|
|
Prof Anand M Sharan writes: I will first copy
what Shree Chandra Hari has written, and then my response below:
--------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
A series of papers have been published by me on the native place of
Aryabhata and Prof. Anand M. Saran has written his so called rebuttal
without even caring to make a serious study of the papers that have
already appeared in Current Science.
ANAND SHARAN
I have responded to his paper on Aryabhatt's Native Place published in the
Current Science - and its inadequacies. Even if he has published other
papers - that does not mean the latest paper will be flawed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
1. The right spelling is Aryabhata and not Aryabhatt as Saran
brings out. The name Bhata is typical of Jains and Bhatt of Brahmins
and based on the immense ancient resources in Sanskrit since
Bhaskara-I's times (629CE), Dr. KV Sarma has expressed this fact.
ANAND SHARAN
First of all, let us not concern ourselves with two ts or one t or whether
Aryabhatt was a Hindu or Jain because being a Jain also, he could belong to
Kusumpura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
2. Saran writes that 'In this paper the place of Aryabhatt is
determined' but the paper has an introduction presenting the same
conflict which I brought out in my paper with standard references. My
effort was to answer the conflict based on astronomical thinking and
not to air and establish any parochial notion. But Prof. Saran's
account is misleading quotes poor references like those of Avtar
Krishen Kaul's imaginative account.
ANAND SHARAN
Those who do not agree with Shree Chandra Hari have imaginative account is
NOT the way to defend one's work. One wins arguments by presenting facts
and figures.
What I have shown in Shree Kaul ( who is not from Bihar but who is well
versed in Sanskrit ) that Shree Chandra Hari does present ' hearsays ' which
have no place in establishing scientific truths.
Shree Chandra Hari talks about his knowledge of astronomy but we will have
opportunity to discuss that when the need arises.
As far as I could see in his paper that we are discussing - knowledge
beyond High School with science - was NOT required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
2(a) References like Joseph has no value in the light of the
reference I have given of Prof. Kripashankar Shukla and Dr. KV Sarma,
doyens of the field. Joseph or anyone else has no information beyond
what Shukla and Sarma had. Kaye is quoted with a 1981 reference that
is misleading as he wrote in the early decades of 20th century (1920
or earlier). Also by such reference he establishes nothing more than
the prevailing conflict between Bihar and Kerala in respect of
Aryabhata's nativity.
ANAND SHARAN
At first Shree Kaul's opinion does not matter, and now Joseph's. But he (
Shree Chandra Hari ) does not write what has Joseph written which is NOT
correct ?
Next comes Kaye who did write in 1920s but the latest print came out in 80s
which I have quoted. I have quoted this so that this could be obtainable
easly than whatever was published in 20s. That is all.
Secondly, if we look at what Kaye has written, and further supported
independently by Kaul ( who has elaborated also why he thinks the way he
thinks ) that it was Kusumpura which was the Center of Astronomy .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
2(b) Prof Saran claims[1] that it was Brahmagupta (628 CE) who
determined the latitude of Ujjayini to be 240 which is baseless. Dates
provided by Saran alone indicate that Varahamihira (550CE) lived a 100
years before Brahmagupta and in Pancasiddhantika Mihira has given the
latitude of Ujjayini as 240. .
ANAND SHARAN
I am quoting Shree Chandra Hari's paper itself who writes -
" Given the above precision of gnomon shadow available in the Indian
tradition, how could Aryabhat)a miss the latitude of Ujjayini by 1.5°, if we
accept that the tradition initiated by Brahmagupta is correct? "
Secondly, even Varahmihira's time is slightly later than Aryabhatt's time.
By this time Aryabhatt had already written the Aryabhatia in 499 AD.
So, there is nothing wrong in what I wrote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
(c) To bail himself out of the onus of replying to the astronomical
grounds I have given, he has concluded the introduction with 2
questions: ?
2. Secondly, does the place of observation mean that the scientist
was born and raised there?
3. Thirdly, does the place of observation mean automatically that a
school of astronomy existed there?
Obviously, these questions are intended to create a background to
conclude that Aryabhata had been to Kerala but he was not a native.
ANAND SHARAN
Chandra Hari does not introduce any thing for me to elaborate on further.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
3. Prof. Saran says that Chandra Hari did not explain as to how
the circumference of Earth was determined. When I could refer to
Eratosthenes and explain his 2 values I could have copied the
materials from internet and explained as Saran has done as to Indian
astronomers repeated the same. In the 2nd part what Saran gives is an
irrelevant account of the Eratosthenes measurement with wrong
assumptions that Alexandria and Seyne were on the same meridian –
simply a copy of the details available at innumerable websites.
ANAND SHARAN
It is copying or not - which was definitely not the case in my paper - here
came the crux which was the division by cos 31°13' which I and you have asked Shree Chandra Hari repeatedly about the equation
(360 × 12)/cos 31°13' = 5051.37.
His NOT REPLYING is DEFINITELY AN ACT OF EVASION . What this shows that he
has written the paper on totally wrong assumptions. Now, he does not want to
admit it.
Even a High School student knows that a sphere has a periphery equal between
the great circle passing through the poles or the equator. So, if one
obtains the periphery of the circle passing through the poles ,which was
the experiment performed in Egypt - that becomes the periphery of the
equator. NO division by cos 31°13' is required.
Such is the talent of a person claiming to be an astronomer and telling
others that they do not know astronomy.
They think - offense is the best defence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
4. In fact Prof Saran has no knowledge of astronomy and he is
beating around the bush as he has no idea of the role played by the
relative values of diameters and distances of sun, earth and moon in
Indian astronomy.
ANAND SHARAN
We used to do such problems in high school. The development of mathematics
in Aryabhatt's time was not even to the level that is taught in High Schools
in Bihar to-day. He is trying to compare without giving any example as to
how my knowledge has affected the criticism of his paper.
He has to come down to the point and not make such remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
5. Regarding Aryabhata's statement of Kusumapura – same has been
quoted in my paper and also I have explained the same in the light of
the Jain tradition and Asmaka country.
ANAND SHARAN
There is nothing unique about Kerala as far as Jainism is concerned. As a
matter of fact, The Golden Era of Jains was in Bihar not Kerala even if
Aryabhatt was a Jain.
Regarding the Asmaka country, Shree Kaul , well versed in Sanskrit ,
writes -
"
" iv)"Ashmaka" could mean a place where stones were being excavated, since "ashma" means "stone" in Sanskrit. It could be that Aryabhata was born in
some village or suburb where stone excavation/crushing was going on and
later he had shifted to Patiliputa where he had learnt astronomy. But
Ashmaka as well certainly could not mean a place in Kerala since if he had
been a Keralite, he would have tried to learn astronomy there itself instead
of coming to Patliputra. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
6. Saran says wrongly that Kusumapura and Nalanda got established
during the time of Kumara Gupta (415-455)– a reflection of his poor
knowledge about Bihar itself about which he is trying to exhibit his
parochial notions. In fact Kusumapura got established in 300 BC during
the time or before Candra Gupa-I (Maurya) and the Jain scholar
Bhadrabahu was a mathematician at Nalanda. In 3rd century BC
Chandragupta Maurya had migrated to Sravana Belgola (Asmaka) along
with his Guru Bhadrabahu.
ANAND SHARAN
I was talking about Nalanda which was established by Kumar Gupta not that
Pataliputra was established by Kumar Gupta.
I do not have to learn History of Bihar from Chandra Hari. Any one can look
at my website about Bihar being the important place of Ancient Religions
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~asharan/bihar/sharan.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
7. Camravattam near Ponnani still has a temple of Bahubali and is
only 2 degree south of Sravanabelgola (12N51) the place which inspired
Jains to divide the Zodiac into 28 Nakshatras of 12051' each.
Aryabhata at (Ponnani = Tondi = Tirunavaya =Camravattam) had Cera
Capital and Arab trade centre had access to Alexandrian and Babylonian
materials and so he could refine the Jain works and create the
Siddhantic astronomy.
ANAND SHARAN
We all know about Jain Migrations to Karnataka at the time of Chandragupta
Maurya around 300 BC. In fact he abdicated his throne and went to Karnataka.
We read about Jain Astronomy in around 8th Century AD in Karnataka not
earlier than that.
Shree Chandra Hari's articulate writings have been appropriately commented
by Shree Kaul as based on ' hearsay '.
While commenting on my knowledge of astronomy he does say that I have no
background but does not show where and how ? Next, he tries to tell me about
my lack of knowledge of the History of Bihar. How one can get more
ridiculous ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
8. I have given extensive details and computational evidence to
suggest earlier epochs for Kerala astronomy based on alpha-numeric
statements known in the tradition and astronomical aspects of certain
socio-cultural factors of Kerala. Tamil classics of the Sangham period
also suggest the existence of developed astronomical tradition in
south before the time of Aryabhata.
ANAND SHARAN
It is difficult to verify his statements about antiquity of astronomy of
Kerala but that does not rule out the fact that Pataliputra ( Kusumpura )
was the Center of Astronomy. This is a historical fact,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
9. Mutual connection between the places Kerala and the nearby
Sravanabelgola and of Ujjayini and Kusumapura is through the Jain
tradition. And for both the great traditions of Jain and Buddha India
is indebted to Bihar.
ANAND SHARAN
Well, we are thankful to Shree Chandra Hari that he acknowledges Bihar at
least.
Sad part is that he does not see beyond Chandra Hari for most of his
research work, and does not see any one from other religions as scientific
other than Jains.
We are all proud of our religions which we should not be but turning a blind
eye on other religions. It is like burying the head in the sand.
He was calling me parochial but he provides proof of his thinking here
itself - as far as the religion is concerned - in that sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
10. Prof Saran's statement of linking Aryabhata with Udayagiri has no
basis. Udayagiri was a Vaishanava settlement and it is possible that
under Gupta patronage the work of Aryabhata reached the astronomers of
Ujjayini through Jain siddhas who roamed the country. Even Aryabhata
himself may have been a Jain siddha who traveled from Kerala to
Kusumapura and became Kulapa at Kusumapura. I have quoted the related
verse in my subsequent papers.
ANAND SHARAN
Again, even here, he does not see any one making contributions other than
Jains. After all, the Vaishnavas were quite friendly to the Jains - as far
as non violence was concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
11. The fact that Aryabhata is a native of Kerala only adds to the
grandeur of Bihar – openness of Bihar and the grandeur of the academic
excellence of Kusumapura and its fame all over India and may be even
abroad in places like Alexandria.
Prof. Saran's parochial comments in no way conform to the great
intellectual tradition of Kusumapura and Bihar. His comments reflect
the degeneration as we see in the politics of the region and it is my
request that the genuine intellectuals must come foreword to...
ANAND SHARAN
Regarding being parochial, it is hardly so because my papers refer to
Ujjain, Eran, Udayagiri - all in Madhya Pradesh.
The persons whose works I have quoted - none are Biharis. Several are
foreign also. Therefore his comments are hardly justifiable when one looks
at facts.
Kusumpura did have great tradition for which we are all proud of but this
sub nationalism ( Kerala Centric ) or Jain Centric views of Shree Chandra
Hari are difficult to bear.
I could not live with this Untruth. Therefore, I went to the great length
and wanted to bring out the truth before all.
----------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
Note on the paper - 'On the Astronomical Remains of Aryabhatt's time at Eran'
1. Abstract itself has funny notions (a) They had integrated the field of
astronomy with religion (b) They had the integration of Puranic stories into
astronomy etc.
K. CHANDRA HARI
All over the world scholars have spoken of astronomical basis for religious
concepts and astronomy giving rise to myths and puran)ic stories. Prof.
Saran is the first expert who has reversed the process by such funny notions
as above.
ANAND SHARAN
The photograph, for example, attached - are the female representation of
Nakshatras ( 27 ) as the queens of the Moon. Varahjee is shown wearing the
garland of these Nakshatras. This story comes from the Purana.
The Nakshatras are a part of astronomy, and queens of the Moons from Purana.
So, what is wrong in the statement ?
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
1. With the above kind of crux of the matter provided in abstract,
Prof. Saran is making the claim - '.one can get a picture of Aryabhatt's
thinking about astronomy and..'.
ANAND SHARAN
What Shree Chandra Hari does not like, as I can only guess , is the fact
that it shows Aryabhatt's faith as a Vaishnavite which he has been preseting
as a Jain. He could not dislike more than this idea or my evidence .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
1. A combined reading of his two works brings in a new
history that Nalaanda at Kusumapura was founded by Kumaragupta in 450 CE and
Eran astronomical establishment was there 200 years earlier since the time
of Samudragupta of 320375 CE. Kusumapura as I know was established in 300 BC
or earlier and it was a Jain bastion of knowledge.
ANAND SHARAN
Let us stick to the point which is my Eran paper. It is well known that
there was an inscription at Eran from Samudragupta's time ( Fleet ) . During
the Aryabhatt's time ( during the time of Buddhagupta ) it was the border of
Gupta's with Hunas who were at Mathura.
As I have said before, I do not have to learn the History of Pataliputra
from Chandra Hari. It was Udayin or some name like this who moved the
capital from Rajgir to Pataliputra.
-----------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
1. Aryabhat)th and 6th century and
his epoch is Kali 3623 or 522 CE as I have shown conclusively by
computations with identification of the solar and lunar eclipses, equinoxes
etc observed by him and reflected in the elements of Aryabhati)ya. Just
because Aryabhata lived in Gupta age does it mean that that Eran
establishment was of Aryabhat)
ANAND SHARAN
Chandra Hari has written in his paper that Aryabhatt did not know Ujjain
that is why he chose the latitude of Ujjain as 1/16 of the periphery of the
earth from Lanka (Equator) .
In this paper, I am showing the photographs of the astronomical remains at
Eran ( Buddhagupta's time ). This time is not written by me but a foreigner
named Hearle who also shows these. The doc file attached from Hearle's
book - shows Varahjee wearing the garland of Nakshatras. So, Chandra Hari
makes baseless criticism of what I have written and which is widely accepted
that Aryabhatt lived at the time of Buddhagupta.
Does he have any photographs ( historical ) to show what he has been writing
so many papers about ?
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA HARI
1. a? Alexandria was the place of
trade and the intellectual capital of Middle East ever since it got founded
but Hipparchus lived in Rhodes island. Someone can of course close eyes
towards facts and argue that Hipparchus's astronomical remains are in
Alexandria and to some people it may be apparently correct. Such
pseudoscientific propaganda by self seekers existed at all times and that is
why today the modern scientific world has Scientific Journals and refereeing
before a scientific work is released to the Public.
ANAND SHARAN
It is not the question of existence of astronomical remains at Eran from
well identified by Hearle but the very fact that Aryabhatt himself writes
about Ujjain ( on Tropic of Cancer ) ,but also, the existence of
Vaishnavite astronomical - archaeological remains at Udayagiri and Eran -
all on Tropic of Cancer.
Does Kerala have such remains ?
We all feel great about our places but having a blind faith is another. Who
is talking about being scientific ?
Chandra Hari's papers clearly lack historical and archaeological evidences.
How can there be two opinions about it ?
--------------------------------------------------------
Anand M. Sharan
asharan@engr.mun.ca
K. Chandra Hari wrote:
A series of papers have been published by me on the native place of
Aryabhata and Prof. Anand M. Saran has written his so called rebuttal
without even caring to make a serious study of the papers that have
already appeared in Current Science. Above papers of Prof. M. Saran
received through www. Bihartimes.com is replete with serious omissions
and mistakes as shown below:
1. The right spelling is Aryabhata and not Aryabhatt as Saran
brings out. The name Bhata is typical of Jains and Bhatt of Brahmins
and based on the immense ancient resources in Sanskrit since
Bhaskara-I's times (629CE), Dr. KV Sarma has expressed this fact.
2. Saran writes that 'In this paper the place of Aryabhatt is
determined' but the paper has an introduction presenting the same
conflict which I brought out in my paper with standard references. My
effort was to answer the conflict based on astronomical thinking and
not to air and establish any parochial notion. But Prof. Saran's
account is misleading quotes poor references like those of Avtar
Krishen Kaul's imaginative account.
(a) References like Joseph has no value in the light of the
reference I have given of Prof. Kripashankar Shukla and Dr. KV Sarma,
doyens of the field. Joseph or anyone else has no information beyond
what Shukla and Sarma had. Kaye is quoted with a 1981 reference that
is misleading as he wrote in the early decades of 20th century (1920
or earlier). Also by such reference he establishes nothing more than
the prevailing conflict between Bihar and Kerala in respect of
Aryabhata's nativity.
(b) Prof Saran claims[1] that it was Brahmagupta (628 CE) who
determined the latitude of Ujjayini to be 240 which is baseless. Dates
provided by Saran alone indicate that Varahamihira (550CE) lived a 100
years before Brahmagupta and in Pancasiddhantika Mihira has given the
latitude of Ujjayini as 240. .
(c) To bail himself out of the onus of replying to the astronomical
grounds I have given, he has concluded the introduction with 2
questions: ?
2. Secondly, does the place of observation mean that the scientist
was born and raised there?
3. Thirdly, does the place of observation mean automatically that a
school of astronomy existed there?
Obviously, these questions are intended to create a background to
conclude that Aryabhata had been to Kerala but he was not a native.
3. Prof. Saran says that Chandra Hari did not explain as to how
the circumference of Earth was determined. When I could refer to
Eratosthenes and explain his 2 values I could have copied the
materials from internet and explained as Saran has done as to Indian
astronomers repeated the same. In the 2nd part what Saran gives is an
irrelevant account of the Eratosthenes measurement with wrong
assumptions that Alexandria and Seyne were on the same meridian –
simply a copy of the details available at innumerable websites.
4. In fact Prof Saran has no knowledge of astronomy and he is
beating around the bush as he has no idea of the role played by the
relative values of diameters and distances of sun, earth and moon in
Indian astronomy.
5. Regarding Aryabhata's statement of Kusumapura – same has been
quoted in my paper and also I have explained the same in the light of
the Jain tradition and Asmaka country.
6. Saran says wrongly that Kusumapura and Nalanda got established
during the time of Kumara Gupta (415-455)– a reflection of his poor
knowledge about Bihar itself about which he is trying to exhibit his
parochial notions. In fact Kusumapura got established in 300 BC during
the time or before Candra Gupa-I (Maurya) and the Jain scholar
Bhadrabahu was a mathematician at Nalanda. In 3rd century BC
Chandragupta Maurya had migrated to Sravana Belgola (Asmaka) along
with his Guru Bhadrabahu.
7. Camravattam near Ponnani still has a temple of Bahubali and is
only 2 degree south of Sravanabelgola (12N51) the place which inspired
Jains to divide the Zodiac into 28 Nakshatras of 12051' each.
Aryabhata at (Ponnani = Tondi = Tirunavaya =Camravattam) had Cera
Capital and Arab trade centre had access to Alexandrian and Babylonian
materials and so he could refine the Jain works and create the
Siddhantic astronomy.
8. I have given extensive details and computational evidence to
suggest earlier epochs for Kerala astronomy based on alpha-numeric
statements known in the tradition and astronomical aspects of certain
socio-cultural factors of Kerala. Tamil classics of the Sangham period
also suggest the existence of developed astronomical tradition in
south before the time of Aryabhata.
9. Mutual connection between the places Kerala and the nearby
Sravanabelgola and of Ujjayini and Kusumapura is through the Jain
tradition. And for both the great traditions of Jain and Buddha India
is indebted to Bihar.
10. Prof Saran's statement of linking Aryabhata with Udayagiri has no
basis. Udayagiri was a Vaishanava settlement and it is possible that
under Gupta patronage the work of Aryabhata reached the astronomers of
Ujjayini through Jain siddhas who roamed the country. Even Aryabhata
himself may have been a Jain siddha who traveled from Kerala to
Kusumapura and became Kulapa at Kusumapura. I have quoted the related
verse in my subsequent papers.
11. The fact that Aryabhata is a native of Kerala only adds to the
grandeur of Bihar – openness of Bihar and the grandeur of the academic
excellence of Kusumapura and its fame all over India and may be even
abroad in places like Alexandria.
Prof. Saran's parochial comments in no way conform to the great
intellectual tradition of Kusumapura and Bihar. His comments reflect
the degeneration as we see in the politics of the region and it is my
request that the genuine intellectuals must come foreword to
appreciate the truths.
I have already forwarded my subsequent papers also to Bihartimes.com so that they may take the opinion of some reputed scholars before
highlighting the erroneous and unsubstantiated views of Prof. Anand M.
Saran.
K. Chandra Hari
chandra_hari18@yahoo.com
comments...
|
|
