and yavanajataka referring specifically to greeks and their astronomical theories. I even gave specific page numbers for your benefit.

Therefore, I have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate why this "theory" should not be treated as scientific fact, no matter how much eurocentric types want it to be. But, due to npov, I haven't outright deleted the "scholarship" you've provided, for the simple reason that all theories deserve mention for the benefit of readers. I'm not using the puranic source to run around greek articles to say indian mythological figures conguered the greeks--simply because the same texts you and your sources use say these figures conquered the "yavanas". You can't have your cake and eat it too. Let's set aside nationalism and deal with history and science using the historical and scientific methods--not arrogant colonial assertions.Devanampriya (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two points at issue here. One is the meaning of the Term Yavana, the other is the extent of influence of Greek, Babylonian, and Islamic astronomies on Indian Astronomy.

As to the first, Kim Plofker wrote a recent study of "‘Yavana’ and ‘Indian’: Transmission and Foreign Identity in the Exact Sciences.", Annals of Science, 68(2011): 467-476. I don't have access to the full text but here's the abstract:

The Sanskrit term ‘Yavana’, originally a transliteration of ‘Ionian (Greek)’ but later applied to other foreigners as well, was used throughout the common era to designate various foreign importations in the exact sciences. Likewise, the name ‘Indian’ was attached to several mathematical concepts and techniques in the Islamic world (as well as Europe) from about the seventh century onward. However, not all innovations adopted from or into the Indian tradition were labeled ‘Indian’ or ‘Yavana’ respectively. This paper examines the question of what characteristics marked some borrowed techniques and concepts as ‘foreign’ and stamped them with their outlandish origin, while others were quietly assimilated into ‘indigenous’ learning.

As to the second, the adaptation of foreign knowledge by Indian scholars is widely accepted by historians of astronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steve. Welcome to the discussion. With respect to your points, it should go without saying that knowledge of various kinds diffused to all parts of the world and it was frequently a two way exchange. Neither I nor anyone else here is denying that foreign knowledge per se percolated to India (obviously many ideas conclusively came following the turkic invasions and british colonialism). What is specifically at issue is, as you stated above, greek influence on Indian astronomy, and the meaning of the word yavana.

If you see above, the very first source I provided demonstrates that the word yavana did not originally mean greek--if ever. As I note the very same yavanas were also mentioned to have been conquered many times by mythologically figures--the word itself is very old and these yavanas had their own four fold caste system, i.e. yavana brahmins, vaishyas etc(for which there was no greek equivalent). So there are clear problems with this theory as even western scholars--also provided--have recognized. Even the paulisa siddhantha has been questioned as a case of unfortunate transliteration as the Asia Society Article I included also notes. Given this, it's important that we seek neutral wording--not absolute or definite. It is not scientific fact that Indian astronomy was influenced let alone heavily influenced by greek theory. It certainly is possible, but the evidence is far from conclusive as even western scholars have questioned, which is why I believe all theories (influence, no influence, perhaps even reverse influence) should be included, with appropriate weightage in wording and treatment. Please review the sources I have provided and let me know if you have further questions. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Steve because Neugebauer (Pingree's Guru) supports this transmission of Greek astronomy to India and Neugebauer was cautious in his assertions given the time spans involved and the paucity of contemporary evidence. Pingree himself is not above bias and hence needs to be balanced by Van der Waerden. I have elaborated this further down this talk page. This section of Wikipedia lacks such caution and will continue to do so until the Athenian grows up and outgrows his paranoia of "Hindu nationalists" :-)Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I introduced the relevance of Burugess earlier in this talk page. I will not insist on that now, because of the following reason: In 1856, in his translation of Surya Siddhantha, Burgess proposed that the Greeks got their astronomy from further East, from Chaldea and maybe even from as far East as India. Subsequently, the clay tablets excavated in Mesopotamia containing astronomical tables and procedures proved Burgess right, i.e. the Greeks indeed got their astronomy from Chaldea (Neugebauer was instrumental in interpreting those clay tablets) and hence there is no reason to go further east to India looking for the source.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) As Steve points out, the notion that Greek astronomy influenced Indian astronomy is well-established. This is moreover backed by a plethora of sources [5]. Only Hindu-nationalist chauvinists contest this. That the idea of a spherical source arrived to India from Greece is not ridiculous, it is well-sourced to the most reliable of sources (Pingree, David "Astronomy and Astrology in India and Iran" Isis, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Jun., 1963), pp. 229-246). What's ridiculous are your empty, original-research denials. As for the fact that Yavanajataka specifically means "Sayings of the Greeks", again that is reliably sourced (David Pingree, "Jyotiḥśāstra", Jan Gonda (ed) A History of Indian Literature, Vol, VI Fasc. 4, Otto Harrassowitz - Wiesbaden, 1981) and [6]. As for the Yavanesvera, that too is a Alexandrian Greek text that was introduced into India, and that too, is sourced [7]. And please don't use crap like this [ [8], it only serves to undermine your credibility further. Now, I am going to reintroduce into the lead that Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy, and I expect you to abide by that. Athenean (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, I'm not sure if english is your first language, but please check your comments for tone and restrain your choice of words--they are not at all civil and contravene wikipedia expectations for collegiality. Second, you have no authority to demand that I abide by anything. If anything, the onus is on you to collaborate more and respond civilly to other editors rather than run this page like a feudal inheritance and delete valid content (i.e. burgess) based on your greek nationalist inclinations. All you have done is rely on pingree like a broken record without considering the fact that there is a significant strain that specifically contests his scholarship--within western academia. Please review my comment below to Steve--I don't think you have any familiarity or understanding of the specific sources I've called out there. Also, please reread my comment above. Reliance is clearly placed on my asia society article above--not satyavidya--which is why I repeated it when I called you attention above in "doubt less, collaborate more". I provided satyavidya to very quickly summarize the concerns with the "yavana". You failed to contest the arguments there--and more importantly--in the asia society journal. So I would be more concerned about your credibility at this stage rather than mine. Given that the first revert was made by you, the obligation is on you to not continue to revert until the dispute is resolved. The status quo ante shall stand until then. Devanampriya (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Easy on the personal attacks there ("I'm not sure if english is your first language", "based on your greek nationalist inclinations", "like a broken record"). You do realize everything you write here can and will be used against you if needed, right? Now, as far as the status quo, that would be the version of January 22 [9], prior to your involvement here. The "status quo ante" is not your version. Athenean (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(reposting original from 09:16, 12 February 2013--not sure how it disappeared--seems like my diff, but don't know) I would check your own record before casting aspersions on mine. From "weasel words" to indian "nationalist", to "hypocrisy", to baseless accusations of "original research" and "hypocrisy", to threats to report, your comments and uncivil tone speak for themselves and would not pass muster under 3rd party review. You do also realize that anything you write here can and will be used against you as well? You have a long list of infractions just based on your comments to the very polite kishorekumar_62, so please keep all that in mind before you continue this confrontational tenor. Your threats frighten no one, and your reference to my indo-greek article contributions is particularly silly given that the editor you claimed i was "filibustering" was actually blocked himself, officially censured, and forced into mentorship for failure to properly use academic sources and for his feudal approach to open wiki articles. You seem to practice many of the very same behaviors (both here and elsewhere)--so you might find yourself in the same position as he ended up in if you choose to continue down this reckless and uncivil path. In addition, my concern about primary languages is a valid one--since tone does not always carry and meaning does not always translate, which is why I prefaced my remarks with that to give you the benefit of the doubt. You would do well to show the same courtesy to your fellow editors. (again, this is just a repost of old comment for record purposes) Devanampriya (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in this exchange, but you may want to check again. Unlike you, I never actually insulted you. I never called you an Indian nationalist, I said that Indian nationalists are the only ones that refuse to acknowledge external influences. As far as I know, that is a true statement, and not a personal attack against anyone. However, I see you are continuing with the personal attacks, essentially saying I have a "feudal" approach to articles, and continuing with the threats. You can continue some more for all I care, suit yourself. Athenean (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in continuing this either which is why I very clearly put in parens that this was a repost (with time stamp)of an earlier posting of the same comment. It disappeared, probably during one of my edits--don't know. I clearly prefaced my remarks to avoid further bitterness, so it's rather odd that you did not recognize that here. I haven't insulted you here, merely pointed out that your personal attacks regarding hypocrisy and nationalism and weasel words far exceed my own remarks and that your threats to report users were counter-productive and not conducive to good faith. I referred to you as a greek nationalist--and as far as I know that is not an attack either and is a true statement as well. The record here clearly shows you made the threats since you dug up stale disputes unrelated to this article--even kishorekumar saw this and responded, as did I. Also, I said you can't treat this article as a feudal inheritance to dictate what goes in and need to collaborate with other editors, that's not an attack, but a truism. In any event, I suggest we end this exchange, given as I wrote below, that our comments are now focused on content rather than each other. Devanampriya (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are continuing. "I referred to you as a greek nationalist--and as far as I know that is not an attack either and is a true statement as well."??? That is very much a personal attack and you are repeating it. Yes, it would be in your best interest not to continue, as it's yourself you are harming with this behavior, not me. Athenean (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you're prolonging a very stale exchange. The record clearly shows I cautioned that I was reposting an old comment that mistakenly got deleted. That comments was in response to your own provocative post where you used foul and condescending language like "crap". You ignored my good faith reposting notice and insisted on attacking me and misrepresenting my remarks (you clearly referred to my edits as nationalist--it's in the version history), when the record clearly shows you began issuing threats of reporting me based on some unrelated 5 year old wiki dispute (indo-greeks) that did not concern you--see below. You also started the dispute when you referred to my good faith edit as "weasel words", is that not an attack by your logic? By all means, you can continue this exchange, but your comments above and below show who threatened whom. So it's upto you whether or not this continues. In any event, it's only going to be injurious to you as it impacts other editors' perception of your ability to collaborate on articles with others. Devanampriya (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, making false accusations. I never called you a nationalist, in my summaries or anywhere. It is in fact you who did that both in this talkpage and in your edit summaries [10]. Surprised? Athenean (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You said "hindu nationalist chauvinist" here. You also clearly referred to my good faith edits as "Weasel words" here. That was actually in the edit summary. You also falsely accused me of making threats when in fact everyone here saw you were the one who threatened to report me here:" I was looking at the archives of Talk:Indo-Greeks where you were filibustering for two years. You engage in such behavior at your own risk. Further disruption will be reported at the appropriate time and place. Athenean (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)"and insist on continuing this exchange despite my good faith notice above. Did you forget about all that?Devanampriya (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Entered after edit Conflict)

I think we're getting into the problem of reliable sources. The first source you cited above on the "Actual etymology of yavana" is a page by Rodney Lingham on "the website of True Wisdom (Satya-Vidya)," which does not seem to be a scholarly source.

Your later Source 1, the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Purāṇas By Swami Parmeshwaranand seems to be religious in focus, but may also be a scholarly source. I would like to know about the scholarly reception of his work.

Your Source 2 is an 1874 article from the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in which the author, Ra'jendrala'la Mitra, sets out "a reconsideration of the case. The leaning at present is in favour of those who believe the word Yavana to be identical with Ionia and to mean the Greeks." Three points can be made concerning this article: First, it represents early scholarship in the field; much has been done since 1874. Second, Mitra himself notes that his view was a minority view at that time. Third, since that time the dominant view among serious historians (see the sources cited by me and by Athenean above) continues to be that Yavana means Greeks and other foreigners.

Turning to the astronomy, where I've studied some of the literature, detailed studies of the mathematical techniques and the quantitative parameters they employ make it quite clear that significant portions of Indian astronomy are derived from Greek and other foreign sources.

In sum, I don't think you've made a convincing argument; you should review the serious historical scholarship if you wish to make your case. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for your response, but I think there were a number of key oversights on your part.

First and foremost lies in the interpretation of the sources. Primary reliance was not placed upon satyavidya--which merely lays out the context of the problem and rebuttal and provides a pithy summary of the yavana issue and astronomical theory--that was the purpose for its inclusion. The main extensive reliance in my initial post for this argument come from the asia society journal. Yes, this does represent early scholarship, but that's precisely the point. This is not some new kneejerk nationalist theory, but a view that dates back to the very origins of this "greek influence theory" in the colonial period. This is because there are serious scholarly problems with this view, which is why it was contested from day one. The analog is the aryan invasion theory, which even anti-autochthonous scholars like thapar and witzel have all but been forced to downgrade to a "migration" theory and represents how the edifice erected by colonial scholars is beginning to crumble. The Puranic dictionary embodies the problem with the interpretation of the word yavana. Remember, this is a sanskrit word, and it's important that its meaning is properly understood as it was used, rather than on the basis of convenience for colonial theories. I would not presume to impose my own view of the greek word "epigamia" for example merely on the basis of my reviewing some ottoman sponsored greek-english dictionary--but would rely on actual greek scholars who understand the word fully as well as its proper context. Sanskrit should be no different. The word was clearly explicated and various examples of the yavanas' assorted defeats included. No serious historian is going to rely on this to posit indian "victories" over the greeks on the basis of the word. That is why it is a matter of concern that colonial scholars had imposed their own interpretation on a sanskrit word that contravenes the actual meaning of the word as it was used. These antiquated views have been perpetuated to this day--Pingree represents this line of thought.

Finally, you completely ignored Van der Waerden (a particularly major oversight), whom I also brought up, and was actually included in the article itself by another editor. He specifically criticizes Pingree and favors the chronology of Roger Billard. If you do your research you'll see that Billard actually rebuts Pingree's arguments. I also invite you to read Subhash Kak, who summarized this academic debate here: source. Please read and respond to that as well--this (VDW, RB, and SK) is not old scholarship, but represents the very contemporary problems with the yavana theory. In addition, Ebenezer Burgess provided the first english translation of the classical hindu astronomy treatise--Surya Siddhantha. Ironically, he advanced the theory that the greeks themselves were influenced by hindu astronomy. Yet mention of this early theory (whatever its weight) was also summarily removed by Athenean without the courtesy of a rebuttal to the editor on this talk page. You did not respond to this either.

So in sum, I'm afraid your rebuttals remain superficial and do not puncture the merit of my article position. Van der Waerden/Billard and the Asia society journal would both pass the reliable sources test--the latter for the simple reason that you have not provided any sources that debunk its contentions. As an indian writer for a british organization in the colonial period, it would be unsurprising if mitra's writings were marginalized. That does nothing to dilute the validity of his specific arguments--none of which you attempted to question with counter sources or rejoinder. In addition, this is a very reasonable article wording position on my part. In western scholarship, Pingree's view is a. a theory and b. clearly contested even within western scholarship. Given the standard of evidence required, it's important to ensure neutral wording that accounts for the various views while recognizing that they all remain theoretical, and should therefore be treated as such. I have yet to see an argument from you or athenean that gainsays the need for this neutrality of wording. Devanampriya (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Many Indian authors also clearly state that Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy [11]. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

David Pingree, as already been cited, is a locus classicus for the extensive Greek influence on Indian astronomy. The impact seems to have been so intense that he even devoted an entire paper to the question of how to deduce Greek astronomical knowledge from ancient Indian texts; this article (David Pingree - The Recovery of Early Greek Astronomy from India) has not been quoted yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with the article you mention. This article opened my eyes to how subjective this entire field is. Check out JHA, vii (1976) pp 116. Pingree writes "...what we know of Indian astronomical observations do not lead us to expect any success of the sort that Billard attributes to Aryabhatta", in effect saying "I know everything and new evidence which does not agree with what I know will be rejected". Billard presented evidence, supported by another savant in the field of history of astronomy - Van der Waerden - that for a millenium starting with Aryabhatta, Indian methods have a characteristic of giving extremely accurate results for the author's lifetime, with accuracy falling off rapidly beyond +-50 years.

Further consider the following statements of Pingree (from the same article): "But if Aryabhatta did not observe, how did he arrive at mean motions that produce results more correct for his own time than for any other? The answer is extremely simple: he used Greek tables of mean motions to compute the mean longitudes for a specific time, and thence derived the rotation in a Mahayuga." When a savant says "extremely simple" with respect to events which happened 1500+ years back, I become suspicious. Also, Billard's research found that Aryabhatta, Varahamihira, Bhaskara I, Brahmagupta, Bhaskara II, Aryabhatta II and so on up to Parameshwaran Namboodir (circa 1400 AD) all tweaked the constants of the basic Hindu method to give extremely accurate results for their lifetimes. Surely Parameshwarn had no Greek tables to borrow :-? Hence Billard posited that the Indian were making their own observations and modifying the constants of their model.

Van der Waerden has pointed these flaws in Pingree's reasoning in "Two Treatises on Indian Astronomy", JHA, xi (1980) pp 50-58. JHA in the same issue also printed "David Pingree replies". On pp 60, Pingree presents a series of hypothesis pertaining to Aryabhatta and claims "...these hypothesis are in agreement with everything else we know about the history of Indian astronomy while Billar's intepretation is not". Upon reading this I realized how "hypothetical" this field of history of astronomy really is. In the last para of his rebuttal, Pingree dismisses a very curious finding of Billard, that Aryabhatta II used a set of constants that gave accurate results for 1000 years after his lifetime and gave very poor results for his own lifetime! Pingree's rejection follows the same reasoning, i.e. he will reject any new finding that does not agree with his position. The entire tone of this rebuttal is similar to our more strident Greek nationalist friend - the Anthenian. [Note that Athenian too tends to say "it is obvious", "it is a fact", "no one questions it", "case closed" about events that happened 2000+ years back. He also repeatedly brackets people who disagree with him as "hindu nationalist chauvinists" which is utterly deplorable].

I hesitate to take Pingree's words as veda vākya.

Pingree's predecessor and Guru at Brown University - Otto Neugebauer - was cast in a different mold altogether. Consider what he says in his "The Exact Sciences in Antiquity", pp viii: "I have often inserted methodological remarks to remind the reader of the exceedingly slim basis on which, by necessity, is built any discussion of historical developments from which we are separated by many centuries. The common belief that we gain historical perspective with increasing distance seems to me utterly to misrepresent the actual situation. What we gain is merely confidence in generalization which we would never dare make if we had access to the real wealth of contemporary evidence". Seems like he was anticipating what his shishya Pingree would eventually end up doing.

IMHO Pingree's perspective should be balanced in this Wiki section by Van der Waerden and Billard's counter-perspective. Refer "On Astronomy of Ancient India", Subhash C. Kak, Indian Journal of History of Science, 22(3): 205-221 (1987) for a summary of these two perspectives (with a slant towards Van Waerden's). As it stands, this section is written with a fan POV - a fan of Greece.

At this time, I too feel that given the absence of mathematical astronomical texts before Surya Siddhantha (crica 300AD), and given its similarities with Hipparchus epicycle theory, the Greeks are likely to be the originals. All the Indian writing from prior to Hipparchus was metaphysical and ritualistic (the Vedas) except for Vedanga Jothisha which restricts itself to calendrical formulations [Pingree has his own opinions on the date of this treatise, where he rejects internal evidence which points to 1180 BC by stating "...though this computation is correct...we simply do not know where Lagadha would have placed the beginning of the equal nakshatra Dhanishta with respect to the fixed stars, nor do we know the accuracy with which he could have determined the sidereal longitude of the Sun at the winter solstice." - JHA iv (1973), 1-12. The answer is no longer "extremely simple" but full of doubt! And hence "we should not lend much weight to this chronological argument"]. Neugebauer too posits a transmission from Babylon to Greece to India and even directly from Babylon to India, and I have much greater regard for him than for his student Pingree. Billard's findings too, while they indicate Indian astronomy post-400 AD evolved based on actual (and accurate) observations, prove nothing about origins; from accuracy of observations to originality is a tenuous connection.

But I feel it is beyond Wikipedia's brief to claim certainty where there is debate, particularly when the subject is antiquity.

Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Devanampriya - Subhash Kak is not a reliable source, and neither is stuff from the 19th century. Is that all you can come up with? There is no "debate" among serious scholars. Greek influence in Indian astronomy is accepted by the scientific community, including many Indian scholars. I have added plenty of sources to the article, and can add dozens more. The rest of your tl;dr rant is original research (not to mention that it is loaded with personal attacks). And stop the hypocrisy - admonishing others to not edit-war while edit-warring to impose your preferred version. I painstakingly added sources to the article and you just blanket reverted everything with a hypocritical edit summary - extremely disrespectful and disruptive. "Let's maintain status quo until there is consensus. Rather than add content here, introduce it on the talk page for scrutiny.'"...What status quo? The status quo you have been revert-warring over the past few days? I was looking at the archives of Talk:Indo-Greeks where you were filibustering for two years. You engage in such behavior at your own risk. Further disruption will be reported at the appropriate time and place. Athenean (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pls do report this. I look forward to the consequences. Will tell me a lot about how Wikipedia operatesKishorekumar 62 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

First, the age of an article does not dismiss its validity. It's only invalid if its arguments have been rebutted--you failed to provide any source that has rebutted Mitra's contentions. Please reread the wikipedia definition for reliable sources. Also, Kak summarized and endorsed the view of Billard (who is a recognized european/western scholar--and thus--would presumably pass your test for a reliable source). Kak is also a professor at an American university--his views certainly do hold weight for this dispute even if we don't include his research in the article. More importantly, neither you nor Steve responded to Van der Waerden or Billard. Again, please check your tone. Kishorekumar_62 was very polite, there is no reason for you to be rude and confrontational. Devanampriya (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with Subhash Kak. He is not taken seriously by the scientific community, seeing he is not a historian of science. You are not going to make any headway if you keep mentioning him. But what about Billiard and Van der Waerden? Can you provide exact quotes? Yes, Kishore was being polite, I was addressing myself to you, who so far has been anything but polite. Athenean (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read carefully, Kak summarized Billard and Billard and Van der Waerden contest the Pingree chronology. Kak should not be summarily dismissed given that he is a full professor and certainly represents a notable minority opinion, having himself endorsed a respected european scholar--Billard. Van der Waerden's paper is already in the article and he summarizes Billard there. You again also did not respond to my point about Burgess. You unilaterally removed the Burgess content without suitable explanation to Kishorekumar_62. In addition, it is inappropriate to continue to edit the article while the main contention of influence is being debated. You can't revert a good faith edit, remove sourced content without proper explanation, and then complain when your sourced edits are removed during a re-revert. The proper place for your new sources is here on the talk page for scrutiny, not on the article. In addition, by referring prematurely to the issue as closed on the edit history, you are not demonstrating good faith. I am, however, glad to see that you have backtracked on your previous remarks and qualified to whom you were referring. While that still does not pass the civility test (remember, your own voluminous record is clearly open to incivility charges), I am happy to see that your tone has at least changed for the better in your latest comment. Please continue this. Devanampriya (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for not blanket-reverting again, I really appreciate that. Please continue like that. I had done a lot of painstaking work to find those sources, and did not appreciate seeing all my contribs wiped out. The difference between my sources and Kishore's is that mine are contemporary, scholarly, and reliable, whereas Burgess is a priest from the 19th century, and moreover not a historian of science. Sources from that long ago are deprecated, and for good reason. Our knowledge of science and the history of science has changed dramatically since then. As for Subhash Kak, I realize he is considered a guru in some circles, but he has been roundly derided by the scholarly community as an amateur and Hindu-nationalist partisan hack [12]. His dabblings in archeoastronomy are particularly risible. If you don't believe me, we can ask the wikipedia community an advisory opinion on Burgess and Kak at WP:RSN. Would you like to do that? With that in mind, I think there is a communication problem here. I'm not saying that Greek influence on Indian astronomy was complete, that the Indians got all their astronomy from the Greeks. All I'm saying is that there was some influence. The degree is debatable, but I don't think there is doubt that there was some influence. Even the ancient Indian scholars give credit (see my additions from Naskar in the text). If you noticed, I replaced "heavily influenced", with just "influenced". I don't see Billard and Van der Waerden saying anywhere that there no Greek influence on Indian astronomy, but I could be wrong. Can you provide an exact passage where Billard or van der Waerden say there was zero Greek influence on Indian astronomy? If you can't, can we agree that there was some influence, just that the degree is uncertain? Athenean (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Athenean. The beauty of wikipedia is that we can always retrieve your work (as well as the work of other editors) at any point in time. Other editors have done painstaking work as well to assemble sources and would appreciate if you don't remove it either. Your sources were added well into an article dispute, and it is not good etiquette to even add anything until the dispute is resolved. I have no problem assisting you in restoring them once we come to a fair, equitable, and most importantly accurate consensus. So let's not get to focused on what stands right now. The status quo ante is what should stand and I hold to that. However, since you have become more civil and have ceased issuing counterproductive threats, I will cease automatically reverting, so long as we continue on this constructive track.

Second, here is the core of the dispute 1.that yavana means greek always--if ever 2. the extent if any of greek influence on indian astronomy. With respect to 1, you have been provided enough reliable sources (puranic encyc definition and asia society article on astronomy) that demonstrate why there is concern with this interpretation. Does that mean it should be removed--goodness no. But it does mean that the yavana theory be dealt with the appropriate skepticism it deserves given this scholarship. With respect to influence, I have no problem whatsoever with discussing theories of greek influence on indian astronomy--in fact these theories must be discussed and even given majority weight--but the wording matters--this was our primary dispute. I absolutely disagree with the certainty you have been pushing and also the use of the word heavily. That's why I stand by my edits and why I urge you to reconsider what you termed "weasel words". You seem to be moving towards that based on your last comment--great!

Third, as I've said before, Kak is useful for summarizing Billard's findings and the impact on Pingree's paradigm (any original scholarship by Kak posted here should be minimal and should be prefaced as being a minority view or outside the mainstream). Kak's interpretation of Billard is also effectively supported [[ here] and here. You'll notice that neither of these latter two sources are by Indian authors (1 japanese and 1 frenchman affiliated with cambridge). Mercier also pithily summarizes the issue here. The japanese source (Ohashi) also says this on p.157: “Astronomy was developed in India in its own way in this period, and established itself as an independent discipline.” And “the classical Siddhanta period was itself rather free from foreign influence”. You'll note that both Ohashi and Mercier leave the door open for greek/other influence, even suggest certain things may very well likely have been. But the essence of their critique is that there is no certainty of influence here. And that is precisely what Kishore and I have been arguing--you can't treat this as scientific fact which you insisted on above. Right now the article reads as though Indian astronomy is derivative of greek astronomy--which gives a false impression given that Pingree's ideas were contested in his own time by Billard. Van der Waerden is useful for validating Billard's methodology (i.e. the math and science are sound whatever the conclusions)--this shows that Billard's findings are scientifically valid and demonstrate why Pingree should not be treated as gospel and is very likely wrong even though his views remain in the majority today.

In addition, the link to your Kak critique does not work. Also, Burgess absolutely deserves mention--again, as a minority view and would be prefaced as such. I know Kishore does not insist on that right now, but I do. The possibility of greek transmission indirectly to india has been thought of as a possibility, there's no reason why indirect transmission of Indian ideas through mesopotamia to greece should not be included as well. I also believe Mitra deserves mention for his theories.

In sum, both Kishore and I are perfectly fine with the majority view getting majority article (balanced by the significant minority view) weight so long as it is not treated as certainty as you've treated it here. This includes questioning the very interpretation of the word yavana and pointing out that reliance on that is what drives the theory. We also insist that notable minority views are included as well (but would be qualified as such). That is our proposal. Let's also continue keeping our conversation civil--we're on the right track here, so I'm happy to see you've changed your tone and will reciprocate so we can keep things productive. I also think we're closer to a consensus than we may think. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) Your point about the meaning of Yavana is off topic - the article doesn't say that anywhere. It only says that the "Yavanajataka" is a Sanskrit manuscript about Greek astrology. That is reliably sourced. Your claim that "reliance on that is what drives the theory" is not, it is originial research. If you can find a source that says Yavanajataka means something else, I would be happy to change it. You may wish to discuss the meaning on Yavana at the respective article, but it's not even mentioned here. Regarding Kak and Burgess, we are going to have to agree to disagree. For a debunking of Kak, an excellent critique can be found here Sokal, Alan (2006). "Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?". In Garrett G. Fagan (ed.). Archaeological fantasies: how pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public. Routledge. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-415-30593-8. Doubtless I can find more. I asked you if you wanted to go to WP:RSN to get an advisory opinion these sources, but you did not answer my question. So I will ask you again: Are you willing to get an advisory opinion on the reliability of these sources at RSN, and agree to abide by it (as I will)? Can you also point to specific passages that make you think that the article "reads as though Indian astronomy is derivative of Greek astronomy". I can't find any such passages. It only says that Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy, which as far I can tell is accepted by the scientific community and uncontroversial. As for van der Waerden, he is already included in the article, so I don't see the problem there. Your proposal is unfortunately quite vague. Can you point out specific parts of the article you object to, and make specific suggestions? Otherwise I'm afraid we won't get anywhere. Athenean (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, Yavana is not off topic--yavanajataka is mentioned as a greek source a number of times in the article (what do you think yavanajataka and the associated yavanacharya refer to?). In fact yavanas are specifically mentioned as Greeks in the last paragraph of "Indian and Greek Astronomy). The romaka and paulisa siddhantha are also treated as greco-roman sources without any qualification, and it is not original research. Mitra touches on the issue with respect to the yavanas/yavanajataka/yavanacharya and the Siddhantas as does the puranic encyclopedia on sanskrit terms. Kishore and I are being very reasonable in our position. The majority weight is being allocated to Pingree and friends--contingent on wording. You ignored the entire point on wording in your most recent post.

" can't find any such passages. It only says that Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy, which as far I can tell is accepted by the scientific community and uncontroversial". No it still is controversial because Pingree is dead and living scholars have questioned the certainty of this influence paradigm that he propogated. Also, let's address the main point about article structure before moving onto the possibility of RS. Ohashi and Mercier are clearly valid, and you have not responded to them at all.

In addition, Billard is not at all discussed in the article and must be. Van der Waerden is briefly mentioned, but neither his verification of Billard or Billard himself is--that must change. Also, you have not at all touched on the two most recent sources I provided you--electing to focus on Kak. Kak's suggested inclusion is mentioned as a minority view and primarily as a summary of Billard vs. Pingree--that's it. Wikipedia does allow for that. Your point about Kak and pseudoscience will be more relevant if you can provide the specific quotation--which I do not see, and thus, cannot therefore rely on.

Also, actual astronomer and director general of the Birla Planetarium (and Ph.d. in computational physics), B.G. Sidharth (see below) has also emphasized originality in Indian astronomy. Even if we set aside Kak, you still have B.G.Sidharth--who in this subject, is better credentialed anyway. Ohashi and Mercier demonstrate the issues with Pingree and friends, this should be included--Kak merely summarizes it in 1 sentence. In addition, please do not sidestep the issue--the version history clearly shows that the article advanced the notion that greek astronomy "heavily influenced" indian astronomy--and pingree himself (whom you advocate as the highest authority) continued to deny any original observation by indians, suggesting they relied on the greeks and their observation tables. This has been contested within western academia. Sidharth also supports the Burgess view of Indian transmission to the greeks via the Babylonians.

Since you asked for a point by point listing of objections, I'll go ahead and oblige:

1. The second paragraph in the introduction--refers to greek influence as a certainty and yavanajataka/romaka siddhantha as undeniable greek texts. My suggestion is to remove this paragraph, since greek influence is heavily discussed in depth below anyways. At the bare minimum, specific reference to the yavanajataka should go as should the certainty around influence (ohashi and mercier both touch on this point about lack of certainty). More weight is assigned to the greeks here than even Indian texts/astronomers--which does not make sense given the topic.

2. You recently added an irrelevant mention of Alexander of macedon. You do realize Alexander is distinct from the Indo-greeks and was only very briefly in India. The indo-greeks are 150 years later. While we have a clear record of intellectual interchange through the indo-greeks (bactrian greeks originating from the persian penal colony in afghanistan), we don't with Alexander--his mention here has nothing to do with specifically with astronomy in India and should be removed. The source for indo-greek influence also clearly states the following: "There is no unanimity among the scholars of India regarding the indebtedness we owe to the Greeks for the introduction of Astronomy to India"--alternate meaning for the various texts are also suggested again supporting the views of Mitra. Thus, this section has to be treated with caution as well.

3. The Siddhantas. Ohashi very clearly mentions that these were generally free of foreign influence. His quotation should be added to qualify the romaka/paulisa siddhantas and Mitra providing alternate meanings for Romaka and Paulisa (as well as Yavana).

4. I have no problem with the mention of foreign principles being studied by varahamira in the large chart--because even ohashi and mercier leave the door open for this. But the fact that greek influence is given dominant mention in the introduction, history section, and "Indian/Greek" section is nonsensical. My recommendation is that it's removed from the introduction (given that there's an entire section on this and given an absence of certainty). It can be touched on in the history, and obviously given prime of place in the India/Greek section, with the breakdown I've given below.

5. The supplantation of spherical with flat disk is incorrect, as the vedic texts themselves refer to the earth as sphere. At the bare minimum, the text should be replaced so that it reads as "Pingree believed that the greeks transmitted...although it is known the earth is mentioned as a sphere in India's vedic texts and other hindu scriptures". B.G. Sidharth is an astronomer who has also supported independent indian knowledge of earth as sphere. And non-Indians here and here.

(KishoreKumar_62, if you have any additional objections, please feel free to add.)

In sum, I think the greek influence section start with a qualifying sentence discussing how there are a number of theories regarding greek influence, ie "The majority theory which remains the most popular today in the academic mainstream is Pingree (x,y,z)... (next para) However, within western academia there remains a significant minority represented by Billard and Van der Waerden who recognize originality in Indian observation, reducing certainty regarding extent of greek influence (this has been supported more recently by scholars such as Ohashi/Mercier)...(next para--one sentence) there were/are scholars outside the mainstream such as Kak who deny this influence and Sidharth and Burgess who actually advocate that Indian astronomical ideas were actually transmitted to Greece." This covers all thoughts in the spectrum, discusses what's in the mainstream and not, and finally allocates majority weight (and article size) to the majority view. I believe these objections and proposals would be deemed reasonable and npov by disinterested third parties. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately your proposal is a non-starter. You want to give much more space to views that you admit are the minority, and then even more space to views that are clearly WP:FRINGE (Kak, Siddarth, Burgess). I looked over Sidarth, his book is nothing more thana polemical rant, he is even worse than Kak. As for the sphericity of the Earth, none of your sources stand up to scrutiny. Sidarth is definitely fringe as I've already said, and your first non-Indian source makes no mention of this claim, while the second (the "New Enlightenment" one) is also fringey. For the third time, are you willing to seek a binding opinion on the quality of these sources at WP:RSN? I have asked you twice already and you are avoiding the question. As far as the Yavanajataka, that it means "Sayings of the Greeks" is sourced [13]. No amount of original research is going to trump that. As for the meaning of Yavana itself, that should be discussed at Yavana, it is beyond the scope of this article. By the way, the Siddhanthas do contain foreign influence, some scholars even propose that the Surya Siddhantha is a translated Greek text [14]. Regarding Alexander the Great, well, it is his conquests that set in motion the whole process of Greek astronomical ideas arriving in India. How else do you think that whole process started? So it important to mention that for context, if only very briefly (once is enough). You will also note that it is sourced. Anyway, I really don't see why we should avoid mentioning this at all cost, unless one finds the very mention of Alexander the Great somehow toxic. In summary, I'm afraid I do not find your proposals reasonable at all. At this point I am considering seeking dispute resolution, because I do not think we are making progress. Athenean (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Sidarth's book is listed as "fiction" by Google Books [15]. I wonder why. Athenean (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, authority is not given to you to decide what can and cannot go into the article and what is and is not original research:

1. "You want to give much more space to views that you admit are the minority"--no, I want at least some space! There is no space for minority views here other than 1 measly phrase touching on VDW. This is not good faith collaboration on your part. Ohashi and Mercier are not fringe--you know that that's why you keep pretending like they don't exist and refuse to answer my questions about them.

2."By the way, the Siddhanthas do contain foreign influence, some scholars even propose that the Surya Siddhantha is a translated Greek text [13]. "--But that's the point, Pingree's school is already covered--ohashi, whom you again did not address, clearly says siddhantas are generally free of foreign influence. That's not original research--that's his research--he's the authority, not you. If pingree's challenged views can be given prominence, some mention of Ohashi/Mercier is necessary.

3. B.G.Sidharth is an actual astronomer, not you. He's the director general of a well known planetarium and I gave you his cv with a number of internationally received and commended papers on astronomy. Minority views are permitted on this page--see wikipedia policy. Also, if you read carefully, the specific categorization of Sidharth lists his book under science and astronomy. But that's ok, like pingree and friends, you only see what you want to see.

4. The point about alexander is silly--the indo greeks were already in bactria. Defeated greek rebels were settled in bactria by the Persians. This is like mentioning julius caesar's britain campaign to discuss the impact of the corpus juris civilis (a byzantine text) on europe in general. The entire theory of greek influence is just that--a theory--so some theoretical process that you claimed started with a non-academic figure is being stretched to a silly extreme.

5. "As far as the Yavanajataka, that it means "Sayings of the Greeks" is sourced "--and the point denying "saying of the greeks" is also sourced (mitra discusses the problem in much greater depth than your "source"). Yavana is not beyond the scope of the article when it is being relied on for the meaning of yavanajataka and yavanacharya. Remember, none of these texts refer to a word similar to greek/hellenes/makedonians. The greek connection comes from the work yavana which did not even originally refer to greeks. So authority is not given to you to decide what is beyond the scope.

6. Besides Sidharth I also included a textbook by a westerner that did support independent hindu development of spherical earth theory--you misrepresented the fact that he specifically wrote that Aryabhatta correctly guessed that the earth was sphere. He did not credit the greeks and makes it obvious that this was independent thought.

7. Lastly, you did not respond to any of my structural questions (i.e. no greek theory in the intro, but discuss it in 2 other places). That's why instead of a point by point response, you just covered it up in block text, skipping over my individual points.

And again, as I said before, you did not respond to Ohashi or Mercier--you can't keep ignoring that question, and they are not fringe. I said we can touch on reliable sources once we agree on a structure. You however have become intransigent and aren't in a mood to accept any suggestions from other editors. Just look at the record, not one proposal of mine accepted, and no good faith response to the research of Ohashi and Mercier (because we all know independent indian sources are unacceptable to you, so why the silence with a western source?). So that's fine, we can seek dispute resolution first. The problem lies with your approach to this article and dismissiveness towards reasonable proposals. If you can't even agree to a good faith structuring of the article--how can you agree on sources? This is not at all good faith editing or constructive on your part--I guess we're back to square 1. So if at all we have RS/N only after we have DR/N on the actual issue. The status quo ante will also stand now.Devanampriya (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said not to use Ohashi and Mercier, in fact I am ok that they be used in the article, as long as they are faithfully quoted and not distorted. However, I am totally against the inclusion of fringe sources like Kak and "the world's oldest civilization" Sidarth. That is a red line. Ditto for Burgess. The claim that the Surya Siddantha is not sourced to Pingree, but to an Indian author in fact. If you had bothered to check the source, you would have realized that. You say the Greco-Bactrians were in India before Alexander? Great, source it. FYI the term "Greco-Bactrian" does not appear until much later. As for your proposed removal of Greek influence from the lede, again I have to disagree. It no more a "just a theory" than evolution is "just a theory". As for the Yavanajataka, I don't see Mitra mentioning the Yavanajataka specifically. And please stop referring to your version as the staus quo ante, as if that gives some sort of increased legitimacy. It's just your version, that is all. Excellent call seeking dispute resolution though, I was about to go there myself. Athenean (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked you multiple times to address Ohashi/Mercier--you never did, until now when pushed. I gave you faithful quotations which you ignored (i.e. ohashi siddhantha quote on how it was relatively free of foreign influence). You can't give red lines when the RS opinion you received said Sidharth could definitely be used to validate hindu scripture claims.. If you think evolution--which is scientific fact--is the same as this contested pingree theory, then what more can be said about whether you actually wish to collaborate in good faith. Neither ohashi and mercier are "hindu nationalist chauvinists" as you say, and both contest and criticize pingree's theory--so how do you reconcile that. You said they (ohashi/mercier) were fine, but then act like this greek influence theory is on par with evolution. Don't you realize you just undercut yourself? And it is the status quo ante--before you added bad faith content additions when other editors are negotiating with you in good faith. That's why I'm insisting on it. You can't stealth edit when people are trying to collaborate with you on the talk page (that type of editing does have low legitimacy).

I didn't say greco-bactrians were in India before alexander (please conduct discussion in good faith), I said there were greeks in bactria (in n. afghanistan--not India) before Alexander. They only entered India 150 years after him and were in existence before him (they were conquered greeks sent by persians to a bactrian penal colony). So any discussion of them does not require reference to him. You put Alexander in there as part of your POV agenda which even a polite editor like kishore kumar recognizes.

Either way,as you probably already knew, I've made a DR/N request, since you obviously are not interested in collaborating in good faith and wish to WP:OWN this article. This should resolve our main questions about contested theories as well as article structure since no editor has the authority to dictate what goes in and out. Devanampriya (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You may want to check again about Sidarth at RSN, you may be surprised. About the Greeks in Bactria before Alexander, I asked you for a source. Found one yet? And even if you found one, you would still need another source to link them to the spread of astronomical ideas in India. Good luck with that. I don't understand why you're so against mentioning Alexander, after all it's not like I'm trying to claim he was an astronomer. As far as "Stealth editing", there is no such thing, nor do I see anything in wikipedia guidelines about "Stealth editing" or the "status quo ante". On the other hand, it would definitely be in your best interest to cease reverting now. Athenean (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What's there to be surprised about--two RS/N volunteers validated what I said--perhaps you should read it again. Ninthabout is party to the dispute anyways on your side. As for the greeks in bactria before alexander--perhaps you should do your research properly first. Anyone with a remote understanding of the indo-greeks knows there were greeks in bactria before Alexander: source, source. It's this type of half-done research and knowledge that continues to harm this article's neutrality. Alexander is a frivolous mention--it's like connecting the arab conquests and invasions in greek territory to the renaissance. Remember, this article is on Indian astronomy--not the history of Indian and Greek interactions. The reality is all these ideas about influence are theoretical--the onus is on you to demonstrate incontrovertible evidence--which both you and pingree have failed to do--and as even other westerners assert pingree failed to do. Also you spent the last few days ignoring ohashi and mercier only to realize how intransigent you seemed by not responding to their existence, despite me repeated questioning, until your penultimate post (likely cause this was going to dr/n). Ohashi and Mercier alone undercut your argument about Pingree (which is why your rejected my proposed structure above instead of proposing emendations to it or suggesting an alternate).

As for reverting, yes, you added additional disputed content while people were trying to discuss with you in good faith. This is not conducive to collaboration. You can argue this all you want--but you'll find that it's the status quo ante that gets preserved during such disputes. So perhaps you and your friends would be better advised to cease reverting given your long history of blocks specifically for edit warring. You don't WP:OWN this article (your uncivil language alone, i.e. "that is a red line", "not going to happen" indicates these inclinations). In addition, I also recommend we relocate our discussion to the Dispute Resolution page--since it's been assessed and will be open for discussion shortly. I believe our old participants (back from hiatus) and new entrants already made their opening statements, but here is the link for any lurkers who've been following the debate. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Burra G. Sidharth is a widely published astronomer; he has 208 publications listed in the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System. That, however, is not the question. We are concerned with whether Sidharth's historical writings are respected by the historical community. As a historian of science I have encountered a number of cases where scientists write works which display a lack of historical sophistication.

The discussion in WP:RSN indicates his Celestial Key to the Vedas is published by a fringe publisher of New Age materials. I find it troubling that we are being asked to accept historical works by a computer scientist (Kak) and an astronomer (Sidharth). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Steve, Sidharth is an astronomer and has a ph.d in physics and has received international recognition for his work--he's not some two bit hack irrespective of the publisher. What matters is the content. The question is whether or not you can challenge the content with other content--not guilt by publisher association. Also, irrespective of whether Sidharth and Kak are even cited at all in the article, they are ancillary to the core dispute, Ohashi and Mercier form the crux of the minority view challenging Pingree. You haven't commented on either of them or how they impact the article or even responded to any of my proposals for the article. Kishore has very aptly pointed out that the debate on this is not even settled, but you and Athenean insisted on treating it as if it is. Please provide more comprehensively responsive comments so that we can wrap up this issue as civilly as possible. Devanampriya (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The publisher is well known for being a marketer of New Age pseudoscience. Their About Us page shows published works like Pyramid Power, a book on Pyramidology, The Science of Getting Rich, a self help book from the so-called "New Thought Movement" (that inspired the widely criticized New Age film The Secret (2006 film)), The Estrogen Alternative a book on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and The Mayan Code, a book on "Mayanism". They've practically covered the entire List of pseudosciences. If a source is provided, it should from an academic press like Cambridge University Press or an scholarly journal.--Ninthabout (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The noted historian of astronomy, Otto Neugebauer, comments on Greek and Babylonian influences on Indian astronomy in his History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (p. 6):

"That the preceding Greek occupation of the Punjab [under Alexander} should have brougnt astronomical knowledge to India is not very likely, soimply because the Greeks themselvesat this period seem not to have had any knowledge of mathematical astronomy. However, we know so little about the early phase of Greek and of Mesopotamian astronomy at the beginning of the hellenistic era that the argument from negative evidence could be deceptive.

"So much, however, can be considered as fairly certain, namely that the first and lasting impact of western astronomy on India came via Greek astrological texts, operating with Babylonian arithmetical methods. These methods were well known in Alexandria at least at the beginning of our era, as is attested through Greek and demotic papyri and from the astrological literature. This agrees with the appearance of similar works in India by the middle of the second century A.D."

At pp. 434-6 Neugebauer demonstrates the close relationship between Babylonian planetary parameters and the equivalent Indian parameters found in the Pañca-Siddhāntikā. Neugebauer's comments on the lack of Early Greek influence are worthy of consideration here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN case

There is a WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case on the above issue. It is located at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Indian_Astronomy. It is best if we have only one discussion happening at a time. So, can editors try to refrain from commenting here, and instead place any comments over at the DRN case? That way everything will be co-located and we won't have too much confusion. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I will be posting there once the thread is opened by the mediator. Thank you. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Calendars arithmetic

The J.A.B. van Buitenen (2008) quotation in the calendars section just doesn't add up. 12 months of 27 or 28 days in an approximate 360 day year doesn't make sense. Should this be 13 months instead of 12? Does anyone have access to the original book to check if there has been a copying mistake here? Dingo1729 (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that quotation makes no sense. The 360 number has to be lunar days with 30 lunar days (of varying lengths) making a lunar month, and 12 lunar month making a lunar year. Such a lunar year falls short of a solar year by approx. 11 solar days. That is the "discrepancy" the quotation refers to. This discrepancy is made-up by introducing an intercalary lunar month. These are the basics of a lunisolar calendar and cannot be explained clearly in a single quotation. The 27/28 relate to the sidereal period of the Moon and is the basis for the 27/28 divisions (Nakshatras) of the Hindu zodiac. van Buitenen is muddling things up. Might be better to remove this quotation altogether.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

By the time of Aryabhata I the motion of planets was treated to be elliptical rather than circular?

Really? Doesn't sound very plausible. This isn't Jagged again, is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well might be. I note that no page number is given, which is typical Jagged. Athenean (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll on DRN proposal

I am tabling the proposal by User:Noleander, the volunteer at the DRN board for this dispute [16], for further community input. As a first step, I would like to see a show of hands regarding the proposal, to see whether there is community consensus around it. In an effort to keep things clear, I would kindly ask that people limit themselves to 500 characters. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read through all of the above, and read portions of some of the sources. Based on that, my analysis is the following:

The issue here is how to describe the influence of Greek astronomy upon the development of Indian astronomy in the Indian astronomy article, particularly in the Lead and in the "Global discourse" section.

The historical events took place roughly 2,000 years ago, and the paucity of documentation from that era means that historians have a difficult time pinpointing events and influences with certainty.

There is general interest among historians of science in the possible influence of Greece upon Indian astronomy. In fact, two works were published on the topic in the mid 1970s: one by by Roger Billard in 1971 or 1974 ("L’Astronomie indienne"); and another by David Pingree in 1976 ("The Recovery of early Greek astronomy from India"). Their conclusions about the influence of Greece differed in some significant respects.

Subsequent scholars remarked on the conflicting interpretations, and elaborated on the topic, including Yukio Ohashi (1994), Hubert Van Der Waeden (1980), Raymond Mercier (2006), and others. Because of the substantial amount of top-quality academic sources, there is no need to consider sources that are second-rate, such as those published by new-age publishers and the like.

All of the sources agree that there was Greek influence on Indian astronomy. They differ only in the magnitude and timing: when was the influence? in which eras? Was it a large influence? or small? I think most objective observers would also agree that historians do not know, and probably never will know, exactly what the magnitude of the influence was ... in other words, there will always be some uncertainty accompanying any assertion about the degree or timing of the influence. The uncertainty continues: as recently as 2006, UK scholar Raymond Mercier published a paper analyzing the PIngree/Billard interpretations.

My recommendation is that the article should tell the readers:

1) There was significant and repeated influence from Greece ranging from 3rd century BC to 4th century AD.
2) Following the 4th century AD the greek influence waned during the "classical Siddhanta" era, and Indian astronomy made major progress independently.
3) The initial Greek influences were initiated by the travels of Alexander the Great.
4) Some scholars assert that Āryabhaṭa produced some of his major results independently from Greek sources.'

I think that items (1) and (2) above are high-level facts that could be mentioned in the lead (as well as in the body). (3) and (4) should be in the body only.

For item (4), it may be best if the article names (in the text, not just in the footnote) the specific scholars that promote that interpretation (Billard, Ohashi, and Mercier). It is clear from their writings that their hypothesis is very strong and deserves to be presented as viable and supported by solid research.

Support As an eminently sensible, balanced proposal based on the available literature and a thorough understanding of the issues involved. Athenean (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that number 4 should list some of the scholars that think that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If we include that, would you be inclined to support Noleander's proposal? Athenean (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would be inclined to support this proposal. I think Devanampriya is going to take a break for the moment and I would suggest that to all involved so when cooler heads are prevailed there may be a way to work in some of his research as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Qualified Support Seems generally good, although I'm not sure that item (3), drawing in political history and Alexander the Great should be a major element in the article (it does help by providing the general reader a familiar reference point). One quibble re User:Noleander's discussion, it's Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, not Hubert. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support A fair, balanced, well-articulated, fully explained and well-researched decision. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support That is how I understand the current state of research as well. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree My views on the DRN were expressed there--particularly factual issues with respect to influence, dating, and source attribution. (3) is also a concern for me as previously expressed by another participant. I also don't think a straw poll is the correct way to approach the issue particularly given that one of the original and key 4 parties to the dispute KishoreKumar_62 appears to be busy with personal matters at present. Straw polls also do not take into account long term members of the dispute who have actual familiarity with the sources. A running straw poll including random passerby's is not the way to compromise and consensus. As I stated on the DRN, I think a long term committee assigned moderator is probably required to allocate the proper time and scrutiny to this page and issues. DRN was the required first step to get there. Given the present acrimony as seen on DRN, a cool off period is probably the best approach before reconvening for further discussion and moderation. Devanampriya (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support (and I also think that this [17] is better than the one that it replaces). Devanampriya's reverts smack of nationalism to me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jyotisa is Indian Astrology

Jyotisa is Indian Astrology. Not Astronomy. I removed the word Jyotisa from this Article.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vedanga Jyotisha & Belief

Vedanga Jyotisha is dated to 1400 BCE, as per these sources:- "When Did the Mahabharata War Happen?" by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, p. 33, "Early Indian historical tradition and archaeology" by G. P. Singh, p. 104

And other thing is, I don't think that 2nd source even talks about anything like "belief into a flat and circular earth disk"

First source says is not directly saying that either but describing as "is a flat-bottomed, circular disk, in the center of which is a lofty mountain, Meru. Surrounding Meru is the circular continent Jambūdvīpa" - and it cited "See W. Kirfel, Die Kosmographie der Inder (Bonn-Leipzig, 1920; repr. Hildesheim, 1967). 54–177' as source. Both, source and this information are obvious WP:FRINGE, because this is not purana's cosmology, it's not even telling that which purana said so, and it's the cosmology of buddhism, which can be seen here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumeru

That's why i removed it. Any explanation you got? Athenean. Justicejayant (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources you present meets WP:RS. The one by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is self-published, which is an instant red flag (and it's page 43 btw, not 33). The second is published by D.K. Printworld, which does not seem like a reputable publisher. The two sources you falsified, on the other hand (Pingree and Glick), are scholarly and reliable, so when it comes to WP:FRINGE, it seems you've got it backwards. What part of "flat-bottomed, circular disk" do you not understand? And please don't cite other wikipedia articles as sources. I'm not even going to look at at the link. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How about these?[18], [19], [20], [21]..

Tell me how Pingree and Glick are "scholarly" and "reliable", also where they are claiming the responsibility for this WP:FRINGE? The source is clearly presenting false information, and citing "Bonn-Leipzig, 1920; repr. Hildesheim, 1967" as source.. Mount meru is Buddhist cosmology[22], "The Mount Meru system is indeed an expression of Buddhist cosmology, for it describes the structure of the cosmos." [23]. Justicejayant (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pingree and Glick are scholars, professors, who specialize on the history of science and astronomy and have published extensively on the subject. This is in stark contrast to the sources you present, which are not scholarly or scientific, nor are they published by reputable scientific publishers. And please stop with the WP:FRINGE stuff, it is what you are claiming that is fringe. Athenean (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Provide me some source that they are "scholars, professors, specialized", Although they don't seem to be, since they don't even claim the responsibility for the misleading text. Sources i mentioned are niether wp:fringe nor they are unreliable. This all orginiated only from February 2013, like it can be seen in page's history too, sounds very new as well. Justicejayant (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas F. Glick and David Pingree are clearly far superior sources that the self-published works, and books citing Tilak and Gokhale etc. In any case, I have a couple of additional sources on Vedanga Jyotisha and ancient Indian astronomy that I had looked up during the earlier discussion on Spherical Earth talk page; I'll see if they have any material worth add here or at Vedanga Jyotisha - may take a day or two for me to get to it. (I came here after seeing this note at wikiproject India noticeboard) Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Abecedare, Thanks for your reply. Actually it's still not verified if Glick wrote anything like that in "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine", as for Pingree, he hasn't claimed responsibility for this information, he cites other source for the information, just like I mentioned above. Other than that, the information is not correct either. This is what the issue is.

Vedanga Jyotisha's dating might be further described in this book "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History", page 326, from Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton regarding the astronomical datings and "History of astronomy in India", Page 277 from Samarendra Nath Roy.Justicejayant (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You raise several points here, so lets take them one by one:

• Is the issue that Glick and Pingree are being misrepresented in the wikipedia article ? If so, you should say that rather than claiming that they are unreliable sources, since the latter is obviously incorrect. Setting that aside: Can you specify the exact content that is cited to Pingree in this article that you are disputing ? Ditto for Glick.
• The article you cite from ""The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" is written by Subhash Kak who is well outside the mainstream on the subject and not a reliable source.
• I couldn't access "History of astronomy in India". Can you provide complete bibliographical information (article title, author, publisher, year etc) and the relevant quotes from the text ?

A general point: could you pick one or two highest quality sources that are available to make your point and cite them here? If instead you bombard us with a dozen sources and the first few we review turn out to be unreliable, then editors justifiably stop paying attention at some point and your concerns, even if legitimate, may remain unaddressed. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

[24] Snippet preview, also [25] by C. V. Vishveshwara and other 2. Can't find anything from Glick, like I mentioned. From Pingree, the given quote "belief into a flat and circular earth disk", is actually written as "..is a flat-bottomed, circular disk, in the center of which is a lofty mountain, Meru. Surrounding Meru is the circular continent Jambūdvīpa" - and it cited some "See W. Kirfel, Die Kosmographie der Inder (Bonn-Leipzig, 1920; repr. Hildesheim, 1967). 54–177' as source.. Another thing is, that it's Buddhist cosmology,[26],[27].. Rather than it's from Purana, it's not even clear, that which purana said that. Thus I regarded this information to be misleading. Justicejayant (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cosmic Perspectives is a fine source, and the article in it by B.V. Subbarayappa (not C. V. Vishveshwara) can be used to cite dates for Vedanga Jyotisha. Was that what this dispute was all about?
• The Glick-Pingree dispute appears to be about whether the cited sources support the sentence, "The Greek concept of a spherical earth surrounded by the spheres of planets, vehemently supported by astronomers like Varahamihira and Brahmagupta, supplanted the long-standing Indian cosmological belief into a flat and circular earth disk." Right?

• I can access the "Glick" reference on Google books and will read it by tomorrow. (aside: the correct complete citation should include the name of the article "South central Asian science" and its authors, Clemency Williams and Toke Knudsen. For edited volumes just giving book title, editors and page numbers is not good enough).
• In a quick search, I couldn't find Pingree's "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India" article from Dictionary of Scientific Biography vol 15 online. Can someone with access provide a link, email me the pdf, or provide the relevant quotes from that article?

Justicejayant, are there any outstanding issues other than the two listed above? Abecedare (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1st dispute is certainly related with the dating of Vedanga Jyotisha.. Few sources cited 1,400 BCE, just like one editor acknowledged here, few days ago. 2nd dispute is already understood by you.. And indeed, only these 2 issues.. Nothing else.. Justicejayant (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Williams-Knudsen article (the "Glick" reference) is at least consistent with the sentence it is being used as a citation for. In particular, read the two paragraphs in the second column of page 463, beginning from "Early cosmological accounts, established in various Indian sacred texts..." To summarize: the source does support the claim that Greek influence transformed previous flat Earth models prevalent in India to geocentric models with a spherical earth.

Justicejayant, can you clarify exactly what your objection to the source is ? Is it the "circular disc" bit, which possibly is backed up the Pingree source that I haven't seen yet, or is it something else? Abecedare (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Verification.. Still not sure if Glick's book cites it, and the "circular disk" was the cosmology of buddhist, which wasn't prevalent in India, during this period, it became prevalent by 2nd BCE, but still, wasn't major in India, pingree cites some other source, and doesn't means which purana, either. Justicejayant (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• If you have access to the Pingree article, can you email it to me ? I obviously cannot opine on it w/o reading what it says.
• Can you clarify what you mean by "Still not sure if Glick's book cites it"? The text is readable here, so you can verify it for yourself. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The link is not viewable, because it's the link of the book of Glick, not the page. Where's the link of the page? Pingree's source is readable from here [28], by "IV. COSMOLOGY". Justicejayant (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see the eaxct page (p 463) from Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia book, but maybe there are browser, geographic or other restrictions. In any case here is the most relevant part of the text:

Early cosmological accounts, established in various Indian sacred texts depict a flat Earth at the center of which is a huge mountain, Meru, whose peak points towards the polestar. ... The traditional cosmology was prevalent in society at large as well as among most learned people in medieval India, but with the introduction of foreign scientific ideas, a more theoretically based model was adopted by the astronomers. This was the geometrical model outlined above and based on Greek ideas in which the planets revolve around a centrally placed spherical Earth (the earliest works reflecting this interpretation date from the fifth and sixth century C.E.)

Thanks for the link to the Pingree article. It says:

Before discussing the Indian adaptations of Greek spherical astronomy, it is necessary to describe briefly the early cosmology of the Purānes, some of the basic concepts of which were taken over by the siddhāṇtakāras. The text source of the cosmological section of the Purānas probably was written in the early centuries of the Christian era: some of the concepts it reflects go back to Vedic times, and some show an affinity with Iranian theories. In the Purānas[33] the earth is a flat-bottomed, circular disk, in the center of which is a lofty mountain, Meru.

with 33 being a reference to an by article Willibald Kirfel. Given what these two sources say, the sentence in the wikipedia article citing them seems to be well supported (the quoted parts don't explicitly name Varahamihira and Brahmagupta, but I don't think that is a matter of dispute). Can you clarify exactly what your objection to the sentence or the source is? Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Indian adaptation", "various indian sacred texts", these are actually a redirection to Buddhist cosmology, which is after all the part of Indian Literature, but it wasn't as popular as actual vedic cosmologies or hindu cosmologies, that certainly doesn't believe or regard any mountain meru cosmologies. So removing the line that "long-standing Indian cosmological belief into a flat and circular earth disk" is what the issue was, and in fact, if it's not going to be removed, it can be described in same line.. something like "Although, these cosmological ideas are of buddhist scriptures, while Hindu scriptures such as Vedas, Shapatha Brahmana held the belief in Spherical earth." Justicejayant (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nothing more. Athenean (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not true.. You can scroll up, few other users had same issues with this page. Justicejayant (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained section blanking.

Is there a reason for blanking the section on Greek and Indian information? From the outside in it looks like pov vandalism or edit warring. I plan on reverting as vandalism. If I am off base will someone please let me know it is not my intention to edit war only revert vandalism. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)