Controversy on Vaisnava Calendar

BY: SHYAMASUNDARA DASA

Feb 13, USA (SUN) — Dear Urmila Mataji, Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Bhakti-vighna-vinasa Narasimhadeva Bhagavan ki jaya!

Like you, others often ask me questions about the Vaisnava Calendar because I am the author of the VCAL program that was used in ISKCON since 1984 and am thus considered an authority on the subject.

However, I resigned from the Vaisnava Calendar committee as a protest to what in my opinion was obvious incompetence and ignorance on the part of the committee chairman that endangered the accuracy of the calendar, in particular the calculation of Ekadasi. Attached is a zip file [document follows] that explains the reasons why I resigned and the aftermath that followed.

Since everyone in ISKCON depends on VCAL it should be a topic of interest. Pass it on to others who are interested. If however, you are not interested in the Vaisnava Calendar then just hit "delete."

Your humble servant,
Shyamasundara Dasa

P.S. I had prepared this text some time ago but the car accident I was in delayed its publication till now.

Dear reader,

Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Bhakti-vighna-vinasa Narasimhadeva Bhagavan ki jaya!

For those of you who are not familiar with hypertext the following documents are organized in two sections to allow for best comprehension. The first is a three page document which succinctly explains the situation. It contains hypertext links to evidence supporting the assertions made there in. The second much larger portions contain the evidence linked to in the first portion.

You should first right-click on the tool bar area of MS Word, many options will appear, turn on the “web” option this will allow you to navigate the document back and forth like a webpage.

I suggest that after you click on a link that you return to the main document after you read the linked text so that you will be able to follow the flow of the narrative. Alternatively you could read the first three pages without clicking any links and then return to the beginning and read again this time clicking on any links of interest.

Your humble servant

Shyamasundara Dasa

Controversy in the Vaisnava Calendar Committee

“That Brahmana, who is dishonest and falsely gentle, with downcast look, of a cruel disposition, is solely intent on attaining his own ends, is one who acts like a Baka (heron).” Manu Samhita 4.196.

Dear Maharajas, Prabhus and Matajis;

Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Bhakti-vighna-vinasa Narasimhadeva Bhagavan ki jaya!

Because I am the author and legal copyright holder of VCAL my name is intimately associated with the Vaisnava Calendar. And, furthermore I get many inquiries about the workings of the Vedic Calendar as I am considered an authority on the subject as the following letter illustrates:

From: Shyamakrishna (das) RNS (Vrindavan - IN)

Date: 10-Jul-07 04:05 -0400

To: dgmspn2@gmail.com (sent: 10-Jul-07 04:07 -0400)

Cc: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [35297]

Comment: Text PAMHO:13827156 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: Re: EKADASI

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

I have forwarded your mail to an AUTHORITY on this subject. WE can await his

reply in couple of days.

 

<end quote>

 

However, I have withdrawn from the Vaishnava Calendar Committee primarily because the GBC has put a dishonest (see here as well), non-expert, bureaucrat, Bhaktarupa Prabhu, as head of the committee. His involvement, past and present, as this text explains, has given me a lot of pain.

 

This document explains the controversies leading to my resignation from the Vaisnava Calendar Committee despite the fact that I designed and authored the VCAL program; and, Bhaktarupa’s attempt to cheat me of my copyright.

 

 

A Brief History of the VCAL Program

 

First a brief history of the VCAL program. This text will bring you up to speed on many of the issues involved. It was my publication of this history to the GBC Deputies in 2006 that forced the calendar committee (after I had already resigned from it) to press the issue and as a result it was found that my stance against variable muhurta was correct all along and that Markendeya Rsi’s research was highly flawed. Read HH Bhanu Svami’s letter which vindicates what I have been saying for years.

 

VCAL Copyright issues

 

In this section we document how Bhaktarupa Prabhu has over the years covertly tried to usurp the VCAL copyright from me by approaching the BBT without my knowledge. The BBT however could understand that something was amiss and stated the following:

 

“The BBT directors have discussed the VCAL copyright issue, and the conclusion was to officially request you [Bhaktarupa dasa] to kindly remove the BBT from the copyright notice.

 

I wish to add that it is my personal understanding that this will mean that

Shyamasundara Prabhu will, in turn, be put on the copyright notice.”

 

Letter from BBT to Bhaktarupa Prabhu February 9, 2006

 

What had brought this whole issue to a head in late 2005 to mid 2006 was that Bhaktarupa Prabhu would not recognize me as the legal copyright holder of VCAL because he wanted to use my algorithms (translated to a different language) in a different program and I would not give him permission to use them. I did this because when I politely brought up my concerns to him he ignored me. I knew he had no knowledge of jyotish and would never be able to figure it out himself and this would become a stumbling block and force him to correct the grievous error that he was responsible for allowing to enter VCAL (he did it out of gross ignorance not out of malice) I assumed that he was an honest man and would honor what everyone else recognized, but I was wrong.

 

Instead of dealing with me in an honest way Bhaktarupa Prabhu used duplicitous tactics. As soon as I resigned from the Calendar committee on January 28, 2005 Bhaktarupa Prabhu again tried to steal the copyright. He never responded to my resignation letter but instead he immediately went behind my back to the BBT as is evidenced by this letter from a BBT trustee; which shows that at the insistence of Bhaktarupa Prabhu the BBT in April 2005 (3 months after my resignation) assigned whatever “rights” they had in VCAL to the GBC whom Bhaktarupa Prabhu said he was representing. In this way he hoped to take my copyright to VCAL away from me.

 

This letter of June 20, 2006 indicates how Bhaktarupa Prabhu has for years tried to usurp the copyright of VCAL from me by going behind my back (never once coming to me directly) and getting the BBT to give it to him pretending that he represented the GBC. But when he is put on the spot he denies he represents the GBC. He hints why he wants the copyright because he has no knowledge of the subject and hence wants to steal my intellectual property instead of doing the hard work that I did to create VCAL.

 

After a lot of back and forth in which Bhaktarupa Prabhu tried in every possible way to justify his theft of my intellectual property the BBT representative had had enough and wrote thusly:

 

“I think that this has gone way beyond micro hair-splitting, and has entered

some twilight zone realm of either plain, outright dishonesty on your part, or, Krishna forbid, possibly some form of mental disturbance or worse on your part. If the latter, then just know that you are loved as a brother, Prabhu, and everyone is genuinely concerned for your well-being.”

 

Letter from BBT representative to Bhaktarupa July 6, 2006

 

After this Bhaktarupa resorts to more word jugglery exposing his blatant dishonesty.

 

From a direct reading of Bhaktarupa’s many texts he appears to be very humble and meek yet he is persistent and passively aggressive in achieving his goals by adharma.

 

“That Brahmana, who is dishonest and falsely gentle, with downcast look, of a cruel disposition, is solely intent on attaining his own ends, is one who acts like a Baka (heron).” Manu Samhita 4.196.

 

Bhanu Svami asks if the rights have been transferred. The BBT provides proof but also states that “BBTI does not guarantee that it holds any rights in the Vcal software.” Because they know I hold the rights but they were pushed into doing this by Bhaktarupa.

 

Other devotees also observe Bhaktarupa’s behavior and concur that I own the copyright. But Bhaktarupa persists in his dishonesty to everyone’s frustration.

 

This sums up the situation as of now. Because the GBC, for God knows what reason, keeps a person of Bhaktarupa Prabhu’s character as the head of the Vaisnava Calendar Committee I will not work with that committee.

 

It may interest those who are concerned about the future of ISKCON that a person like Bhaktarupa Prabhu holds several very responsible positions in ISKCON including: Chairman of Indian Continental Committee, Vice chairman Indian RGB, as well as being a very influential member of the GBC deputies with great influence in determining what issues the GBC deals with at its annual meeting in Mayapura.

 

Your humble servant

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com

 

PS: Muhurta debate

 

For those of you who want more gory details of the kind of technical wrangling that went on for months in the Calendar Committee I have collated a sample of some of the exchanges in the debate between Markendeya Rsi Prabhu and myself along with some of Bhaktarupa’s comments. Note how Bhaktarupa Prabhu who is chair of the committee is unable to evaluate the merits of arguments - yet he is in charge. These texts should be read knowing that Markendeya Rsi based his arguments on what turned out to be incorrect research. Despite these revelations he never admitted to me that he was wrong.

A Brief History of the Vaisnava Calendar Program

 

This text was sent to the GBC Deputies in Mayapura.

 

Letter PAMHO:11133275 (232 lines) [W0]

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 15-Feb-06 20:38 -0500

To: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [18819] (received: 16-Feb-06 07:58

-0500)

Cc: Vedavyasapriya Swami (ACBSP) (Vrindavan - IN) [6837] (received:

15-Feb-06 22:52 -0500)

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [52287] (received: 17-Feb-06 16:30 -0500)

Cc: Jagajivan das ACBSP (Asuncion - Paraguay) [2722] (received:

17-Feb-06 04:13 -0500)

Cc: Krsnadasa Kaviraja (das) ACBSP (Toronto - CA) [884] (received:

16-Feb-06 23:05 -0500)

Cc: Aniruddha (das) BJD (Melbourne - AU) [28345] (received: 17-Feb-06

20:15 -0500)

Cc: Braja Bihari (das) BJD (Vrindavana - IN) [132068] (received:

17-Feb-06 10:13 -0500)

Cc: Devakinandan (das) JUHU (Bombay - IN) [13905] (received: 16-Feb-06

05:28 -0500)

Cc: "GKD" <gregjay@bluebottle.com>

Cc: Hari (das) KDS (Coventry - UK) [4696] (received: 21-Feb-06 02:57

-0500)

Cc: Rasaraja (das) BI-Bombay-Berkeley (TP Berkeley) [2862] (received:

17-Feb-06 18:56 -0500)

Cc: Sarvaisvarya (das) JPS (Coimbatore - IN) [36480] (received:

16-Feb-06 09:10 -0500)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11151076 by Internet: "Jagadisananda (Dasa) ACBSP (BBT

Los Angeles - USA)" <jgunn11@hotmail.com>

Subject: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE VAISNAVA CALENDAR PRORGAM - VCAL

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

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE VAISNAVA CALENDAR PRORGAM - VCAL

 

by Shyamasundara Dasa

 

In 1982 before the Mayapura meeting HH Jayapataka Swami cornered me in his

quarters and very persuasively convinced me against my will to

write a program for generating the Vaisnava calendar. Please note that he

had to use such tactics because I had no interest in doing this

project, to me it was (and still is) a distraction from my on going in-depth

study of Jyotish. But, he countered, that it was precisely because I had

such in-depth knowledge of the subject that I was the only one qualified to

do the work and that it was traditional for a Jyotisa to also make

pancanga's. After I very reluctantly agreed I added that I would do it with

the proviso that Bhanu Swami help me with translation of important

documents. He agreed. A resolution was thus passed by the GBC at the 1982

meetings that with the aid of HH Bhanu Swami I would take up the project of

what eventually became VCAL and that HH Mukunda Goswami would publish the

results in the ISKCON World review. I was also told that Mukunda Goswami

would provide needed funding for the project. That year it was also resolved

that Prabhupada Krpa Goswami aka Hari Sauri Prabhu be the GBC overseeing

Jyotish - he was my GBC.

 

In 1983 I moved back to the West and was settled in New Vrndavana. I decided

this was the time to seriously take up the duty I had promised to do the

previous year. But when I approached Mukunda Goswami for the funds he flatly

refused to give me any money saying he knew nothing about it. Eventually I

borrowed the money ($2400) from my family and bought a computer from Adi

Keshava x-Swami. It was an Osborne Executive, the first portable computer;

it had 128 K (not M) of RAM, 2 floppy drives that could each hold 360K of

data and no hard drive. It ran the C/PM OS it was not IBM compatible -

remember this is 1983. (In 1988, after hearing that I had paid for the

computer by borrowing the money Harikesha x-Swami, embarrassed on behalf of

the GBC, repaid me the money but demanded that I give him the hardware. He

changed his mind on realizing the hardware was obsolete and incompatible.)

 

Though I was supposedly fulfilling my obligation to the GBC by doing this

program (at my own expense mind you) the local GBC Kirtanananda Swami was

very uncooperative and could not care less. I was required to do full time

service at NV as pujari and giving tours at the Palace of Gold and then if I

had spare time I could work on fulfilling my obligations to the GBC.

Considering the lack of any kind of cooperation I was getting from ISKCON to

do a project I didn't even want to do for them but now felt obligated

because I had promised to do I now wonder how and why I did it. I did it as

an offering to Srila Prabhupada and his sincere followers that is the only

explanation.

 

Rising every morning at 2 AM I worked on the project from about August 1983

and completed it around February 1984 just in time to give a printout of the

next 5 years of the Vaisnava Calendar to Hari Sauri Prabhu who was visiting

NV on GBC business. It was the first time we had such a document before

Gaura Purnima because previously we had to wait for the Gaudiya Math to

publish their yearly calendar.

 

In 1984 Harikesha x-Swami wrote me and requested me to sell him a copy of

the VCAL source code for $350.00. I needed money to repay what I had

borrowed so I agreed. This was my first mistake - I let the source code

which I had so painstakingly created out of my hands and gave it to people

who were clueless. HKxS's idea was that he would get his computer mavens to

convert it so that it could run on the elaborate computer system they had in

Korsnas Gard and then publish the results and distribute to temples in

ISKCON. Sometime later I was contacted by HKxS who was very keen on having

ISKCON use VCAL for a number of obvious reasons. The problem it seems was

that somehow his versions of VCAL that I had sold him had become corrupted.

What happened was that while his computer mavens were infinitely better

programmers than I they had little or no concept of Jyotish and as such had

- in their efforts to improve the program - introduced innumerable bugs.

Finally in August 1988 I flew to Sweden to figure out how to clean up the

mess. That is when I met Markendeya Rishi Prabhu. The idea was that under my

strict guidance Markendeya Rishi would repair the problems created by others

and also following my instructions would improve the program considering

that I had originally created it on a primitive machine and technology had

improved a lot since then.

 

Since HKxS wanted VCAL to be re-implemented in ISKCON (for various reasons

it was temporarily abandoned around 1986) it was decided that we needed to

do some research with traditional pandits in India and make a presentation

to the GBC. Since I could not go personally I made up a list of questions to

ask the panditas and Markendeya Rishi went on my behalf. Then based on those

results he made up a report to the GBC. It should be noted that whatever

Markendeya Rishi learned about the calendar he learned from me and was

basically my servant. He knew nothing of astrology/astronomy but was a

programmer.

 

HERE IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE. I was very curious as to whether or not some of the panditas used "variable muhurtas" for calculating

ekadasi. Variable Muhurta is an erroneous conception (I will explain later

what it is) so I was curious as to how wide spread it was so I put this

question on the list of questions for Markendeya Rishi Prabhu to ask the

various panditas. If I recall correctly some used it and others did not.

Anyway, this question and the answers to it became part of the report that

was presented to the GBC in 1990.

 

At this meeting the GBC again approved the use of the VCAL program for all

of ISKCON. In writing up the new law the secretary of the GBC, who didn't know anything about Jyotish, or why I had put certain questions on the list to be asked of the pandits saw that several had (erroneously) said that for

calculating ekadasi a "variable muhurta" should be used so the GBC secretary

wrote into the resolution that VCAL program should be used with "variable

muhurtas." This erroneous concept was passed into ISKCON law by the GBC who

knew just as little about the concepts involved as did the GBC secretary.

That GBC secretary was Bhaktarupa Prabhu.

 

Markendeya Rishi Prabhu, in accordance with the new ISKCON law, changed the

way muhurtas are calculated for ekadasis in VCAL. In my original program the

muhurta was a fixed unit of time, which is 1/30th of a full civil day

(sunrise to sunrise). I found out about this mistake after the fact when it

was too late. This was before the days of email.

 

Over the years this erroneous use of "variable muhurtas" has become a

serious bone of contention for me and the main reason I resigned from the

Vaisnava Calendar committee. Markendeya Rishi Prabhu, who you recall

learned about the calendar from me, vigorously defends the use of variable

muhurtas --- a clear case of "maryada-vyatikrama" the student thinking he

knows more than his teacher. And working with Bhaktarupa Prabhu was very

frustrating, he was not able to understand many of the concepts involved and

did not think it important that ekadasi be calculated with "fixed muhurta".

I ultimately became frustrated that somehow I, who knew the most about the

subject and who had created VCAL in the first place, was now put in the

unenviable position of being subordinate to people who had less depth of

knowledge and experience.

 

Let me explain as clearly and briefly to all of you why "variable muhurta"

is an invalid concept which must be taken out of VCAL.

 

NORMALIZATION OF VARIABLES

 

The first thing that must be established in any mathematical procedure is

the "normalization" of all entities or variables. That means that all units

of dimension must be the same class (for instance use all metric but not a

mixture of metric and Imperial) , but having "Variable Muhurta" violates

such dimensional analysis. The vernacular expression for this would be that

"you can't mix apples with oranges." How does this apply to "variable

muhurta?"

 

First we must understand that in Krsna's Vedic culture they didn't use

hours, minutes and seconds as time units. Rather they had their own

conventions for time measurement as mentioned in various texts like the

Vedanga Jyotish (Rig and Yajurveda) and the Siddhantas. A traditional

pandita even in present day India would measure time as 60 ghatis = 1 day,

60 pala = 1 ghati, 60 vipala = 1 pala, 60 prativipala = 1 vipala. (See also

http://tinyurl.com/damhj internet connection needed) The ghati is a fixed unit.

 

In the 3rd canto of Srimad Bhagavatam there is a section called "Measurement

of Time Based on the Atom." It gives you an idea of how time units were

measured. In that section a water clock is mentioned. A container capable

of holding a particular volume of water and having a hole of particular

dimension would take a certain length of time to empty. This unit of time is

called a Nadika (Nadika = Ghati = Danda, many different synonyms for same

unit of time). The Vedanga Jyotish of the Rig and Yajur Vedas specify that

two Nadikas equal a Muhurta. This is corroborated in the Astronomical

Siddhanta literature.

 

In the Vedic luni-solar calendar, the lunar tithi (tithi = length of time it

takes the Moon to move 12 degrees from the Sun) is related to the solar day

by a particular convention. Because the movement of the Moon is not uniform

and subject to many perturbations, the time it takes the Moon to move 12

degrees is not constant, and thus the length of a tithi is erratic and can

vary in length of time from about 48 Nadikas to 65 Nadikas (60 Nadikas = 1

solar day). Hence, a lunar tithi can and does commence at any time of the

day or night. The convention that is used to align the solar and lunar days

is as follows: whichever tithi is prevalent at sunrise lends its name to

that solar day even if that tithi ends 1 Nadika after sunrise. So if

Pancami, the fifth lunar day is prevailing at sunrise that whole solar day

until the next sunrise is called Pancami. (In Lord Krsna's Vedic culture a

day begins at sunrise.) However, when it comes to calculating Ekadasi there

is a further stipulation. For an Ekadasi tithi to be considered Suddha and

thus a day when we observe fast, the tithi must commence at least two (2)

Muhurtas before the sunrise. As mentioned earlier, by definition 2 Nadika =

1 Muhurta, thus 2 Muhurta = 4 Nadika. (Vedanga-jyotisa of Rg and Yajur

Veda). This is very straight forward. Nothing could be simpler. This is

what is also stated in Hari-bhakti-vilasa.

 

Now confusion enters by mixing of units of dimensions. In present day India

and the rest of the world the standard for time measurements is hours,

minutes, and seconds. And people convert Vedic time units to modern ones

hence since 1 day = 24 hours = 60 Nadikas, hence 1 Nadika = 24 minutes. We

also note that it is said as a general statement that a day (averaged over

one year) will have 30 Nadikas (15 Muhurtas) and the same for the night, day

and night being equal in length (on the average). But it is noted that away

from the equator the length of day and night varies according to the season

and this increases the greater you get from the equator. (But the average

length of the day and night are equal over the length of a year.) Hence if

the day light hours shrink down to 8 hours from 12 and there are 15 muhurtas

in a day then those muhurtas must now be shorter, and since the night which

is now 16 hours in duration also has 15 muhurtas then those muhurtas must be

longer. And thus by this reasoning units of time which were once fixed (1

Muhurta = 2 Nadika) have now become variable. Thus there is no way of

defining the length of the muhürta since both muhurta and nadika now change

every day. The only way of defining the variable muhurta is to introduce a

foreign unit such as minutes, which didn't exist in ancient India.--or to

clearly redefine the meaning of muhurta and nadika whenever engaging in

discussion of variable muhurta but the Vedanga Jyotish of the Rig and Yajur

Veda do not do this, nor do the Jyotish Siddhantas.

 

As a result of this inclusion of "variable muhurtas" definite errors in

calculating of Ekadasi were introduced. This possibility is prevalent in

summer seasons in places away from the equator when the nights would be

shortest and hence 2 "variable muhurtas" would be much shorter than two real

muhurtas. In the far North the night may only be 2-3 hours long or even

shorter yielding extremely tiny muhurtas. The main point is that this

invalid concept of "variable muhurta" has arisen by the convenient mixing of

two different units of measuring time Vedic and Western. When one mixes

apples and oranges one gets such meaningless results.

 

The great acarya of Jyotish, Varaha Mihira, has written that "the karma for

making a mistake in a Pancanga is the same as that for killing a Brahmana -

brahma-hatya." Thus the insistence of Markendeya Rishi on using "variable

muhurta" and Bhaktarupa's inability to understand the basic issues and

concepts is what forced me to leave the Vaisnava Calendar committee.

 

In conclusion:

 

1. Though I had no interest in developing VCAL I did it as a service to

Srila Prabhupada. I put a lot of money, time and effort into its creation

and I am very concerned that the Vaisnava Calendar be as accurate as

possible, especially the calculation of Ekadasi.

 

2. I deeply regret not guarding the source code more closely and

allowing it to fall into the hands of incompetent people not steeped in

Jyotish. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

3. I gradually lost control of the project. This has caused serious

problems to enter into VCAL which I could not rectify.

 

4. I do not want to be implicated in brahma hatya.

 

 

Your humble servant

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

 

www.Shyamasundaradasa.com

(Text PAMHO:11133275) --------------------------------------

 

I am vindicated and my assertions proven correct.

This text vindicates my contention that a serious error was introduced into VCAL by Bhaktarupa out of ignorance and by Markendeya Rishi Prabhu by faulty research.

 

 

Letter PAMHO:11157026 (71 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 20-Feb-06 23:58 -0500

To: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [18918] (received: 21-Feb-06 00:46

-0500)

Cc: Vedavyasapriya Swami (ACBSP) (Vrindavan - IN) [6854] (received:

21-Feb-06 20:10 -0500)

Cc: Jagadisananda (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [1486] (forwarded: 21-Feb-06

00:10 -0500)

Cc: Jagajivan das ACBSP (Asuncion - Paraguay) [2727] (received:

21-Feb-06 06:46 -0500)

Cc: Krsnadasa Kaviraja (das) ACBSP (Toronto - CA) [891] (received:

05-Mar-06 10:14 -0500)

Cc: Advaita Candra (das) SRS (Torchlight Publishing - USA) [13895]

(forwarded: 21-Feb-06 00:10 -0500)

Cc: Aniruddha (das) BJD (Melbourne - AU) [28408] (received: 21-Feb-06

04:43 -0500)

Cc: Devakinandan (das) JUHU (Bombay - IN) [13916] (received: 21-Feb-06

00:01 -0500)

Cc: "GKD" <gregjay@bluebottle.com>

Cc: Rasaraja (das) BI-Bombay-Berkeley (TP Berkeley) [2866] (received:

21-Feb-06 10:40 -0500)

Cc: Sarvaisvarya (das) JPS (Coimbatore - IN) [36603] (received:

21-Feb-06 04:01 -0500)

Subject: More on VCAL

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

This is a recent text from HH Bhanu Svami regarding my contention that VCAL

has errors in it based on the use of the erroneous concept of using a

variable muhurta for calculating ekadasi. This error was introduced based on

"research" done by Markendeya rsi Prabhu wherein supposedly 3 out of five

Pandits consulted stated they used such Muhurtas. It now seems that he got

it all wrong as will be seen below. So all this time he has been defending

erroneous research. We should not have sent a non-expert to do our research

for us.

 

 

 

Letter PAMHO:11154267 (45 lines)

From: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN)

Date: 20-Feb-06 09:54 -0500

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [30708]

To: Braja Bihari (das) BJD (Vrindavana - IN) [132258]

Reference: Text PAMHO:11152381 by Braja Bihari (das) BJD (Vrindavana - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11154658 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic

Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: My Appeal to the GBC

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

as far as our agreement many months ago after Shyamasundara withdrew, We

agreed that both sides had some support. Since Caitanya math followed fixed

muhurta we could follow them. However, research should be done to see

exactly was the original intention of Hari bhakti vilasa and our vaisnava

tradition (in case Caitanya math became diverted). Since the calendar was

already programmed for variable muhurta and we had no means of changing it

at that time, we decided to leave it that way and do further research.

 

I have done some research in the last few days. one of the supports for

variable muhurta was that 3 out of 5 persons interviewed by Markandeya said

variable muhurta including BHag bazaar math and Hari das sastri in

Vrndavana.

 

I phoned Satyanarayana das in Vrndavana and he confirmed yesterday that Hari

das sastri's calendar does not use a variable muhurta but a fixed one as far

as fixing ekadasis. Markandeya must have asked about variable muhurta, but

not in relation to ekadasis.

 

I traced down the maker of the Bhag bazaar panjika named Nityananda

Brahmacari yesterday, and had Gauranga prema Swami phoned him in Cuttack

today. Gauranga prema spoke to him and reported that Nityananda Brahmacari

also uses the fixed muhurtas totally 1 hour and 36 minutes in summer and

winter, not a changing value. So again Markandeya must have not asked the

question in relation to ekadasi determination.

 

So that makes one out of five supporting variable muhurtas.

OF course if we ask all the gaudiya mathas that make calendras i am sure

that all of them would use fixed muhurtas.

 

I checked Hari bhakti vilasa again, and there is no statement anywhere

indicating a changeable muhurta. often the time is expressed as 4 ghatikas

or nadikas instead of 2 muhurtas before sunrise. ghatikas are usually not

used in a variable sense, though muhurtas for some uses can be variable.

Unless there were some clear indication in HBV to use variable muhurtas, or

variable ghatikas we should not interpret them as variable. Rather take the

normal meaning, which most gaudiyas seem to have done.

 

THere is a variable muhurta mentioned by B.V.Ramana in his book Muhurta,

which changes according to the length of the night, but that is defined in

terms of fixed ghatikas. The meaning is clear in that case.

 

Now, since none of the Gaudiyas interviewed seem to use the variable muhurta

it seems that fixed one should be used. Of course everyone could be wrong,

but it seems to me that by reading HBV it did not occur to any of them that

variable muhurtas were meant.

(Text PAMHO:11154267) --------------------------------------

Variable Muhurta Debate

 

A sample of the discussions between Markendeya Rsi Prabhu (Magnus Andersson) and myself regarding the use of variable muhurta for use in calculating the Vaisnava Calendar, specifically for calculating ekadasi. You will note in these discussion that while Markendeya Rsi Prabhu at first claims to be neutral and detached it becomes very clear that he is pushing variable muhurta based upon his “research.” It will also be seen in these discussions that because he is not an expert in this field Bhaktarupa Prabhu is unable to evaluate the arguments and therefore can not decide who is correct. As one might expect this left me very frustrated. Here I am having to argue with my former assistant who now thinks he knows more than me and having to depend on a person ignorant of the subject to decide the matter. You will also note that in my text I present as my pramanas reliable sources such as Jyotish Vedangas of Rk, Yajus, and Atharva veda, and other recognized astronomical authorities.

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8159240 (94 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 05-May-04 13:54 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8153942 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Comment: Text PAMHO:8161120 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Subject: Muhurta

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

> > > AND: Shyamasundara Prabhu wanted to discuss changing back to the fixed

> > > muhurta system.

> >

> > This is a definite must. Muhurta is a fixed length of time just like a

> > minute is a fixed lenth of time. We do not make our minutes longer in

> > northern latitudes and shorter in southern latitudes. Or in summer or

> > winter.

> >

> > A Muhurta is 2 Nadikas, aka Danda aka Ghatika. The duration of a Ghatika

> > is 24 minutes and was derived (as described in Bhagavatam) by the use of

> > a cylpsedra--a water clock. It can not be stretched or shrunk.

>

> A minute might be defined as a fixed length of time, yes, but is a muhurta

> defined like that?

 

Yes it is. It is 1 Muhurta= 2 ghatikas. 60 Ghatikas = 24 hours.

1 Ghatika = 24 minutes = 60 Pala, 1 Pala= 24 seconds. 1 Pala = 60 Vipalas,

1 Vipala = 60 Prativipalas.

 

 

>

> For example, day and night are generally not defined as a fixed length of

> time. Day and night are generally defined as the amount of time between

> sunrise and sunset, and sunset and sunrise, respectively. Maybe muhurta is

> also following that kind of logic. If so, then a variable length makes

> sense.

>

> The fact that it is mentioned that the length of a muhurta kan be measured

> by a clock (a water clock or any other device) does not necessarily mean

> that it is defined as fixed, it might just be a practical way to determine

> the length for countries located close to the equator, where the lengths

> of night and day don't

> vary so much.

>

> Having a fixed length muhurta gives us a variable number of muhurtas in a

> day (even fractions of muhurtas.)

>

> Having a variable length muhurta gives us a fixed number of muhutras in a

> day, namely 15 (and 15 in the night.)

>

> So, what is it that is fixed? The length of them or the number of them?

 

The length of muhurta must be fixed. You have to measure the time somehow. A

"variable muhurta" has to be measured in relation to a fixed measure.

Relative measure can only exist if it is related to a fixed measure. What is

that fixed measure going to be?

 

There is a fallacy of logic here. When so-called variable muhurtas are used

they are still being measured using a non-variable fixed unit of time--the

minute. But in Vedic culture there was no "minute" only Vedic units. So what

is happening here is that we are mixing units of measure but at the basis is

a fixed unit.

 

Okay if you want to have flexible Muhurtas do so, but try doing so without

introducing the fixed unit of "minute" only use Vedic units.

 

One of the first things I remember from Physics and Math classes was not to

mix units of measure.

 

So if you want to have variable murhutas you must then use variable minutes.

What length was a variable muhurta? What was used to measure it since they

didn't use "minutes?"

 

For example the day was divided into 4 Yamas and the night into 4 Yamas

proportional to the length of day and night. The length of each yama would

be measured in Ghatis, Palas, Vipalas and Pritivipalas.

 

See http://tinyurl.com/39bl9 which shows length of year according to

different Vedic astronomical texts.

 

Take June 1, 1964 in Vienna and tell me how long the Muhurtas in the day are

and how long the Muhurtas in the night are? Do the calculations without

using Western units of measure and give me the length only in Vedic units of

measure.

 

It is a general statement to say that day and night are equal when in fact

there is a variation. This applies whether you use muhurtas or hours. It is

like using mean motion of planets. Mean motion is an abstraction which

seldom occurs in reality but it is used to find the real motion. Even in a

place like Sweden over the course of a year on "average" there is 12 hours

of daylight and 12 hours of night per day.

 

In summation:

 

A fallacy has been introduced by using two different units: Vedic and Modern

and assigning one of them (Vedic) a variable length and the other (Modern) a

fixed length. They must both be either fixed or variable not different.

 

If one were to do the calculations using only one unit of measure (Vedic or

Modern) it would become very clear that fixed length must be used or else

one ends up in an absurd situation. (Reductio ad absurdem)

 

Number of units (Vedic or Modern) in a day or night is the average over the

course of a year.

(Text PAMHO:8159240) ---------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8164886 (107 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 06-May-04 21:28 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8161120 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8166214 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Subject: Muhurta

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

> > > > > AND: Shyamasundara Prabhu wanted to discuss changing back to the

> > > > > fixed muhurta system.

> > > >

> > > > This is a definite must. Muhurta is a fixed length of time just like

> > > > a minute is a fixed lenth of time. We do not make our minutes longer

> > > > in northern latitudes and shorter in southern latitudes. Or in

> > > > summer or winter.

> > > >

> > > > A Muhurta is 2 Nadikas, aka Danda aka Ghatika. The duration of a

> > > > Ghatika is 24 minutes and was derived (as described in Bhagavatam)

> > > > by the use of a cylpsedra--a water clock. It can not be stretched or

> > > > shrunk.

> > >

> > > A minute might be defined as a fixed length of time, yes, but is a

> > > muhurta defined like that?

> >

> > Yes it is. It is 1 Muhurta= 2 ghatikas. 60 Ghatikas = 24 hours.

> > 1 Ghatika = 24 minutes = 60 Pala, 1 Pala= 24 seconds. 1 Pala = 60

> > Vipalas, 1 Vipala = 60 Prativipalas.

>

> So that we can document this for reference in the future, we need to have

> a sastric reference that defines a muhurta according to the system we

> choose to use. Do you have any sastra for this?

 

As you are in India you can purchase from the Indian Government a very

useful reference "Bharatiya Jyotish Sastra" (History of Astronomy in India

cover Vedanga, Siddhantic and modern periods) in 2 volumes which has many

astronomical references.

 

Ghatika is also known as Danda and Nadika (may be some other synonyms as

well).

 

The assignment of values I gave above for which you asked for a source is

from both the Rig Jyotish and Yajur Jyotish, by that is meant the Jyotish

Vedanga attached to the two Vedas. This can be found pg 77 and 97 of vol 1

of the book mentioned above.

 

On pg 77 it says (in translation): "10 1/20 kalas make one nadika, two

nadikas are equal to one muhurta and 30 muhurtas or 603 kalas make one day."

 

On pg 97: 60 Palas= 1 Ghatika, 60 Ghatikas = 1 day

 

It is also mentioned in the commentary that names like nadika, ghatika, pala

are all units of volume. They used water clocks and units of time

corresponded to units of volume, how much time it took that amount of water

to flow out. A Nadika was a smaller volume than a Ghatika. Larger volume

clocks were considered more accurate. Though larger volume they measured

same length of time because the flow was faster (bigger hole in clock). But

because larger volume was used it was easier to measure smaller fractions of

time.

 

On pg 97: In the Atharva Jyotish (Jyotish Vedanga associated with the

Atharva Veda) it states:

 

12 Nimesa= 1 Lava

30 Lavas = 1 Kala

30 Kalas = 1 Truti

30 Trutis = 1 Muhurta

30 Muhurtas = 1 Day

 

The units of Ghatika, Pala (aka Vighati), Vipala, etc are the standard

measurements used in the Vedanga, Siddhantas, and works of authors like

Varaha Mihira, Brahmagupta, Bhaskaracarya etc. And it is still used today by

those who use Vedic nomenclature for time.

 

 

> >

> > In summation:

> >

> > A fallacy has been introduced by using two different units: Vedic and

> > Modern and assigning one of them (Vedic) a variable length and the other

> > (Modern) a fixed length. They must both be either fixed or variable not

> > different.

> >

> > If one were to do the calculations using only one unit of measure (Vedic

> > or Modern) it would become very clear that fixed length must be used or

> > else one ends up in an absurd situation. (Reductio ad absurdem)

> >

> > Number of units (Vedic or Modern) in a day or night is the average over

> > the course of a year.

>

> I cannot see how this argument is at all applicable. We want to calculate

> according to the Vedic system without mixing modern concepts of time, then

> **express** the results of our calculation in the modern western system of

> fixed time units for those that are not used to thinking of time in terms

> of muhurtas and ghatikas. We may also use modern fixed units of time as a

> convenience for the calculation (this is especially true because we are

> using digital computers and have been personally trained to make complex

> mathematical computations using modern computational methods. But neither

> of these things imply that we are automatically "mixing" units, like the

> beginning student that tries to add 3 (ounces) + 4 (grams) and gets a

> result of 7. Nor does this introduce any automatic absurdity.

>

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

The point is that some people want to make the Vedic units of time

stretchable, that is the Muhurta should not be a fixed unit of time but

rather it should be flexible depending on day or night length. They

calculate the length of day and night in fixed units of hours, minutes and

seconds then based on that the length of the day is divided by 15 to get the

length of the Muhurta for the day. And then divide length of night by 15 to

get length of Muhurta in night. So here units of calculation are fixed units

of hours, minutes and seconds but then this is used to create a non-fixed

Vedic unit of time, the Muhurta. In Vedic culture they would not have hours,

minutes or seconds, to manipulate only Ghatikas, palas, etc and in such

units of time 2 Ghatikas = 1 Muhurta. Ghatikas are not flexible, hence

Muhurtas are not flexible. Is that more clear?

(Text PAMHO:8164886) ---------------------------------------

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8171908 (106 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 08-May-04 22:22 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8170014 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Comment: Text PAMHO:8173219 by Internet: "Magnus Andersson"

<magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

Subject: Re: Muhurta

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

> MRD: Having a fixed length muhurta gives us a variable number of muhurtas

> in a MRD: day (even fractions of muhurtas.)

> MRD:

> MRD: Having a variable length muhurta gives us a fixed number of muhutras

> in a MRD: day, namely 15 (and 15 in the night.)

> MRD:

> MRD: So, what is it that is fixed? The length of them or the number of

> them?

 

This part I got before.

 

 

>

> SSD: The length of muhurta must be fixed. You have to measure the time

> somehow. A

> SSD: "variable muhurta" has to be measured in relation to a fixed measure.

> SSD: Relative measure can only exist if it is related to a fixed measure.

> What is

> SSD: that fixed measure going to be?

>

> Please note that I am not making a statement in the question about fixed

> or variable

> length muhurtas. I am only questioning and discussing.

 

okay

 

 

>

> I agree that there should be some fixed unit to measure time, I do not

> deny that

> need. I have not been convinced though, that the muhurta is such a unit. I

> should

> add, that I am also not convinced that the muhurta is of variable length,

> although

> that sounds as an interesting solution to me. But at the moment I can see

> both possibilities.

 

Well considering that the Rig and Yajur Jyotish define the muhurta as a

fixed length of time how can it be a possibility for it to be of variable

length?

 

I can understand that the desire to make it flexinle stems from the fact

that sometimes it is said that there are 15 muhurtas in the day and 15 at

night, hence if the length of day and night change you have to change length

of muhurta. But as I previously said that even in a country like Sweden

which has radical changes in length of day and night depending on the season

that on average over the course of a year the length of a day = length of

night = 12 hours. So the same goes with muhurta.

 

We note that in my last text I quoted from Atharva Jyotisha where it says

that there are 60 Ghatis in a day and night, that would imply that the

ghatis were also 30 in day and 30 in night. ALso we have it defined in Rig

and Yajur Jyotish that 2 Ghatika = 1 Muhurta hence ghatikas must also be

flexible if the muhurtas are going to be flexible.

 

>

> So, as I can see it, we both agree that there should be some fixed unit

> for measuring

> time in the absolute sense, and I think we both also agree that some named

> periods of

> time might be of variable length, like for example day and night.

 

But over course of a year on average day length = night length.

 

>

> In traditional astrology something called planetary hours were used.

> Although not

> being of the same length as muhurtas, there seem to be some similarities

> between

> planetary hours and muhurtas.

>

>

 

Planetary hours are defined in Suryasiddhanta and it from the assignment of

planetary hours that the order of the weekdays is assigned. Also planetary

hours is part of the Kalabala (time strength). Kalabala is one of the

shadbalas--six sources of strength of a planet. Some of the other kalabalas

include:planet who ruled the first day of the year of birth, planet ruling

the first day of the month of birth, planet ruling the day of birth, planet

ruling the hour of birth.

 

A planetary hour is called a hora and is equal to 2.5 Ghatikas = 60 minutes.

The order of the horas is as follows:

 

Sani

Guru

Mangala

Surya

Sukra

Buddha

Chandra

 

The rule for nameing the day is that which ever hora is prevalent at the

time of sunrise the day will be named after that hora--(the hora starts at

sunrise). For the sake of demontration let us suppose on a given day the

hora obtaining at sunrize is Surya hora, hence that day shall be called

Suryavara=Sunday. Now 24 mod 7 = 3 (mod=modulus) Hence the next day will

begin 3 horas after the Surya hora, that is the Chandra hora yielding

Chandravara--Monday. 3 horas after Chandra comes Mangala, 3 after Mangala

comes Buddha, 3 after him come Guru, 3 after him comes Sukra, 3 after Sukra

comes Sani, and 3 after Sani comes Surya which starts the cyle all over

again.

 

The Hora is not a flexible length of time in Suryasiddhanta nor in other

Jyotish texts. Certainly not in Parasara Hora Sastra where Shadbala of

Grahas is explained.

(Text PAMHO:8171908) ---------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

I was fried when I got the following text. He wants to make Muhurta variable, but when I pointed out that muhurta is measured in ghatikas he then suggested making those variable as well. Which then leaves all vedic time units as being non-fixed. I was upset that I had to even justify myself to him how did he suddenly become an authority in Jyotish anyway?

 

He goes through all this based on mental gymnastics and of course claiming he is not attached when all along he is as he demonstrates.

 

He had claimed in his report that the majority of pandits favored variable muhurtas hence he is sticking to that. But then we find out as Bhanu Svami reported that the pandits he talked to did in fact not support his claimed but just the reverse.

 

I deconstructed this text later, see below.

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8173219 (267 lines) [W1]

From: Internet: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

Date: 09-May-04 09:36 -0400 (15:36 +0200)

To: Calendar Research [54]

Reference: Text PAMHO:8171908 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8173317 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Comment: Text PAMHO:8174906 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8183902 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: Re: Muhurta

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

> Well considering that the Rig and Yajur Jyotish define the muhurta as a

> fixed length of time how can it be a possibility for it to be of variable

> length?

 

I, personally, see it as a possibility until I have seen some authoritative

Statement that shows clearly that it is impossible, i.e. that the muhurta is of a fixed

length. I have not yet seen such a statement.

 

 

> I can understand that the desire to make it flexinle stems from the fact

> that sometimes it is said that there are 15 muhurtas in the day and 15 at

> night, hence if the length of day and night change you have to change length

> of muhurta.

 

Yes, if 15 muhurtas per day and 15 per night implies that the muhurtas have to

Be synchronized with the rising and setting of the sun, then muhurtas need to vary

in length. And in fact, it even seems that muhurtas need to be synchronised with

noon and possibly midnight, if not more. I will talk more about this furhter down.

 

 

> But as I previously said that even in a country like Sweden

> which has radical changes in length of day and night depending on the season

> that on average over the course of a year the length of a day = length of

> night = 12 hours. So the same goes with muhurta.

 

I agree that the average length of the muhurta is fixed, but we are not talking

About the average length of the muhurta.

 

 

> We note that in my last text I quoted from Atharva Jyotisha whwere it says

> that there are 60 Ghatis in a day and night, that would imply that the

> ghatis were also 30 in day and 30 in night. ALso we have it defined in Rig

> and Yajur Jyotish that 2 Ghatika = 1 Muhurta hence ghatikas must also be

> flexible if the muhurtas are going to be flexible.

 

Yes, maybe it would mean that a ghatika must also be flexible if the muhurta is

flexible, unless the intended meaning is that "the average length of a muhurta

= 2 ghatikas (of fixed length)".

 

 

> > So, as I can see it, we both agree that there should be some fixed unit

> > for measuring time in the absolute sense, and I think we both also agree

> > that some named periods of time might be of variable length, like for

> > example day and night.

>

> But over course of a year on average day length = night length.

 

True, but again, we are not talking about average muhurtas.

 

 

> > In traditional astrology something called planetary hours were used.

> > Although not being of the same length as muhurtas, there seem to be

> > some similarities between planetary hours and muhurtas.

>

> Planetary hours are defined in Suryasiddhanta

 

The famous authority William Lilly did not exactly practice "Vedic" astrology,

He practiced the "Western" astrology that was most similar to the Vedic astrology.

So whether the length of the Vedic planetary hour varies or not is not so

interesting. And my point does not depend on that.

 

What I wanted to point out is that there are named periods of time that

actually do vary in length, and I pointed out what makes it necessary for them to vary,

namely their need for synchronisation with astronomical events such as sunrise and

sunset. Planetary hours are similar to muhurtas, that is why I used the example, and

William Lilly claims planetary hours vary in length (by day and night.)

 

But I could as well compare the muhurtas to our well known tithi which do vary

In length, because they need to synchronize with the fullmoon and the newmoon. And

muhurtas seem to need synchronisation with at least the setting and the rising

of the sun.

 

I now want to show that there is information about the muhurta that indicates

that its length is proportionate to the length of the day and night respectively.

There might be other information that contradicts this, and for a full understanding

of the subject all information should be considered.

 

I believe that the particular information that I refer to below in the linked

texts is correct, even if the texts as such may not be the ultimate authorities.

 

 

This is a PDF-document trying to date the Mahabharata war

 

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/datemb1.PDF

(also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/yr6lm )

 

It shows us that muhurtas have names. It mentions the names of three muhurtas,

namely

 

Abhijit Muhurta (8th Muhurta of the day)

Pitiryam or Rohini Muhurta (9th of the day)

Maithra Muhurta (3rd muhurta of the morning from 7.36 AM to 8.24 AM)

 

It also says that the 8th muhurta of the night is called Abhijit as well.

 

The fact that it gives us the beginning and end time of the third muhurta

(Maithra

Muhurta) makes it clear that the first muhurta starts at sunrise.

 

 

This site...

 

http://astroiq.com/learnastro/Muhurta.asp

(also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/2xj9f )

 

...although primarily talking about muhurta in the sense of electional

astrology

(which is not the same as the concept we are discussing), does mention that the

Abhijit Muhurta comprises one ghatika on either side of the local noon.

 

This also makes it clear that the first muhurta starts at sunrise, and that the

middle of the 8th muhurta must coincide with noon.

 

 

This site

 

http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/sadhana/morning/morning.htm

(also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/2o9km )

 

gives us the name of one more of the muhurtas, namely the Brahma Muhurta...

 

----- Start quote -----

According to Arcana Padati, "Every twenty-four minutes is equal to one danda.

Two dandas, or forty-eight minutes, is equal to one muhurta. In the day and the

Night together, there are a total of thirty muhurtas. In the last portion of the

night, the time beginning two muhurtas before the rise of the sun up to the rise of the

sun, or one hour and thirty-six minutes before the rise of the sun, is called

arunodaya. Of these two muhurtas, the first muhurta is called the brahma-muhurta. This brahma-muhurta is the most auspicious time for devotees seeking after success

in spiritual realization."

----- End quote -----

 

 

All the above quotes together seem to indicate that all muhurtas have names,

both during the day and during the night.

 

If we would give the muhurtas a fixed length and apply that to a situation

where the day and night are not 12 hours each we would have to face two problematic

situations (assuming that all muhurtas have names and that there are no other muhurtas than those.)

 

1) The muhurtas would slide out of synchronisation with points like the noon

(Abhijit Muhurta), midnight, sunset, etc.

 

...and/or...

 

2) One or more muhurtas (or a fraction of a muhurta) would "disappear", because

We would not be able to fit in 15 fixed length muhurtas between sunrise and sunset

or sunset and sunrise, whichever is shorter. And there would be some part of the

day or night (whichever is longer) which we would not be able to fill with any

muhurta.

 

 

I found the text of Sri Jaiva-dharma by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, at this site

 

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/bhaktivinoda/jd/06.htm

l

(also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/39he2 )

 

In that text it says...

 

----- Start quote -----

Gosvami: It is said:

"The eight periods of the day are: 1 the end of night, 2 the early morning, 3 the late morning, 4 midday, 5 the afternoon, 6 sunset, 7 evening, and 8 night. Midday and

night last for six muhurtas each. Evening and the other periods last for three muhurtas each." Two dandas (24 minutes) equal one muhurta (48 minutes). In

the Sanat-kumara-samhita, Lord Sadasiva described Lord Krsna’s pastimes in these eight periods of the day.

----- End quote -----

 

This seems to support that there is a fixed number of muhurtas in the day, and

A fixed number of muhurtas in the night, synchronised to the sunrise and sunset,

and even to the midday and the (mid)night. Thus it indicates that the length of

muhurtas varies, as the length of day and night varies.

 

It seems clear that the period called "the end of the night" must end at the

point of sunrise, and that the period called "sunset" must start with the point of the

sun setting.

 

We saw earlier that the Abhijit muhurta is said to be the muhurta in the

midday, and that half of it is before midday and half is after midday. It was also said to

be the eighth muhurta. This confirms that the period "the early morning" starts with

the point of sunrise, because that is the only way the eighth muhurta can start

half a muhurta before midday.

 

 

I have illustrated all the above information in a table which I have attached

to this mail, and which you can also access at

 

http://www.bigparadox.com/muhurta/table.asp

(also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/3gzw8 )

 

The table shows the situation where the sun rises at 06:00 and sets at 18:00.

This table shows clearly that if the sun would rise and set at times different from

06.00 and 18:00 respectively we would get into one of the two problematic situations

I

described above.

 

I would like to point out also, that when we see quotes from shastras where

Minutes or hours are mentioned we must understand that these are calculated and added to the text by the translator and according to his way of understanding the matter, since those units are more modern units.

 

 

My point can be summarised as follows:

 

If muhurtas only needed to be synchronised to the sunrise, that could be

accomplished with a muhurta of fixed length. But if muhurtas need to be synchronised to other points during the 24 hour period from sunrise to sunrise, such as noon, sunset,

and midnight, then that can seemingly only be accomplished by using muhurtas of

variable length.

(Text PAMHO:8173219) ---------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

Bhaktarupa can not even evaluate the merits of the discussion yet he is in charge of the committee. His lack of expertise of the subject allows him to give credibility to Markendeya Rsi’s non-expert opinion.

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8174906 (58 lines)

From: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Date: 09-May-04 23:59 -0400 (10:29 +0630)

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu> (sent: 10-May-04

00:01 -0400)

To: Calendar Research [56]

Reference: Text PAMHO:8173219 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Comment: Text PAMHO:8175012 by Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8176366 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Subject: Muhurta

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

Many thanks to Markandeya Rishi for his comments and for the illustrative

gif.

 

I am but a mosquito in astronomical learning compared to the other learned

members of this conference, so please excuse any inebrities in the following

discussion:

 

It seems there are two different concepts at work here. One is the concept

of the muhurta being a duration of time, the other is the concept of it

being a division of time. The terms "minute", and "second" are most often

used in English to designate a duration of time. The terms "midday", "dawn"

are used in English to designate divisions of time. The term "hour"

typically designates a duration of time, but it is also used to designate a

division, such as "the morning hours" or "lunch hour".

 

May I suggest that just like we use the term "hour" in both ways, our

acharyas may have used "muhurta" in both ways. Thus we may find references

in our literature that support both concepts, and just pulling out

references to the term used in isolation may not help us much.

 

What is most important is to understand what the particular references on

which we are basing our calendar calculation mean.

 

After living in India for some time I have come to understand that people

from this culture that have not been heavily influenced by Coca-cola and the

internet have a very different mental picture of the passage of time than we

do, growing up in the methodical West. "Come back in an hour." doesn't mean,

"Look at your watch. It is 2:20 now, so come back at 3:20." It means, "Come

back in the late afternoon." If you question why they came back at 4:00 they

will think you are quite wierd. Maybe this example is not so pukka, but I

hope you get my meaning.

 

Our acharyas that wrote the calendar specifications were definitely not

writing to those steeped in Western concepts of time. They were writing to

those who had a very strong sense of the muhurta as a division of time. (The

fact that the muhurta divisions of time have been given names in our

literature is most significant. A named muhurta can only refer to a division

of time.)

 

Thus, to say that "The Ekadasi tithi was not present two muhurtas before

sunrise." is a significant fact in the determination as to whether to

observe fasting implies that two muhurtas before sunrise represents some

distinct observable astronomical event (arunodaya). One hour thirty-six

minutes by my watch does not particularly inspire me as a distinct

observable astronomical event.

 

But I will admit that dividing up the daylight hours into 15 equal parts and

the same with the nighttime hours also does not inspire me. This means that

at sunrise there is a sudden change in the muhurta length, and again another

sudden change at sunset. If the muhurtas intended by the acharyas in their

writings are indeed variable ones, then they should be calculated

individually based upon 1/15th portion of the angle traversed by the sun

between sunrise and sunset. This would smooth out the above-mentioned

discontinuities at sunrise and sunset.

 

These are just some thoughts.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

(Text PAMHO:8174906) ---------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

Text PAMHO:8176366 (65 lines)

From: Internet: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

Date: 10-May-04 07:07 -0400 (13:07 +0200)

To: Calendar Research [58]

Reference: Text PAMHO:8174906 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8176431 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Subject: Re: Muhurta

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

> But I will admit that dividing up the daylight hours into 15 equal parts and

> the same with the nighttime hours also does not inspire me. This means that

> at sunrise there is a sudden change in the muhurta length, and again another

> sudden change at sunset. If the muhurtas intended by the acharyas in their

> writings are indeed variable ones, then they should be calculated

> individually based upon 1/15th portion of the angle traversed by the sun

> between sunrise and sunset. This would smooth out the above-mentioned

> discontinuities at sunrise and sunset.

 

First I want to say that I am glad that my presentation has been so well

received. From Bhaktarupas prabhu's text I can see that his understanding is

coinciding with mine.

 

And now to your point quoted above, yes, I have been thinking of this since

1989 when I did the interviews in India. I liked the idea of muhurtas being of

variable length, for the reasons that I have presented in my last text and

which you also described in your last text, but I always had that same idea as you

that to make the (variable) muhurtas perfect they shouldn't suddenly change in

length at sunrise and at sunset, but they should rather stretch and shrink

gradually throughout the day and night, back and forth in a graceful way, in a

similar fashion as tithis, as Bhanu Swami pointed out.

 

I never wanted to mention my idea though, since it could have been viewed as

Too speculative. And I was also able to accept that there are sudden changes in

astrology. After all there are quite sudden changes when the sun passes from

one rasi to another, or when the houses shift over a planet, for example Mars is

now in the second house but 1 minute later Mars is in the first house, giving a

totally different astrological interpretation.

 

So I am not completely sure that muhurtas should change smoothly, but I tend to

believe that this is the most perfect way to do it.

 

I want to point out though, that even if they change abruptly at sunrise and

sunset, the synchronisation will still be kept at the abhijit muhurta around

the point of noon and the abhijit muhurta around the midnight, simply because of

the fact that these two points are in the middle of the day and in the middle of

the night respectively. But if we want muhurtas to remain perfectly synchronised to

the "beginning" and "end" of the noon period and to other times like "the late

morning" and if we want that periods like for example the arunodaya to have the

exact perfect length, then the smooth alternative is an interesting idea worth

investigating.

 

I also want to point out that when I made my interviews in India there was

nobody of those I talked to that had such thoughts (the smooth idea), everyone

who proclaimed the variable muhurta talked about "day muhurtas" and "night

muhurtas" and that they are calculated by dividing the length of the day and

night by 15.

 

If we want to make muhurtas to smoothly change their lengths, then I think it

will be very difficult to find anyone who has done it before, and if we get

into trying to do it on our own we will probably find that there are many ways to do

it, just like there are many ways to divide houses (Placidus, Regiomontanus,

Equal houses, etc. etc.), and the way to divide or calculate houses has been

debated for a long time.

 

But basically I like the idea of smooth changes.

(Text PAMHO:8176366) ---------------------------------------

 

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

Text PAMHO:8181142 (5 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 10-May-04 19:37 -0400

To: Calendar Research

Subject: Muhurta according MMW dictionary

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

m. n. a moment , instant , any short space of time RV. &c. &c. (ibc. , in a

moment ; ind , after an instant , presently)

 

a partic. division of time , the 3oth part of a day , a period of 48 minutes

(in pl. personified as the children of Muhu1rta) S3Br. &c. &c.

(Text PAMHO:8181142) -

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8183902 (523 lines) [W0]

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 11-May-04 17:20 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8173219 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Comment: Text PAMHO:8189159 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8192502 by Internet: "Magnus Andersson"

<magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

Subject: Re: Muhurta

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

 

> > I can understand that the desire to make it flexinle stems from the fact

> > that sometimes it is said that there are 15 muhurtas in the day and 15

> > at night, hence if the length of day and night change you have to change

> > length of muhurta.

>

> Yes, if 15 muhurtas per day and 15 per night implies that the muhurtas

> have to be

> synchronized with the rising and setting of the sun, then muhurtas need to

> vary in

> length. And in fact, it even seems that muhurtas need to be synchronised

> with noon

> and possibly midnight, if not more. I will talk more about this furhter

> down.

>

I disagree.

 

 

>

> > But as I previously said that even in a country like Sweden

> > which has radical changes in length of day and night depending on the

> > season that on average over the course of a year the length of a day =

> > length of night = 12 hours. So the same goes with muhurta.

>

> I agree that the average length of the muhurta is fixed, but we are not

> talking about

> the average length of the muhurta.

>

 

Actually the actual time of muhurta for astronomical time keeping is fixed

by definition in Jyotish Vedanga texts. 2 Ghatika = 1 Muhurta

 

 

 

>

> > We note that in my last text I quoted from Atharva Jyotisha whwere it

> > says that there are 60 Ghatis in a day and night, that would imply that

> > the ghatis were also 30 in day and 30 in night. ALso we have it defined

> > in Rig and Yajur Jyotish that 2 Ghatika = 1 Muhurta hence ghatikas must

> > also be flexible if the muhurtas are going to be flexible.

>

> Yes, maybe it would mean that a ghatika must also be flexible if the

> muhurta is flexible,

 

Then if Ghatika become also flexible what will be used for fixed

measurement?

The Pala? But since a Ghatika = 60 Pala one would have to make the Pala

flexible as well and so on infinitim.

 

 

> unless the intended meaning is that "the average

> length of a muhurta = 2

> ghatikas (of fixed length)".

>

 

I disagree.

 

 

>

> > > So, as I can see it, we both agree that there should be some fixed

> > > unit for measuring time in the absolute sense, and I think we both

> > > also agree that some named periods of time might be of variable

> > > length, like for example day and night.

> >

> > But over course of a year on average day length = night length.

>

> True, but again, we are not talking about average muhurtas.

>

>

> > > In traditional astrology something called planetary hours were used.

> > > Although not being of the same length as muhurtas, there seem to be

> > > some similarities between planetary hours and muhurtas.

> >

> > Planetary hours are defined in Suryasiddhanta

>

> The famous authority William Lilly did not exactly practice "Vedic"

> astrology, he

> practiced the "Western" astrology that was most similar to the Vedic

> astrology. So

> whether the length of the Vedic planetary hour varies or not is not so

> interesting.

> And my point does not depend on that.

 

He is not our authority. So to base anything on him is dubious.

 

 

>

> What I wanted to point out is that there are named periods of time that

> actually do

> vary in length,

 

Most units of time have names--days of week, names of paksa (Gaura & Krsna)

names of months, names of year in panca abda yugas (yugas in Vedanga usage

are of 5 year cycles used for sacrificial purpose), Braspati Samvatsara a 60

year cycles each year has a name. Days of week, length of month and year etc

are fixed. If there is a variation as in length of year then adika masa is

added to put it back on track.

 

 

 

 

 

> and I pointed out what makes it necessary for them to

> vary, namely

> their need for synchronisation with astronomical events such as sunrise

> and sunset.

> Planetary hours are similar to muhurtas, that is why I used the example,

> and William

> Lilly claims planetary hours vary in length (by day and night.)

>

 

Lilly has no place in this discussion. Planetary hours as defined in our

sastras are fixed in duration 1 hora = 2.5 ghatikas

 

 

 

> But I could as well compare the muhurtas to our well known tithi which do

> vary in

> length, because they need to synchronize with the fullmoon and the

> newmoon. And muhurtas seem to need synchronisation with at least the

> setting and the rising of the

> sun.

 

The length of tithi is very clearly defined, it is equal to the length of

time it takes for the moon to move 12 degrees from the Sun. It varies in

length because the Moon varies in speed. But the definition for what a

constutes a tithi is there. And a tithis length was measured by a fixed

unvarying unit of time, not a flexible unit of time. In that system 1

muhurta = 2 ghatika.

 

 

>

> I now want to show that there is information about the muhurta that

> indicates that

> its length is proportionate to the length of the day and night

> respectively. There

> might be other information that contradicts this, and for a full

> understanding of the

> subject all information should be considered.

>

> I believe that the particular information that I refer to below in the

> linked texts

> is correct, even if the texts as such may not be the ultimate authorities.

>

>

> This is a PDF-document trying to date the Mahabharata war

>

> http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/datemb1.PDF

> (also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/yr6lm )

 

6: "During the days of the Maha Bharata war, the Vedanga Jyotisha alone was

in vogue."

 

Hence the definitions should be according to that. I have dug up my copy of

Vedanga Jyotisha and will give details from it later in this text.

 

 

 

 

>

> It shows us that muhurtas have names. It mentions the names of three

> muhurtas, namely

>

> Abhijit Muhurta (8th Muhurta of the day)

> Pitiryam or Rohini Muhurta (9th of the day)

> Maithra Muhurta (3rd muhurta of the morning from 7.36 AM to 8.24 AM)

 

It would have been nice if you had told us which of the 30 pages this info

is found on. I see on 5th page mention of Abhijit etc but not Rohini muhurta

and not Maithra Muhurta. Regarding this last one we note that you have given

us it duration, it is exactly 48 minutes long. Considering that the events

are for places in North India where there is greater flexibility in the

length of day and night then for that Muhurta to be 48 minutes long and for

it also to be a flexible muhurta then the day in question must have been

either the Vernal or Autumnal equinox for those are the only days of the

year when day and night are of same duration. Even in South India there will

be some change in the length of day and night according to ayana. So how is

it that it gave a muhurta length of exactly 48 minutes = 2 Ghatika?

 

 

 

>

> It also says that the 8th muhurta of the night is called Abhijit as well.

 

The Muhurta's names are as such in seriatim (according Atharva Jyotish):

 

1 Raudra, 2 Sveta, 3 Maitra, 4 SArabhaTa, 5 SAvitra, 6 VairAja,

7 ViSHvAvasu, 8 Abhijit, 9 ViSHvAvasu, 10 VairAja, 11 SAvitra,

12 SArabhaTa, 13 Maitra, 14 Sveta, 15 Raudra

 

For the night time it is the same.

 

 

There seems to be varius meaning for muhUrta according to the dictionary:

 

m. n. a moment , instant , any short space of time RV. &c. &c. (ibc. , in a

moment ; ind , after an instant , presently)

 

a particular division of time , the 3oth part of a day , a period of 48

minutes (in pl. personified as the children of Muhu1rta) S3Br. &c. &c.

 

____________

 

 

So if I tell someone to "wait just a second" I mean an undefined short

period of time, but if I was doing a scientific experiment I would have to

specify a specific definition of what I meant by that length of time.

 

Such length of time can thus be used to designate units of scientific

measure or a general idea of short, medium or long lengths of time.

 

A calendar is based on astronomical calculation and thus has to be done not

according general ideas of time but a scientific measurement.

 

 

This what it says in the Jyotish Vedanga verse 8:

 

"The increase of the day and the decrease of the night during the northern

progress of the sun is one Prastha of water; the reverse is the case during

the southern progress; a period of 6 muhUrtas is the result of the

difference between the day and the night during one progress."

 

[Note the Jyotish Vedanga is aware that the length of the day and night change over the course of a year, still the length of a muhurta is fixed and is used to measure the difference between day and night so how can the muhurta be flexible if it is used to measure the change?]

 

The commentator explains: "This verse refers to a cup of a thin plate of

brass or copper capable of holding a Prastha of water weighing 12.5 Palas.

It had a small hole at the bottom, through which water entered the cup when

it was floated on water contained in a bigger vessel. When the cup was

filled with water it sank in the water of the bigger vessel making a noise;

and 183 Prasthas measured 12 NADikas or 6 MuhUrtas [2 nadika = 1 muhurta]. Thus it was very easy for people of those days to find the longest day at the commencemnt of the Dakshinayana and the longest night and the shortest day at the commencement of the Uttarayana; such difference in the length of day and night occurs

only in the northwest parts of India, somewhere near Kasmir."

 

Vedangajyautisha, translated and commentary by Dr. R Shamasastry director of

archelogical research in Mysore, published 1936.

 

So for astronomical and astrological calculations a MuhUrta was fixed

measure of time.

 

But just as a second can mean more than one thing in regards to length of

time. So a MuhUrta, as seen from the dictionary, can also mean various

lengths of time.

 

One could divide a day into 15 parts and similarly do the same with the

night and since a day + night has 30 murhUrtas then a 15th of a day gets the

same name, though one of them is fixed and the other flexible.

 

 

So it seems that for some uses there may be places where the muhUrta is

defined as 15th of a day and in other places it is defined as a fixed amount

of measurable time, in this case measured by a clypsedra (water clock).

 

The Artharva Jyotisha gives both. It first defines 1 MuhUrta = 30 trutis

which is based on smaller measurable units. But later it also defines a

MurhUrta in relation to the shadow of gnomon 12 angulas long. The length of

the shadow cast by such gnomon would indicate the MuhUrta. If shadow was 96

angulas then it was Raudra, if it was 60 angulas it would be Sveta, 12

Maitra, 6 Sarabhaja, 5 Savitra, 4 Vairaja, 3 Visvavasu, and 0 Abhijit.

 

These units are for astrological prognostications, because unlike the Rg and

Yajur Jyotisha, the Atharva Jyotish has astrological predictive material in

it whereas the other two seem to be strictly astronomical and mathematical

in nature.

 

The definition of Muhurta as mentioned above would be like a sundial, and

depending on the time of year it would take more or less time to complete

such a muhurta.

 

But for astronomical calculations which is what a calendar is about we need

to use muhUrtas as defined for astronomical time keeping which is a fixed

unit equal to 48 minutes time.

 

 

>

> The fact that it gives us the beginning and end time of the third muhurta

> (Maithra

> Muhurta) makes it clear that the first muhurta starts at sunrise.

 

And the muhurta he uses is 48 minutes long (-:

 

 

 

>

>

> This site...

>

> http://astroiq.com/learnastro/Muhurta.asp

> (also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/2xj9f )

>

> ...although primarily talking about muhurta in the sense of electional

> astrology

> (which is not the same as the concept we are discussing), does mention

> that the Abhijit Muhurta comprises one ghatika on either side of the local

> noon.

 

Exactly, that would make a Abijita Muhurta 48 minutes long. This is strictly

used for the "MuhUrta" branch of astrology.

 

Now let us make a further investigation of what you have said above that the

Abhijita Muhurta is +/- 1 Ghatika from local mean Noon. But suppose that the

day we are talking about is Dec 21 in Stolkholm. Such a muhUrta would be

significantly larger than 1/15th of the daylight hours. This creates a

problem. You now have muhUrtas of two different lengths.

 

 

It seems that the problem is again in mixing "MuhUrta" that is used for

certain type of astrological predictions with MuhUrta used for scientific

time keeping and calculations.

 

VCAL is for making a scientific Vaisnava Calendar not for predictive

purposes. I, as an astrologer, would never use VCAL for making predictions.

 

 

more...below

 

>

> This also makes it clear that the first muhurta starts at sunrise, and

> that the middle of the 8th muhurta must coincide with noon.

>

>

> This site

>

> http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/sadhana/morning/morning.htm

> (also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/2o9km )

>

> gives us the name of one more of the muhurtas, namely the Brahma

> Muhurta...

>

> ----- Start quote -----

> According to Arcana Padati, "Every twenty-four minutes is equal to one

> danda. Two

> dandas, or forty-eight minutes, is equal to one muhurta. In the day and

> the night

> together, there are a total of thirty muhurtas. In the last portion of the

> night, the

> time beginning two muhurtas before the rise of the sun up to the rise of

> the sun, or

> one hour and thirty-six minutes before the rise of the sun, is called

> arunodaya. Of

> these two muhurtas, the first muhurta is called the brahma-muhurta. This

> brahma-muhurta is the most auspicious time for devotees seeking after

> success in

> spiritual realization."

> ----- End quote -----

>

>

> All the above quotes together seem to indicate that all muhurtas have

> names, both

> during the day and during the night.

>

> If we would give the muhurtas a fixed length and apply that to a situation

> where the

> day and night are not 12 hours each we would have to face two problematic

> situations

> (assuming that all muhurtas have names and that there are no other

> muhurtas than

> those.)

>

> 1) The muhurtas would slide out of synchronisation with points like the

> noon (Abhijit

> Muhurta), midnight, sunset, etc.

>

> ...and/or...

>

> 2) One or more muhurtas (or a fraction of a muhurta) would "disappear",

> because we

> would not be able to fit in 15 fixed length muhurtas between sunrise and

> sunset or

> sunset and sunrise, whichever is shorter. And there would be some part of

> the day or

> night (whichever is longer) which we would not be able to fill with any

> muhurta.

>

>

> I found the text of Sri Jaiva-dharma by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, at this site

>

> http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/bhaktivinoda/jd/0

> 6.htm l

> (also accessible through http://tinyurl.com/39he2 )

>

> In that text it says...

>

> ----- Start quote -----

> Gosvami: It is said:

> "The eight periods of the day are: 1 the end of night,

> 2 the early morning, 3 the late morning, 4 midday, 5 the

> afternoon, 6 sunset, 7 evening, and 8 night. Midday and

> night last for six muhurtas each. Evening and the other

> periods last for three muhurtas each."

> Two dandas (24 minutes) equal one muhurta (48 minutes). In

> the Sanat-kumara-samhita, Lord Sadasiva described Lord

> Krsna’s pastimes in these eight periods of the day.

> ----- End quote -----

>

> This seems to support

 

 

Well what about the fact that it also supports that a muhurta is 48 minutes

long?

 

 

 

 

> that there is a fixed number of muhurtas in the day,

> and a

> fixed number of muhurtas in the night, synchronised to the sunrise and

> sunset, and

> even to the midday and the (mid)night. Thus it indicates that the length

> of muhurtas

> varies, as the length of day and night varies.

>

> It seems clear that the period called "the end of the night" must end at

> the point of

> sunrise, and that the period called "sunset" must start with the point of

> the sun

> setting.

>

> We saw earlier that the Abhijit muhurta is said to be the muhurta in the

> midday, and

> that half of it is before midday and half is after midday. It was also

> said to be the

> eighth muhurta. This confirms that the period "the early morning" starts

> with the

> point of sunrise, because that is the only way the eighth muhurta can

> start half a

> muhurta before midday.

>

>

 

This all very good. So tell me how long is a Muhurta without looking at your

Rolex? (-:

 

How do you get around the fact that it clearly states that a muhUrta = 48

minutes which is 2 ghatikas.

 

So it seems that when you live very near the equator this is not a problem.

But when you vary from the equator it does become a problem.

 

But even if you live near the equator to say that a muhurta is 1/15 of a day

is meaningless unless you can measure it. So how long is that?

 

So if a 1 muhurta = 2 ghatika = 48 minutes but 1/15th of a day = 40 minutes

which is a muhurta?

 

NOw of course we could only do that because we didn't change the length of a

minute. How would you measure if you eliminated the minutes?

 

Forget that you are in 21st century with hours, minutes and seconds. But you

only have Vedic units of time where it specifically says 1 muhurta = 2

Ghatikas, yet it also says a day and night each have 15 Muhurtas.

 

So it seems to me that such muhurtas can only be equivalent if you live at

the equator on March 21 and Sep 21 everywhere in the world.

 

Even in your translation form Jaiva Dharma it gave 48 minutes as definition

of Muhurta so that doesn't really solve your problem.

 

It seems to me that you think it is more important to divide the day and

night into 15 divisions each and name them Muhurtas, these "Muhurtas" would

of course have to be of varying length each day. These are astrological

muhurtas. Such a murhurta could be some fraction of a clock MuhUrta which is

a fixed measure of time.

 

I disagree. We are not trying to predict future with VCAL for our purposes

we need to use "clock" muhUrta, not "predictive" MuhUrta.

 

 

 

>

> My point can be summarised as follows:

>

> If muhurtas only needed to be synchronised to the sunrise, that could be

> accomplished

> with a muhurta of fixed length. But if muhurtas need to be synchronised to

> other

> points during the 24 hour period from sunrise to sunrise, such as noon,

> sunset, and

> midnight, then that can seemingly only be accomplished by using muhurtas

> of variable

> length.

 

But my point is: what is the length of these muhUrtas?And what was the unit

of measuring them?

 

 

I have long been aware, as an astrologer, of having muhurtas and other

divisions of time of a flexible length. For example Mandi is the son of

Saturn to find his position in the day time divide the length of day into 8

parts, the first part will belong to the lord of that day then going serial

order of the planets then Mandi will own the beginning of the portion ruled

after Saturn's part (as there are only 7 planets the 8th would belong to

Mandi). The ascendant for that time gives the position of Mandi. Considering

that days change in length it would have to be proportional. But to find that

proportional point one needs to use fixed time units. Similar things is

done for finding Rahu kalam and Barbela (Vara vela in Sanskrit)

 

In any case my point is that I am well aware of dividing day into equal

portions for astrological purposes, which are predictive purposes. But this

is not useful for astronomical and mathematical calendar calculations.

 

So summing up as the dictionary described Muhurta can have more than one

meaning depending on what the use is. So what is our use going to be

mathematical 1 muhurta = 2 ghatika as mentioned in Vedangajyotisha for

astronomical calculations. Or proportional for astrological predictive

purposes?

 

I say it should be mathematical for calendric purposes. 1 muhurta = 2

ghatikas.

 

 

 

This year in Sweden on June 21 the sun will rise at 2:43 Am and set at 8:58

PM, less than 6 hours of night time. Does that mean that Mangala arotika is

held at 2 AM? Or what about on Dec 21 when sunrises at 8:54 AM and sets at

2:38 PM (just opposite of winter time) should Mangalaarotika now be held at

8 AM? This obviously creates a problem, a curse for living in hellish

regions of the yaksas (-: But I would suspect that mangala arotika is at

about 4:30 AM everyday regardless of when the Brahma Muhurta is. When I was

there in 1988 it seemed to me that mangala arotika was happening after

sunrise.

(Text PAMHO:8183902) ---------------------------------------

 

Bhaktarupa finally sees the light but never does anything because he doesn't think it important to calculate ekadasi correctly.

 

And as fate would have it was Bhaktarupa who is the one who without asking someone who knew put in the language in the GBC resolution to use a variable muhurta.

 

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8189159 (25 lines)

From: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Date: 12-May-04 21:44 -0400 (08:14 +0630)

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu> (sent: 12-May-04

21:46 -0400)

To: Calendar Research [62]

Reference: Text PAMHO:8183902 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8199494 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: Muhurta

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

Dear Shyamasundara Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

I read your detailed reply to Markandeya Rishi Prabhu's long text. I want to

make sure that I understand all the different features of your argument.

Remember that, as fate would have it, the GBC passed a resolution back when

based on Markandeya Rishi's report that the muhurta should be proportional

to the length of the day and night. So if we are going to change that then

we will have to have our arguments clearly spelled out. So this is a step in

that direction. These are the distinct points that I could identify in all

of your texts so far in this tree. Please say if they are stated correctly

and succinctly and if there are any other distinct points that I missed.

 

-> You admit that sometimes muhurtas are proportional, although you say that

this cannot be relevant to calendar calculation but only to predictive

astrology, and you give the following arguments:

 

A. Astronomical texts generally define the muhurta in terms of fixed

multiples of smaller units of time. In many places the muhurta is clearly

defined as unvarying.

 

B. In order to calculate a calendar you need to use fixed time units

otherwise you end in an infinite regression of variation and nothing can be

accurately determined.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

(Text PAMHO:8189159) ---------------------------------------

 

what really bugged me is that whatever MR learned he learned from me and now he wants to take over. Also his former wife (now sleeping with Harikesa) was/is an astrologer. This is teh same kind of mentality displayed by Goloka Chandra on several occasions,

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8199494 (178 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 14-May-04 21:30 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8189159 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8204191 by Internet: "Magnus Andersson"

<magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

Subject: Muhurta

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

> Dear Shyamasundara Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> I read your detailed reply to Markandeya Rishi Prabhu's long text. I want

> to make sure that I understand all the different features of your

> argument. Remember that, as fate would have it, the GBC passed a

> resolution back when based on Markandeya Rishi's report that the muhurta

> should be proportional to the length of the day and night. So if we are

> going to change that then we will have to have our arguments clearly

> spelled out. So this is a step in that direction. These are the distinct

> points that I could identify in all of your texts so far in this tree.

> Please say if they are stated correctly and succinctly and if there are

> any other distinct points that I missed.

>

> -> You admit that sometimes muhurtas are proportional, although you say

> that this cannot be relevant to calendar calculation but only to

> predictive astrology, and you give the following arguments:

>

> A. Astronomical texts generally define the muhurta in terms of fixed

> multiples of smaller units of time. In many places the muhurta is clearly

> defined as unvarying.

>

 

Not generally, it is specific: 2 ghatikas = 1 muhurta. It is unvarying when

used in astronomical works. But like any unit of time it can take on general

meanings as mentioned in the dictionary.

 

 

> B. In order to calculate a calendar you need to use fixed time units

> otherwise you end in an infinite regression of variation and nothing can

> be accurately determined.

 

Yes. We want to avoid falling into the fallacy of the infinite regress. More

detailed comments below.

 

>

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

 

 

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

 

Pamho Agtsp

 

I actually sent it too soon before I was finished but it was late and my

eyes were no longer focusing and it went out accidentally before I had

edited it. I would have just given my conclusions without all the detailed

counter arguments that don't really matter. Sorry if my mistake of sending

to soon has caused our friend Markendeya Rsi Prabhu to waste his valuable

time answering me in detail when it was unnecessary to do so. Fortunately

you seem to have gotten the gist of it. As I was responding to the text my

realization is this:

 

From the Sanskrit dictionary we see that "muhurta" suggests different

meanings regarding time one of which is a scientifically measured amount of

time.

 

Muhurta is also one of the 6 branches of astrology along with Ganita, Gola,

Jataka, Prasna and Nimitta. Muhurta is used for finding the most auspicious

time (muhurta) to do something. This time (muhurta) can be of any duration

as long as it is auspicious.

 

In English one could say the same about any unit of time. For example "hour"

has a scientifically measured length of 60 minutes. But it also denotes any

unspecified length of time for example a lunch "hour" which can be anywhere

from 30 minutes to 2 hours or more in length. We have terms like the

"witching" hour, which is an unspecified length of time somewhere in the

dead of the night.

 

Further more the 15 muhurtas of the day (and night) as listed in the Atharva

Jyotish:

 

1 Raudra, 2 Sveta, 3 Maitra, 4 SArabhaTa, 5 SAvitra, 6 VairAja,

7 ViSHvAvasu, 8 Abhijit, 9 ViSHvAvasu, 10 VairAja, 11 SAvitra,

12 SArabhaTa, 13 Maitra, 14 Sveta, 15 Raudra

 

have astrological signification as is commonly used in Muhurta texts (texts

for choosing auspicious times to start something). It is said that terrible

acts should be done during Raudra muhurta whereas auspicious and friendly

acts during Maitra Muhurta. Abhijit Muhurta during the day is considered a

most auspicious time for any performance especially if one doesn't have time

to choose an auspicious muhurta more carefully. The reason that a daytime

Abhijit muhurta is auspicious is that at the time the Sun will be exactly in

the meridian and either in the 10th or 11th house which is considered very

good from an astrological perspective. (At night Sun would be in the 4th

house which is not considered good, so texts on Muhurta only consider

daytime Abhijit as auspicious.)

 

I should also say that while in my previous text I said that these muhurtas

as defined in Atharva Jyotish by use of a gnomon's shadow suggested to me

that they were of varying length. However on further consideration I am not

sure because the text didn't say so and I have not actually measured how

long it would take the shadow to change to each specified length. (Also

length of shadow is tied to longitude of place and that was not specified

either.) The reason I mention this is that afterward I was thinking how in

sundials I have seen that the lengths of shadow they measure are different

lengths but actually measure same length of clock time. I have been to the

very accurate sundials at Yantar Mantar in Jaipur that give the measure

accurate to within 10 seconds.

 

In any case for the sake of argument I agree that days and nights were

divided into various divisions, which had as their start and terminus points

the astronomical phenomena of sunrise and sunset. And that because of the

fact that the length of day and night change through the year these parts

also change in length. These are commonly used in astrology for many

purposes like finding Rahu Kalam, Barbela, Mandi, Gulika, and Kalavelas like

Pranapada, etc, etc. Similarly all aspects of time are considered to have

positive, neutral and negative aspects from an astrological perspective.

 

Hence, since Atharva Veda Jyotish also divides day and night into 15 parts

each (and assigns different astrological meanings to them) then (unless

other evidence proves contrary) these astrological muhurtas would have

different durations according to length of day and night and the day

muhurtas would have different length than night muhurtas except at the

equator or during the equinoxes. It should also be pointed out that unlike

the other two Jyotish Vedangas (Rg and Yajus) the Atharva Jyotish also deals

with predictive astrology. In any case since there are many examples of

other divisions of the day and night that vary and are used for astrological

purpose I have no problem with defining variable muhurta in this way for

astrological purposes.

 

However, as I quoted from Jyotish Vedanga (Rg and Yajus) verse 8:

 

"The increase of the day and the decrease of the night during the northern

progress of the sun is one Prastha of water; the reverse is the case during

the southern progress; a period of 6 muhurtas is the result of the

difference between the day and the night during one progress."

 

The commentator explains: "This verse refers to a cup of a thin plate of

brass or copper capable of holding a Prastha of water weighing 12.5 Palas.

It had a small hole at the bottom, through which water entered the cup when

it was floated on water contained in a bigger vessel. When the cup was

filled with water it sank in the water of the bigger vessel making a noise;

and 183 Prasthas measured 12 Nadikas or 6 Muhurtas. Thus it was very easy

for people of those days to find the longest day at the commencement of the

Dakshinayana and the longest night and the shortest day at the commencemnt

of the Uttarayana; such difference in the length of day and night occurs

only in the northwest parts of India, somewhere near Kasmir."

 

Vedangajyautisha, translated and commentary by Dr. R Shamasastry director of

archelogical research in Mysore, published 1936.

 

This clearly indicates that in the Vedanga Jyotish of the Rg and Yajur Veda

that units of Muhurta are used to determine the difference in the length of

the day and night over the course of a year. These muhurtas are fixed units

of 48 minutes each. Thus for astronomical calculations muhurtas are to be of

fixed length.

 

Hence, for measuring astronomical phenomena (like our Vaisnava calendar)

muhurtas of clock time are to be used. The beginning of a Tithi is an

astronomical phenomenon. Therefore defining the beginning of the ekadasi day

should be determined using muhurtas of clock time not those of variable

length that are used for astrological purposes.

 

Even though the Vaisnava Calendar is a Pancanga, a crude tool used for

astrological predictions by layman, it still has to be calculated according

to astronomical precision. Astrology is based on astronomy. So to say that

since the Pancanga is an astrological entity it should be calculated using

astrological lengths of time is not correct. The basis for the astrology

should be astronomy. It must be calculated astronomically but used

astrologically. It seems Markendeya rsi also wants to calculate it

astrologically, this is where we differ. By this I mean he wants to define

the beginning of ekadasi tithi (an astronomical phenomenon) using an

astrological length of time rather than an astronomical length of time.

Ekadasi should start at least two astronomical muhurtas before sunrise to

get the astrological results (so to speak) of Suddha ekadasi, not that it

should start two astrological muhurtas before sunrise.

 

Astrology is the interpretation of astronomical geometrical positions, so

the basis must be astronomical.

 

Since you have addressed the main point of my text I will not respond to

Markendeya Rsi's text, which responds to my rambling bleary-eyed text. Let

us just stick to my main point. Again sorry if my inadvertent sending of the

text which lead to waste of Markendeya Ris's time.

 

 

Your humble servant

Shyamasundara Dasa

(Text PAMHO:8199494) ---------------------------------------

 

 

though at the beginning of the discussion MR claimed he was not attached but we note he is VERY attached.

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8210834 (54 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 17-May-04 19:22 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8204191 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Subject: Re: Muhurta

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

 

>

> SSD: ...this is where we differ.

> SSD: By this I mean he wants to define

> SSD: the beginning of ekadasi tithi (an astronomical phenomenon)

> SSD: using an astrological length of time rather than an

> SSD: astronomical length of time.

>

> You confuse things.

>

> The beginning of the tithi, be it the Ekadasi tithi or any other tithi, is

> defined by multiples of 12 degrees longitudinal angle difference beween

> the Sun and the Moon, i.e. a purely astronomical definition. That is not

> where we differ. Let's leave that out of our discussion.

>

> What we are debating comes in the next step: To determine if the Ekadashi

> tithi should be observed on a particular day, we have to see if it begins

> before the brahma-muhurta of that particular day. The brahma-muhurta is

> part of the astrological way of dividing the day with variable length

> muhurtas, as we have discussed before. Thus we need to determine the

> lengths of the variable muhurtas

> of that day.

>

 

 

I disagree. First of all you have no where defined that Brahma Muhurta is to

be of variable length. Simple because it has a "name" doesn't automatically

mean it is vaiable in length.

 

Also the last time I looked the ekadasi had to start 2 muhurtas before

sunrise. I say that 2 clock muhurtas is what is meant.

 

You now want to debate what is astrological and what is astronomical. I am

getting kind of tired of this discussion. I have many other things to do.

 

So it seems that though you are adamant that it should be variable.

 

So now where to go? I do not want to continue debating this issue. As it is

going in endless circles and I know that you will never agree with me nor I

with you.

 

So Bhaktarupa where do we go from here?

 

 

 

>

> SSD: Ekadasi should start at least

> SSD: two astronomical muhurtas before sunrise to get the

> SSD: astrological results (so to speak) of Suddha ekadasi, not

> SSD: that it should start two astrological muhurtas before

> SSD: sunrise.

>

> The Ekadasi tithi should start before the brahma-muhurta, i.e. at least

> two variable length muhurtas before sunrise.

(Text PAMHO:8210834) ---------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8211812 (289 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 18-May-04 02:20 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8204191 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Subject: Re: Muhurta

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

> SSD: This clearly indicates that in the Vedanga

> SSD: Jyotish of the Rg and Yajur Veda that units of

> SSD: Muhurta are used to determine the difference in

> SSD: the length of the day and night over the course

> SSD: of a year. These muhurtas are fixed units of 48

> SSD: minutes each. Thus for astronomical calculations

> SSD: muhurtas are to be of fixed length.

>

> Of course, _all_ calculations must be based on fixed time units. I can't

> even imagine how somebody could be of any other opinion. Needless to say,

> I have never been of such strange opinions.

>

>

> SSD: Hence, for measuring astronomical phenomena (like

> SSD: our Vaisnava calendar) muhurtas of clock time are to

> SSD: be used.

>

> Naturally a calendar is based on astronomical data, this is of course also

> so for the Vaishnava Calendar.

>

> The important thing here is that the Vaishnava Calendar needs to determine

> the time of the brahma-muhurta, in connection to determining which day the

> Ekadasi tithi should be observed. And the brahma-muhurta is part of

> dividing the day with variable length muhurtas, as we have discussed

> before.

 

 

You have not established this. On what list of names is "Brahma" Muhurta

found.

 

I do not accept this. This is the information that the original algorithm

that I wrote is based on:

 

"Ekadasi

The ekadasi tithi must start at least 1 hr. 36 min.(two muhurtas)

before sunrise, i.e. by the beginning of dawn, arunodoya if the ekadasi

vrata or fasting is to be observed on that particular day. If the tithi

starts after this time, even though before sunrise, the ekadasi is called

viddha or contaminated, and the ekadasi fast should be rejected on that day

and observed on the next day. This may or may not combine with conditions

for mahadvadasi fast, but in either case a viddha ekadasi cannot be used

for fasting."

 

There is no mention of Brahmamuhurta. Just 2 muhurtas is mentioned. Here are

a few references to Brahma Muhurta from the Veda Base, there were only 20 or

so but these are symptomatic:

 

__________________

 

The time early in the morning, one and a half hours before sunrise, is

called brahma-muhurta. During this brahma-muhurta, spiritual activities are

recommended. Spiritual activities performed early in the morning have a

greater effect than in any other part of the day. SB 3.20.46

 

This activity of meditation indicates the brahma-muhurta, the early morning

hours before sunrise. SB 10.69.30 p

 

Having discussed pure and impure places, the Lord now discusses different

qualities of time. Certain times, such as the brahma-muhurta, the last few

hours before sunrise, are always auspicious for spiritual advancement. Other

times, not auspicious in themselves, become so by achievement of material

prosperity that facilitates one's mission in life. SB 11.21.9 p

 

Concerning pratah-smrti, remembrance of the Lord in the morning, in the

early morning hours (known as brahma-muhurta) one should get up and

immediately chant the Hare Krsna mantra, or at least "Krsna, Krsna, Krsna."

In this way, one should remember Krsna. Some slokas or prayers should also

be chanted. By chanting, one immediately becomes auspicious and

transcendental to the infection of material qualities. Actually one has to

chant and remember Lord Krsna twenty-four hours daily, or as much as

possible: CC Madhya 24.331 p

 

After the rasa dance was over, the night (the night of Brahma, a very, very

long period, as mentioned in the Bhagavad-gita) turned into the

brahma-muhurta. The brahma-muhurta takes place about one and a half hours

before sunrise. It is recommended that one should rise from bed at that time

and, after finishing daily ablutions, take to spiritual activities by

performing mangala-arati and chanting the Hare Krsna mantra. This period is

very convenient for the execution of spiritual activities. Krsna Book 23

 

Lord Krsna used to lie down with His sixteen thousand wives, but He would

also rise from bed very early in the morning, three hours before sunrise. By

nature's arrangement the crowing of the cocks warns of the brahma-muhurta

hour. There is no need of alarm clocks: as soon as the cocks crow early in

the morning, it is to be understood that it is time to rise from bed.

Hearing that sound, Krsna would get up from bed, but His rising early was

not very much to the liking of His wives. The wives of Krsna were so much

attached to Him that they would lie in bed embracing Him, and as soon as the

cocks crowed, Krsna's wives would be very sorry and would immediately

condemn the crowing. Krsna Book 70

 

<end of quotes>

 

This last one is actually quite interesting regarding the fact that the

Brahma Muhurta coincides with the approximate time when the cocks crow.

 

Once back in 1982 I had my palm read in Trivandrum by an old Nair gentleman.

I was asked the question when I was born, I mentioned I was born during teh

Brahma-muhurta. He was not familiar so I began to explain it was before teh

sunrise etc. A Nambuderi Brahmana was present and just told the man it was

when the cocks crow and he immediately understood.

 

It is a time before sunrize about when the cocks crow. SP has stated it is

about 1h 30m before sunrize etc.

 

It can not be established that the Brahmamuhurta is related to dividing the

night into 15 parts. May be the cocks crow at different times of the night

depending on the time of year but I strongly doubt that, they would crow at

about the same interval before sunrise everyday.

 

There is no indication anywhere that the Brahma Muhurta is a variable

muhurta achieved by dividing teh night by 15. It may be variable in that

people may declare different periods of time to be the Brahma Muhurta.

 

See also:

 

http://www.healthepic.com/ayurveda/swastha/daily_morning_rising.htm

 

In any case the definition for ascertaing the sudha ekadasi that I was given

had no mention of Brahma Muhurta but only that it should start 2 muhurtas

before sunrise.

 

The Brahma Muhurta happens to approximately correspond with these 2 muhurtas

before sunrise. But then again that woudl mean that teh Brahma Muhurta was

actual 2 muhurtas in length not one.

 

In any case as Srila Prabhupada points out it corresponds approximately to

the time of the cocks crowing, which was when Lord Krsna would rise.

 

 

>

> SSD: The beginning of a Tithi is an astronomical

> SSD: phenomenon.

>

> To determine the beginning of the tithi, which is an astrological concept,

> one needs to calculate the angle between the Sun and the Moon, i.e. a

> purely astronomical work.

 

Actually tithi is also a time keeping concept.

 

If you want to be strictly astrological then EVERYTHING is an astrological

concept, including which nostril your breath is blowing through which part

of your body you touch, what is the first letter of the first word you

utter, what you saw on the way to work, etc, etc.

 

You seem to assign things to being astrological or astronomical as it suits

you. And it was you who started this assignment of things in this way.

 

Don't forget that I began studying astrology before you became a devotee.

 

 

 

>

>

> SSD: Therefore defining the beginning of the

> SSD: ekadasi day should be determined using muhurtas of

> SSD: clock time not those of variable length that are

> SSD: used for astrological purposes.

>

> That conclusion does not follow.

 

As matter of fact it does follow. because the definition is that it must

start 2 muhurtas before sunrise. Also Brahmamuhurta coincides with crowing

of the cock. Cocks crow at same time before sunrise. You would have to

establish that during the summer the cocks in Sweden crow 48 minutes before

sunrise but in winter 3 hours before sunrise. I hardly think that that is

the case. They would crow at about the same time everyday with minor

variations not related to season but rather health of the crow.

 

>

> To observe the Ekadashi tithi on a particular day, that tithi must start

> before the brahma-muhurta of that day.

 

It is not stated in the definitions given to me that it must start before

Brahma Muhurta. Where do you get this from?

 

 

 

> The brahma-muhurta concept is part

> of the astrological way of dividing the day. Thus, we need to determine

> the variable length muhurtas for that day in order to find out when the

> brahma-muhurta starts.

>

 

You are the one who is bringing in Brahma Muhurta yet it seems that the

Brahma Muhurta is not an exactly calculated entity but rather a generally

auspicious time before sunrise coinciding with the crowing of the cocks. It

is not related to the division of the night into 15 parts. I have not seen

any evidence of that.

 

 

> And, again, our muhurta-debate has nothing to do with what time units our

> calculations are based on, which of course should be fixed time units.

>

>

 

 

 

>

>

> SSD: Astrology is based on astronomy. So to say that since the

> SSD: Pancanga is an astrological entity it should be calculated

> SSD: using astrological lengths of time is not correct.

>

> Who said that the calculations should be based on astrological lengths?

>

> I have always said that calculations, including the calculation of the

> variable muhurtas, should of course always be based on fixed time units (a

> linear time scale) as all calculations must be. I have never said anything

> else.

>

> It is difficult for me to believe that I have expressed myself in such an

> unclear way that you can misunderstand me so totally.

>

 

But what linear time units would you measure such muhurtas in if you didn't

have hours, seconds and minutes?

 

Think about this whole issue pretending that you never heard of hours,

minutes and seconds. Just imagine that you are living 5000 years ago.

Imagine that you are in the same culture as the persons who framed the rules

of the calendar.

 

 

>

> SSD: The basis for the astrology should be astronomy. It must be

> SSD: calculated astronomically but used astrologically.

>

> Naturally.

>

>

> SSD: It seems

> SSD: Markendeya rsi also wants to calculate it astrologically, ...

>

> You have misunderstood me totally.

>

>

> SSD: ...this is where we differ.

> SSD: By this I mean he wants to define

> SSD: the beginning of ekadasi tithi (an astronomical phenomenon)

> SSD: using an astrological length of time rather than an

> SSD: astronomical length of time.

>

> You confuse things.

 

No you are the one who is confused my friend.

 

 

>

> The beginning of the tithi, be it the Ekadasi tithi or any other tithi, is

> defined by multiples of 12 degrees longitudinal angle difference beween

> the Sun and the Moon, i.e. a purely astronomical definition. That is not

> where we differ. Let's leave that out of our discussion.

>

> What we are debating comes in the next step: To determine if the Ekadashi

> tithi should be observed on a particular day, we have to see if it begins

> before the brahma-muhurta of that particular day.

 

Again you introduce a term which is not actually part of the definition as I

know it. Why you bring in Brahma Muhurta at all?

 

 

>The brahma-muhurta is

> part of the astrological way of dividing the day with variable length

> muhurtas, as we have discussed before. Thus we need to determine the

> lengths of the variable muhurtas

> of that day.

>

>

> SSD: Ekadasi should start at least

> SSD: two astronomical muhurtas before sunrise to get the

> SSD: astrological results (so to speak) of Suddha ekadasi, not

> SSD: that it should start two astrological muhurtas before

> SSD: sunrise.

>

> The Ekadasi tithi should start before the brahma-muhurta, i.e. at least

> two variable length muhurtas before sunrise.

 

 

Brahma Muhurta is not mentioned in the definition orginally given to me to

calculate the calendar, only that it should be 2 muhurtas before dawn.

 

 

So now we have to figure out why you have gotten this idea that it is Brahma

Muhurta.

 

However, even if it is Brahma Muhurta you will then have to explain to me

how the cocks will crow at different times before sunrise in relationship to

the length of the night. That will be a good one. (-:

(Text PAMHO:8211812) ---------------------------------------

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8291196 (11 lines)

From: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN)

Date: 05-Jun-04 08:09 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu> (sent: 05-Jun-04

08:11 -0400)

To: Calendar Research [78]

Reference: Text PAMHO:8287163 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Comment: Text PAMHO:8291358 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Subject: Re: Bhanu Maharaja's Research on Muhurtas

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

As i mentioned in my text, the second quotation does indicate a flexible

division of time, but this is quoted only to give the reason for starting

the ekadasi day earlier. whether sanatana goswami intended that we

therefore use a flexible muhurta for calculating the ekadasis is still

questionable. as we have seen from the discussions, both flexible and fixed

are used according to scripture. and perhaps both are used or could be used

as regards ekadasi vrata. from reading the navadvipa panjika introduction,

the only mention is in terms of minutes, 136 minutes before sunrise. this

would indicate a fixed muhurta. if they were going to use a flexible one,

they would have mentioned it. other gaudiya panjikas may use the flexible

one....

(Text PAMHO:8291196) ---------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8444490 (187 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 11-Jul-04 12:16 -0400

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8247835 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:8553484 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Subject: Bhanu Maharaja's Research on Muhurtas

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

Sorry for my delayed response as many important things had to be taken care

of (and some are not finished yet).

 

My comments below:

 

> Hare Krishna! PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> Here are the results of Bhanu Maharaja's research on muhurtas. In my

> preliminary phone discussion with him we acknowledged that the term

> muhurta was sometimes used in the literature to imply a fixed kind of 48

> minutes and sometimes to imply a divisional kind of variable length. We

> concluded that it was important to look at the specific references that we

> use to decide on our calculation system and see if there were any clues in

> the surrounding text as to which of the two meanings of muhurta is being

> used. Bhanu Maharaj suggested that he look at Haribhakti Vilas and the

> Gaudiya Panjika.

>

> At this point I should explain to all the members of this conference why

> we thought that the Gaudiya Panjika was important. Earlier, Bhanu Maharaja

> and I had a lengthy discussion about how there were many different ways to

> calculate calendar events and when to observe different festivals. For

> many aspects of the calculations, in practice it is very difficult to

> assemble all the relevant sastric references and make a solid

> determination based upon sastra alone. Between the two of us we came to

> the conclusion that we should research the sastras as far as practical,

> and wherever we found no ambiguity or differences of opinion we should use

> that, and wherever the research was inconclusive, we would just follow the

> Gaudiya Panjika, since Srila Prabhupada did refer us to that book and thus

> it provides us a little safe island where we can rest our differences and

> go on with life.

>

> Now, if the other learned members of this conference would like to debate

> this point, we should do so, as it is relevant for not only the muhurta

> discussion but for just about all of the significant program changes that

> were mentioned in my initial list.

>

> That being said, here are the results of Maharaj's research:

>

> 1) Haribhakti Vilas =================================

>

> these are the only texts i find on this in the haribhakti vilasa. the

> ghatika or danda is still not defined. one would assume therefore that

> the length would be fixed. the second is giving a reason. in that verse

> however, it would be obvious that the durations would have to be

> changeable.

>

> Chapter 12

> 343. brahma vaivarta purana: the four dandas (ghatika) before the

> sunrise are called arunodaya according to the scriptures. This is the time

> for sannyasis to bathe. At this time all the water is as pure as Ganga

> water.

 

In this text there is no mention of muhurta of any kind but rather of Danda

aka Ghatika aka Nadika. This length is a fundamental unit of time measure

derived from the use of a water clock. This is fixed unit of time. And as

previously mentioned from Rig and Yajur Jyotish 2 Nadikas = 1 Muhurta hence

4 Nadikas = 2 Muhurtas. Thus the Muhurtas being based on fixed time units

(Nadikas) are also fixed AND NOT proportional.

 

The definition of the Nadika as based on a water clock is also found in 3rd

canto in the chapter Length of time based on the atom. 3.11.8-9

 

 

>

> 344. Three yamas are considered night. The first and last portions

> consisting of 4 nadis each (before the sunrise and after the sunset) are

> considered to be the end parts of the day.

 

Here two concepts are mixed. A Yama in this instance is a proportional unit,

in this case 1/3 of the night. Suppose for the sake of discussion that the

Yama of a particular night was 6.5 Nadikas in duration. We are then told

that the last 4 Nadikas of the last Yama are designated as the last portion

of the night, but the first 2.5 Nadis of the 3rd Yama are not.

 

Also in SB 3.11.9 it says that a Yama (in that instance a 1/4 of a day) can

be 6 or 7 Dandas (Nadikas) in length. The Danda is not made proportional but

the Yama is of flexible duration and measured in Dandas between 6-7 in

length. It is impossible for the Danda to be proportional because it is

itself based on the agregate of smaller motions which are based on smaler

motions down to the motion of the atom.

 

So in this case there is the the use of both proportional time unit Yama and

fixed time unit Nadika. The length of the Yama is itself measured in

Nadikas. The Nadika is not a proportional time unit.

 

 

>

> Tika: this gives the reason for allotting the time called arunodaya to

> four ghatikas.

> One should reject the four nadis at the beginning and end of night.

> Thus the sages call the night triyama, three yamas, by rejecting one yama

> (four + four nadis or ghatikas). This is because the period of four

> ghatikas at the beginning and end of night are well known as the

> sandhyas, the beginning and ending of the day.

>

 

This statement is a bit confusing as it lends doubt as to the meaning of the

length of a Yama. A Yama in this case (8 Nadikas) just being a fixed unit of

time straddeling the sandhya. A duration of +/- 4 Nadikas from the sunrise

and set. So it would appear that Yama is a flexible term in one place

determined by proportion and another as being 8 Nadikas.

 

MMW Sanskrit dictionary defines YAma thusly:

 

1 m. (for 2. see below , for 3. see p. 851 , col. 3) motion , course , going

, progress RV. AV. Br.

 

2 a road , way , path ib.

 

3 a carriage , chariot RV. (ifc. f. %{A})

 

4 a night-watch , period or watch of 3 hours , the 8th part of a day Mn.

MBh. &c.

 

5 pl. N. of a partic. class of gods MBh. Hariv. Pur. w.r. for %{yam-} q.v.)

 

6 f. N. of a daughter of Daksha (wife of Dbarma or Manu ; sometimes written

Hariv. Pur.

 

7 of an Apsaras Hariv.

 

So in the Hari Bhakti vilasa the Night is tri-yama but other places it would

have 4 parts. It is therefore arbitrary in definition to suite the

situation. In the above situation of HAri Bhakti vilasa they are considering

the three parts of the night and call each "Yamas."

 

I have seen in some places where they want to calculate Mandi that they will

divide the night into 8 parts and call each of them Yamas as well. So to get

all worked up about Yama is not called for. From the dictionary meaning it

seems that YAma is used to mark the progress or motion of time in various

ways.

 

 

 

 

 

> =========== end of Haribhakti Vilas research

>

> 2) Gaudiya Panjika =====================

>

> It is rather difficult to isolate an example of an ekadasi illustrating

> either divisional or fixed muhurta. however, at the beginning of the

> navadvipa panjika the following is stated:

> related to ekadasi, if dasami touches the arunodaya (2 muhurtas or 4

> dandas calculated as 1 hour and 36 minutes) then the tithi is called

> arunodaya viddha.

 

That is definitely showing that Muhurta is of fixed duration NOT

proportional.

 

>

> in another place it is said that a normal tithi lasts from sunrise to

> sunrise consisting of 60 dandas. no mention is made of long or short

> dandas according to the length of day or night.

 

By saying a tithi lasts from sunrise to sunrise I am assumming that they

mean for civil purposes a day (from sunrise to sunrise) is named after a

particular tithi for we all know that tithis seldom start at sunrise.

 

A danda can not be long or short. It is of fixed length measured by the

length of time it takes water to flow out of a container with a volume of

one Nadika.

 

As I had earlier mentioned if one started to use flexible murhurtas then it

leads to an infinite regress of making all Vedic time units flexible leading

to an absurdity. So this discussion has come to where we are even

questioning whether a Nadika is flexible! If that be the case what are the

fixed units used in Vedic chronology?

 

 

 

>

> the author of the introduction is not mentioned. it would imply fixed

> muhurtas.

 

Definitely.

 

 

 

>

> ================end of Gaudiya Panjika research

>

> So at this point I am interested to hear the comments of the learned

> members.

>

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

(Text PAMHO:8444490) ---------------------------------------

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text PAMHO:8444491 (134 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 11-Jul-04 12:19 -0400

To: "Magnus Andersson" <magnus.andersson@sverige.nu>

To: Calendar Research

Reference: Text PAMHO:8287163 by Internet: Magnus Andersson

Subject: Re: Bhanu Maharaja's Research on Muhurtas

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

> Hare Krishna! PAMHO. AGTSP!

>

> Sorry for the late reply. I have had a lot to do and wanted to give the

> whole thing some time also.

>

>

> > 1) Haribhakti Vilas =================================

> >

> > these are the only texts i find on this in the haribhakti vilasa. the

> > ghatika or danda is still not defined. one would assume therefore that

> > the length would be fixed. the second is giving a reason. in that

> > verse however, it would be obvious that the durations would have to be

> > changeable.

> >

> > Chapter 12

> > 343. brahma vaivarta purana: the four dandas (ghatika) before the

> > sunrise are called arunodaya according to the scriptures. This is the

> > time for sannyasis to bathe. At this time all the water is as pure as

> > Ganga water.

> >

> > 344. Three yamas are considered night. The first and last portions

> > consisting of 4 nadis each (before the sunrise and after the sunset) are

> > considered to be the end parts of the day.

> >

> > Tika: this gives the reason for allotting the time called arunodaya to

> > four ghatikas.

> > One should reject the four nadis at the beginning and end of night.

> > Thus

> > the sages call the night triyama, three yamas, by rejecting one yama

> > (four + four nadis or ghatikas). This is because the period of four

> > ghatikas at the beginning and end of night are well known as the

> > sandhyas, the beginning and ending of the day.

>

>

> From the above it follows that 1 yama is 8 nadis or ghatikas [...by

> rejecting one yama (four + four nadis or ghatikas)].

>

> So if the period from sunset to sunrise consists of 4 yamas then there

> must be

> 8

> x 4 = 32 ghatikas in that period, or 16 muhurtas. Thus it seems that the

> yama-system refered to above is connected to a 16-muhurta system and not a

> 15-muhurta system.

 

You have not read the statement correctly. The length of night is distinctly

stated in the text as 3 yamas "the sages call the night triyama, three

yamas" so how you are now saying it is 4 Yamas?

 

No what is meant is that they also call a Yama --a period of time--the last

4 dandas of the night plus the first 4 dandas of the day. That is all that

is meant. Similalry the last 4 dandas of the day and the first 4 Dandas of

the night they also call a Yama--a period of time. They use Yama to mean in

one case a proportional period and in another a fixed period.

 

That would be like saying from 11:30 PM to 00:30 AM is one hour. Does it

mean there are now 25 hours in the day?

 

 

 

>

> ...the word muhurta is given these definitions:

 

Their definitions are not authoritative

 

>

> ---------------------------------------------------

> muhurta: (Sanskrit) "Moment."

>

> 1) A period of time.

>

> 2) A certain division of a day or night. Muhurtas vary slightly in length

> as the

> lengths of days and nights change through the year. There are at least

> three muhurta systems. The first defines one muhurta as 1/8th of a day or

> night (= 1.5

> hours in a 12-hour night), the second as 1/15th of a day or night (= 48

> minutes), and the third as 1/16th of a day or night (= 45 minutes).

>

> 3) Muhurta also refers to the astrological science of determining the most

> auspicious periods for specific activities. See: brahma muhurta,

> auspiciousness,

> sandhya upasana.

 

 

This is not from any Sanskrit dictionary but their own definitions.

 

According to MMW Sanskrit dictionary which I previously quoted we get:

 

1: m. n. a moment , instant , any short space of time RV. &c. &c. (ibc. ,

in a moment ; ind , after an instant , presently)

 

2: a particular division of time , the 3oth part of a day , a period of 48

minutes (in pl. personified as the children of Muhu1rta) S3Br. &c. &c.

 

3: f. N. of a daughter of Daksha (wife of Dharma or Manu and mother of the

Muhu1rtas) Hariv. Pur.

 

 

It is true that Muhurta is one of the six major branches of astrology, also

translated as Electional Astrology. The science of choosing the most

auspicious moment - muhurta - to do something. I have done MANY muhurtas

since 1977 and the auspicious moment can be as short as 12-13 minutes (the

duration of 1 navamsa) or several hours. I prefer to narrow it down to the

best Navamsa. It has nothing to do with proportional divisions of the day or

night as is being discussed by us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> ---------------------------------------------------

>

> Now going back to the Haribhakti Vilasa. From verse 344 and the Tika it

> seems clear that we are dealing with variable muhurtas. And it seems that

> we might even have to use the 16-muhurta system instead of the 15-muhurta

> system.

>

> The mean length of a muhurta in the 16-muhurta system is 45 minutes and in

> the 15-muhurta system it is 48 minutes, i.e. a difference of 3 minutes.

> Talking about 2 muhurtas (arunodaya) we have a difference of 6 minutes.

> That is not a very big difference so it does not matter so much whether we

> use the 15-muhurta system or the 16-muhurta system. But it seems that the

> 16-muhurta system might even be the more correct one to use here.

>

> Whichever system we use it seems that we need to deal with variable

> muhurtas.

>

> Your servant, Markandeya Rishi das

 

 

You misread the text. Also the text never mentions Muhurtas, only Nadikas

which are by definition fixed lengths determined by water clocks. Do you

know want to make Nadikas variable as well?

(Text PAMHO:8444491) ---------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How we got variable muhurtas passed into ISKCON Law in the first place.

 

 

In this text Bhaktarupa confesses that he was the one responsible for having the erroneous concept of using Variable Muhura for calculating Ekadasi. He did this because as he admitted he was completely ignorant of the subject. See also my response to his text.

 

 

Letter PAMHO:8954095 (83 lines)

From: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Date: (*)

Reference: Text PAMHO:8946300 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Comment: Text PAMHO:9122372 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: Bhanu Maharaja's Research on Muhurtas

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

> > BTW, his recollection of the history is a bit different that what you

> > state here. He only remembers you advocating fixed muhurtas in recent

> > years. In fact, he said that it was you who suggested asking the pandits

> > if they thought we should switch to a proportional system.

>

> I gave him all the questions to ask since he didn't know what to ask. But

> I recall from the beginning that I was very surprized that he had put the

> relative muhurtas in the program against my wishes. He changed my original

> code, I had it as fixed muhurtas not relative ones. That reveals what my

> original opinion was and still is. Just because I asked him to ask

> question doesn't mean that I wanted to adopt it. I just wanted to find out

> what was going on since I could not go myself. Then when he came back he

> changed the program against my will. I thought that he would come back and

> furnish me with the info and then I would make my decision on how it

> should be, instead he started making the decisions because he now had the

> source code and was doing the coding, he thought his opinion was just as

> good as if not better than mine and he had already convinced HKS so I was

> stuck and rather ticked off that my work had been savaged in this way by

> someone who had no real concept of jyotish or astronomy or calendars but

> whose forte was coding.

 

Well, it may not have been his unilateral decision either, but just a

misunderstanding. Here is what I remember. I was the GBC Secretary, and even

though I knew little of the history of what had happened between you

previously, I found myself with a copy of the calendar report in my hand,

given to me by Harikesh, with the responsibility to prepare the GBC agenda.

Back then the GBC meeting system was quite primitive. I would receive a

bunch of rough ideas from various GBC men and I had the job of making them

into proposals. I don't remember meeting Markandeya, or talking to him on

the phone. I read the report and wrote up the legislation that adopted VCal

as the official calendar. The big topic was whether the calendar should be

location-specific, or everyone would follow the days calculated for Mayapur.

The report showed that a majority of the pandits voted for location-specific, and I wrote that as the proposal. The next topic in the report was muhurtas, and a majority of the pandits voted for proportionate. So I added that to the proposal. Simple. There was a vote, and it was law. I wrote to Markandeya with the news, and I remember in his answer he sounded a little surprised. Then he made the coding changes.

 

So I don't think it was a power play on his part. That was before the days

of email, and there were a lot of misunderstandings like this that could not

be researched before the GBC had to vote on them, and we just did the best

we could.

 

> He of course was better than his predeccessors.

> HKS had previously handed the code to Prsnigarbha Dasa (now Dasi) who

> started playing with the code and doing a lot of "search and replace" to

> make it run "better" and instead introduced so many bugs into the program

> that it looked like a swarm of mosquitos on a rice paddy. HKS had to fly

> me Sweden in 1988 to work with Markendeya Rsi to sort the whole thing out.

> That is when we settled on Makendeya rsi to do the coding and I sent him

> the latest and greatest version of Quick Basic to write it in. The deal

> that I didn't have the time to work on the program, but since he was

> supported by HKS he did. He knew coding but didn't know jyotish and etc,

> his job was to just do what I told him to do. That didn't last long. I was

> very disappointed when he then just took over and started making these

> changes based on his "research". Unfortunately he didn't have the back

> ground to understand the research. So basically I have been wanting to put

> the program back to its original form and take out the bug that he

> introduced. Unfortunately I do not have the original code that I wrote

> back in 1983 in digital form. The earliest I have is from 1994. Though I

> may have a hard copy of my orginal code on file in storage. If necessary I

> could try and find it and show you my original algorithms. I guess you

> could say that I deeply resent that the program I wrote with a lot of pain

> and suffering (I could tell you a lot of stories about what I had to go

> through to write that program starting with having to borrow $2500 for the

> hardware it was written on because the GBC men who were supposed to fund

> it refused to give a dime) was manipulated out of my control and put into

> the hands of an upstart who then introduced changes that I adamantly

> opposed but could now do nothing about. It is an insult.

 

It seems unlikely that he actually understood that you had a preference for

fixed muhurtas way back then. He quite straightforwardly mentioned that he

thought you were only advocating them for the last few years. It seems he

felt you wanted him to do the research and based on that make a decision

about the muhurta issue.

 

In any case, we are still left with the need to do more research, other

pressing changes that need to be made to the program, and insufficient

evidence to reverse the decision at this point. We'd like to go ahead and

make the other changes, as per the list circulated.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

(Text PAMHO:8954095) ---------------------------------------

 

 

I point out to Bhaktarupa many things including that calculating Ekadasi correctly is not a minor detail as he thinks it is but a pressing matter. The whole point of VCAL in the first place was to have accurate Ekadasi’s.

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:9122372 (214 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 09-Dec-04 19:11 -0500

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Cc: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN)

Reference: Text PAMHO:8954095 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Subject: Bhanu Maharaja's Research on Muhurtas

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

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Sorry for the delay in answering this but I had to take care of a number of

matters that piled up while I was ill in October. However, I have been

ruminating on the subject.

 

 

> > > BTW, his recollection of the history is a bit different that what you

> > > state here. He only remembers you advocating fixed muhurtas in recent

> > > years. In fact, he said that it was you who suggested asking the

> > > pandits if they thought we should switch to a proportional system.

> >

> > I gave him all the questions to ask since he didn't know what to ask.

> > But I recall from the beginning that I was very surprized that he had

> > put the relative muhurtas in the program against my wishes. He changed

> > my original code, I had it as fixed muhurtas not relative ones. That

> > reveals what my original opinion was and still is. Just because I asked

> > him to ask question doesn't mean that I wanted to adopt it. I just

> > wanted to find out what was going on since I could not go myself. Then

> > when he came back he changed the program against my will. I thought that

> > he would come back and furnish me with the info and then I would make my

> > decision on how it should be, instead he started making the decisions

> > because he now had the source code and was doing the coding, he thought

> > his opinion was just as good as if not better than mine and he had

> > already convinced HKS so I was stuck and rather ticked off that my work

> > had been savaged in this way by someone who had no real concept of

> > jyotish or astronomy or calendars but whose forte was coding.

>

> Well, it may not have been his unilateral decision either, but just a

> misunderstanding. Here is what I remember. I was the GBC Secretary, and

> even though I knew little of the history of what had happened between you

> previously, I found myself with a copy of the calendar report in my hand,

> given to me by Harikesh, with the responsibility to prepare the GBC

> agenda. Back then the GBC meeting system was quite primitive. I would

> receive a bunch of rough ideas from various GBC men and I had the job of

> making them into proposals. I don't remember meeting Markandeya, or

> talking to him on the phone. I read the report and wrote up the

> legislation that adopted VCal as the official calendar.

 

>The big topic was whether the calendar should be location-specific, or everyone would > follow the days calculated for Mayapur.

 

The whole idea of the research was to establish that the calendar had to be

calculated for the local temple and not just based on Mayapura as JPS then

wanted. It was JPS who literally pushed me into making the calendar in 1982.

He then does a volte face a few years later. Hence need for the research

trip to India.

 

 

>The report showed that a majority of the

> pandits voted for location-specific, and I wrote that as the proposal.

 

 

>The

> next topic in the report was muhurtas, and a majority of the pandits voted

> for proportionate. So I added that to the proposal. Simple.

 

That was a huge mistake. The whole controversy was whether the calendar

should be local or based on Mayapura. Not on the nature of Muhurta.

 

That question along with others was asked because I was curious about many

things and since Markendeya Rishi was going to India to do the research I

gave him a list of questions to ask Pandits since I could not go myself.

Then I was going to analyse the results and make some decision. But instead

others made the (wrong) decisions.

 

Markendeya may also have favored proportional muhurtas before, I can't

remember now if it was a point of contention before the trip to India.

 

 

 

> There was a

> vote, and it was law. I wrote to Markandeya with the news, and I remember

> in his answer he sounded a little surprised. Then he made the coding

> changes.

>

 

Well first of all it shows that my original code which he had to change was

for fixed muhurtas. Secondly he may have been surprised because muhurtas was

not the issue but rather local versus Mayapur. However we can see from his

dogged insistence on using proportional muhurtas that he is definitely biased in that direction.

 

 

> So I don't think it was a power play on his part. That was before the days

> of email, and there were a lot of misunderstandings like this that could

> not be researched before the GBC had to vote on them, and we just did the

> best we could.

 

My correspondence with him was much more voluminous than yours and covered

many years.

 

For what ever reason proportional muhurta was wrongly made "law" in ISKCON

when it should not have been. And for this reason MUST be reversed before

anything else is done. What is the point of doing other things when every Ekadasi is potentially wrong? Get the ekadasis correct first then worry about other details.

 

As Varaha Mihira (a great authority in Jyotish) says: "An error in making a

pancanga is equivalant to the sin of killing a brahmana."

 

 

 

>

> > He of course was better than his predeccessors.

> > HKS had previously handed the code to Prsnigarbha Dasa (now Dasi) who

> > started playing with the code and doing a lot of "search and replace" to

> > make it run "better" and instead introduced so many bugs into the

> > program that it looked like a swarm of mosquitos on a rice paddy. HKS

> > had to fly me Sweden in 1988 to work with Markendeya Rsi to sort the

> > whole thing out. That is when we settled on Makendeya rsi to do the

> > coding and I sent him the latest and greatest version of Quick Basic to

> > write it in. The deal that I didn't have the time to work on the

> > program, but since he was supported by HKS he did. He knew coding but

> > didn't know jyotish and etc, his job was to just do what I told him to

> > do. That didn't last long. I was very disappointed when he then just

> > took over and started making these changes based on his "research".

> > Unfortunately he didn't have the back ground to understand the research.

> > So basically I have been wanting to put the program back to its original

> > form and take out the bug that he introduced. Unfortunately I do not

> > have the original code that I wrote back in 1983 in digital form. The

> > earliest I have is from 1994. Though I may have a hard copy of my

> > orginal code on file in storage. If necessary I could try and find it

> > and show you my original algorithms. I guess you could say that I deeply

> > resent that the program I wrote with a lot of pain and suffering (I

> > could tell you a lot of stories about what I had to go through to write

> > that program starting with having to borrow $2500 for the hardware it

> > was written on because the GBC men who were supposed to fund it refused

> > to give a dime) was manipulated out of my control and put into the hands

> > of an upstart who then introduced changes that I adamantly opposed but

> > could now do nothing about. It is an insult.

>

> It seems unlikely that he actually understood that you had a preference

> for fixed muhurtas way back then.

 

Well why is it that he had to make it proportional by changing it from my

original algorithm where it was fixed. That would in itself suggest what my

preference was, would it not?

 

> He quite straightforwardly mentioned

> that he thought you were only advocating them for the last few years.

 

I have definitely been advocating them and he has definitely been against it

every inch of the way. "Few" is a relatively small number. I advocated fixed

muhurtas by writing them into the original program back in 1983. 1983 is

when I started advocating fixed muhurtas. Not yesterday.

 

> seems he felt you wanted him to do the research and based on that make a

> decision about the muhurta issue.

 

Yes I wanted him to do the research and I would make the decision NOT

SOMEONE ELSE do it for me.

 

>

> In any case, we are still left with the need to do more research, other

> pressing changes that need to be made to the program, and insufficient

> evidence to reverse the decision at this point. We'd like to go ahead and

> make the other changes, as per the list circulated.

 

The MOST pressing thing is to make sure that ekadasis are observed

correctly. There are between 24-26 ekadasis in a year. Hence to make sure

they are correct seems very pressing to me, much more pressing than all the

other items combined.

 

Therefore I strongly suggest that the first order of business is to dispatch

the proportional muhurtas to the nether regions and replace them with the

original fixed muhurtas. How can I have any enthusiasm for thinking about

other changes in the calendar when the MOST important one is neglected.

 

You say there is insufficient evidence to reverse the decision. It should

never have been made in the first place. And it works both ways, there was

not enough evidence to reverse the original setting that I had programmed

into the algorithms, that being fixed muhurtas. And, aside from that I have

given plenty of evidence that it needs to be fixed muhurtas.

 

Here is a very simple example choose any day, say December 21, 2004 place St

Petersburg, Russia. Using ONLY Vedic time units figure out what tithi it is,

when the last tithi ended and next one began, when sunset is, etc. And since

it is supposed to be Ekadasi find out if ekadasi started soon enough to be

considered sudha or not. Try a few of those and you will see why Muhurtas

have to be fixed.

 

I learned how to calculate charts in the beginning by hand using traditional

vedic methods and time units. When you do it according to Vedic world view

then you understand that since 1 muhurta = 2 ghatika it cannot at same time

equal a different quantity and that quantity change daily and also change to

a different value at night.

 

But if you are thinking in Western time units (which you keep as fixed units

through out the calculation) then there is the tendency to think that

Muhurta can prortional. Of course you would not want to make the "minute"

you are using to calculate the muhurta proprtional. You want the minute to

always be 60 seconds long.

 

So let us do first things first. You can simply explain to the GBC what you

just did to me. That because of communication difficulties at the time, your

ignorance of the subject, their ignorance of the subject etc, etc you didn't

know what was going on and made a mistake by having it put it and made law.

But on further discussion with the original author of the program--me--that

it should never have been changed in the first place and it should go back

to the original which is fixed muhurtas.

 

I think there is still time to make this proposal to the GBC, and even if

not it shold still be made because of the urgent nature of following Ekadasi

correctly.

 

 

 

Your humble servant

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

(Text PAMHO:9122372) ---------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Resignation letter from the Vaisnava Calendar Committee

 

Finding myself having to deal with non-experts for many months I finally resigned from the Vaisnava Calendar Committee.

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:9354082 (36 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 28-Jan-05 20:28 -0500

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Cc: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN)

Subject: VCAL

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

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Bhaktivignavinasa Nrsimhadeva Bhagavan kijaya!

 

I have been meaning to write this letter for some time but am only now doing

it. Let me preface this by saying that I have nothing against you nor have

you offended me, hopefully the feeling is mutual. I consider you a gentleman

and I appreciated the way you hosted me when I was in Bhubaneshvara in 2003.

 

I am resigning from the VCAL committee. I do not feel right about it, which

is why I have not given much input. Basically it boils down to this: I wrote

the program, I am the copyright holder (I have NOT signed it over to ISKCON

or the BBT) and I know the most about the subject of calendars, the

associated astronomy/astrology, Vedic systems of keeping time, etc, etc and

have been doing this for almost 30 years (even I can't believe that, how

time flies). Yet in their wisdom the GBC put you in charge. It doesn't make

sense. It would be like putting me in charge of a committee of senior

accountants. I would not be qualified nor would I take the position.

 

You have not shown any indication of giving the leadership to more

experienced or qualified persons, nor am I interested in a fight and

potential offences so I will just leave and wish you the best.

 

However, considering that I am the copyright holder of VCAL, this would

necessitate that your committee explore avenues other than VCAL.

 

I beg to remain.

 

Your humble servant,

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

 

PS I am sending a copy of this letter to Praghosa Prabhu.

 

PPS I am vacating the Calendar Research forum and putting you in charge.

VCAL Copyright Issues

 

 

 

Letter PAMHO:11103577 (83 lines)

From: Internet: "The Futures Group Inc." <info@futures-trader.com>

Date: 09-Feb-06 10:57 -0500

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [65910] (received:

11-Feb-06 01:03 -0500)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [30598]

(received: 10-Feb-06 00:19 -0500)

Cc: Bhakti Charu Swami [57958] (received: 09-Feb-06 17:43 -0500)

Cc: Romapada Swami [111055] (received: 09-Feb-06 13:10 -0500)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [71074] (received: 01-Mar-06 08:42 -0500)

Cc: Dravida (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) [23920] (forwarded: 07-Aug-06

22:00 -0400) (sender: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA))

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [52179] (received: 10-Feb-06 04:22 -0500)

Cc: Jagadisananda (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [1524] (forwarded: 07-Aug-06

22:00 -0400) (sender: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA))

Cc: Jasomatinandan (das) ACBSP (Gujarat - IN) [11768] (received:

11-Feb-06 23:26 -0500)

Cc: Braja Bihari (das) BJD (Vrindavana - IN) [131540] (received:

09-Feb-06 12:33 -0500)

Cc: "GKD" <gregjay@bluebottle.com> (sender: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP

(Vedic Astrologer) (USA))

Cc: ISKCON Resolve (Office) [1217] (received: 13-Feb-06 03:01 -0500)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [64716] (received: 09-Feb-06

23:03 -0500)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [72313] (received: 09-Feb-06 16:48 -0500)

Cc: (BBTI) Directors (Global) [8445]

Reference: Text PAMHO:11082975 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11111550 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: Re: Copyright infringement / why I resigned from the Calendar

Committee.

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

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

The BBT directors have discussed the VCAL copyright issue, and the

conclusion was to officially request you to kindly remove the BBT from the

copyright notice.

 

I wish to add that it is my personal understanding that this will mean that

Shyamasundara Prabhu will, in turn, be put on the copyright notice.

 

Thank you, Prabhu, for your kind assistance. Hare Krishna.

 

Your servant,

Satyanarayana dasa

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)"

<Bhaktarupa.ACBSP@pamho.net>

To: "Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)"

<Shyamasundara.ACBSP@pamho.net>

Cc: "Bhakti Charu Swami" <Bhakti.Charu.Swami@pamho.net>; "Romapada Swami"

<Romapada.Swami@pamho.net>; "Sivarama Swami" <Sivarama.Swami@pamho.net>;

"Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP@pamho.net>; "Jasomatinandan (das)

ACBSP (Gujarat - IN)" <Jasomatinandan.ACBSP@pamho.net>; "Braja Bihari (das)

BJD (Vrindavana - IN)" <Braja.Bihari.BJD@pamho.net>; "ISKCON Resolve

(Office)" <ISKCON.Resolve@pamho.net>; "Lilasuka BCS"

<Lilasuka.BCS@pamho.net>; "Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)"

<Praghosa.SDG@pamho.net>; "(BBT) Directors (Global)" <Directors@pamho.net>

Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:48 AM

Subject: Copyright infringement / why I resigned from the Calendar

Committee.

 

 

> >

> > > He was calling as a BBT trustee to find out your position regarding

> > > copyright issues so that the calendar committee could decide how to

> > > proceed. I can see now why you said that "you wanted me to sign it

> > > over".

> > >

> > > > The BBT was not really interested in the copyrights

> > > > and last December Jayadvaita Swami informed decisively the BBT was

not

> > > > interested. Hence take that statement that the BBT owns the

copyright

> > > > to my program off your website. Nothing can be done about progarms

> > > > already in circulation with the inaccurate statement, but your

website

> > > > can be changed.

> > >

> > > If the BBT tells me to change it I will.

> >

> > Did the BBT tell you to put it on?

>

> Yes they did, by publishing VCal under their copyright fifteen years ago.

I

> know that Jayadvaita Maharaja told you that they no longer care about it,

> but that was not an official decision of the BBT (that I know of), and it

is

> also hearsay as far as I am concerned. So please take the trouble to

discuss

> with the BBT. I am not doing this to give you a hard time. Really! Please

> believe me. I hold no grudges in this affair. I am just trying to do my

duty

> properly. It makes no difference to the functioning of the site or the

> activities of the calendar committee at this point in time who the owner

of

> the copyright is. We have moved on to another reality and I could care

less

> about VCal copyrights.

>

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

>

> > If not then why do you need their

> > permission to take it off?

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

>

(Text PAMHO:11103577) --------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

 

Letter PAMHO:11182138 (35 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 26-Feb-06 16:23 -0500

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Subject: Rose and Thunderbolt

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

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu,

 

pamho agtsp

 

I understand from what I have heard that you feel offended by my recent

texts regarding VCAL. I resorted to being heavy with you because when I was

polite to you I was ignored. However, because the definition of muhurta was

a crucial point I had to get your attention and that of others. It seems

that I was successful in making those who need to know understand what was

at stake. And, it also seems that I am more than vindicated because it seems

Markendeya Rsi's research was heavily flawed and actually no Gaudiya Panjika

makers used flexible muhurta.

 

I am nice to people because I want to be, not because I have to be. I can be

either a rose or a thunderbolt but with you it seems that you mistook my

rose side as a sign of weakness and could thus be ignored. I hope that in

the future you pay more attention when people are being polite and not wait

till they have to show their thunderbolt side. Things will be more pleasant

for all concerned. I much prefer to be a rose but will do the needful

otherwise.

 

After speaking to Svavasa and understanding your mood I will no longer be

involved in the calendar. It is all yours. My major objective of having

fixed muhurtas established has been accomplished, I have no further

interest.

 

One thing prabhu, you have not yet told me if you intend on following the

BBT directive and change the copyright notice on your site to reflect what

Satyanarana wrote, that being that the BBT is not the copyright holder but

that I am. You said you needed them to tell you. Well they have so when will

you comply?

 

yhs

 

Shyama

(Text PAMHO:11182138) --------------------------------------

 

 

Letter PAMHO:11778288 (314 lines)

From: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)

Date: 20-Jun-06 07:01 -0400

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71062] (received:

20-Jun-06 07:29 -0400)

To: Jasomatinandan (das) ACBSP (Gujarat - IN) [12983] (received:

08-Aug-06 02:29 -0400)

To: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA) [7984] (received:

20-Jun-06 08:10 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [26852] (received: 21-Jun-06 01:16 -0400)

Cc: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R) [65330] (received:

20-Jun-06 10:46 -0400) (sender: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana

Goswami)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [28545] (received: 20-Jun-06

07:11 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [77201] (received: 20-Jun-06 07:58 -0400)

Cc: Dravida (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) [23923] (forwarded: 07-Aug-06

22:00 -0400)

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [54479] (received: 20-Jun-06 16:45 -0400)

Cc: Jagadisananda (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [1527] (forwarded: 07-Aug-06

22:00 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17504] (received: 25-Jun-06

11:34 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [20789] (received: 20-Jun-06 15:45

-0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [80844] (received: 20-Jun-06 12:25 -0400)

-0400)

Subject: VCal

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

Dear Maharajas and Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Bhakta-vijna-vinasa Narasimhadeva ki jaya!

 

Please excuse my tardiness in replying to your texts. For this reason I have

included all previous corresspondence at the end of my reply to refresh

everyone's memory. Now for my reply.

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu (BP) wrote:

 

1. The BBT passed a resolution in April 2005 assigning whatever rights they

had in VCal to the GBC. They never communicated this to the GBC, and the GBC

has never accepted the rights. Nor would the GBC be prepared to accept

disputed rights.

 

Shyamasundara Dasa (SD):

 

The BBT had no rights to assign as I am the sole copyright holder of the

program I wrote, no one else. And, I have not assigned rights to anyone

else. Hence, the rest of the discussion is as futile as a mathematical

calculation where a mistake is made at the onset.

 

I will dispute to the nth degree.

 

Satyanarayana Prabhu said:

 

"It is important to note that Bhaktarupa Prabhu himself, by his own

admission, had requested the BBT (several times in the past to different

Trustees) to assign the VCal rights to the GBC. He clearly and unambiguously

requested this. The BBT decided in April 2005 to do just that. Now that the

situation is not to his liking, he says that the GBC, who he represents,

never asked for the rights in the first place. Obviously this is counter to

the history of what happened."

 

SD:

 

Since the BBT didn't have the rights to begin with they were confused at

Bhaktarupa's request. Thus several of the trustees contacted me including

Jayadvaita Svami and Svavas Prabhu. In April 2003 while in LA I met with

Svavas Prabhu and other NA BBT men to discuss this issue and I flatly

refused to turn over my rights to the program to the BBT. So how they can

give it to anyone else? Who gave them the right to say it is their

copyright? As I said to Sura Prabhu in April 2003: "Where is my signature on

a legal document where I have written off to them?" No where. Similarly

Jayadvaita Svami also approached me on the urging of BP and I said basically the same thing. No go.

 

I should say that in reality the BBT didn't want anything to do with it.

They were surprised by the whole thing as was I and didn't know anything

about it. They knew they had no rights to the program but were being

pressured by to do so.

 

I have very good working relations with the trustees and directors that I

know and hope to continue to do so. I do not fault the BBT as it was never

their idea to do this.

 

By mistake Makendaya Rsi put the copyright notice in VCAL that the BBT was

the copyright owner to something that was not theirs.

 

For many years Bhaktarupa Prabhu has worked from behind to get the copyright of VCAL for the BBT as evidenced by the statement of Satyanarayana Prabhu. I do not recall that he once in years past approached me directly. Rather he urged BBT men to contact me and get me to hand it over to them so they could then give it to him. I have not done so.

 

In a nut shell this is how I see it:

 

 

 

I have something.

 

Bhaktarupa wants it -he has hinted why-- he doesn't want to do the hard work

that I went through to create it.

 

He tries indirect means to get it which do not work.

 

I am very disturbed by this type of behavior and it irritates me to no end.

 

________________

 

 

Because of my experience with Bhaktarupa Prabhu in the Vaisnava Calendar

Committee and his on-going attempts to wrest control of the copyright from

me I am not inclined to be cooperative.

 

Since the BBT doesn't want the copyright and said so (because they know it

is not theirs) and as the GBC is not prepared to accept disputed rights as

Bhaktarupa Prabhu has said (and which I will dispute to the nth degree) then

I suggest the following peaceful solution:

 

That BP do as the BBT earlier said, to take their name off his website as

the copyright holders and publish the actual copyright holder's name. That

would be me.

 

Many free programs are available but the copyright is retained by the

original author. That is the case here.

 

The public can use the program which I wrote as a service to the Vaisnavas

without any aid or support, I might add, from any ISKCON authority, neither

the BBT nor the GBC - I got not one penny in aid from either of them to

write the program. I had to borrow the money from my grandmother.

 

Anyone interested in a short history of what I went through to write VCAL

can write me separately.

 

Your humble servant

 

Shyamasundara Dasa

__________________________

 

Bhaktarupa wrote:

 

 

Dear Shyamasundara Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

I am very sorry for the long delay in replying. I had to wait until there

was adequate time to deal with the issues carefully.

 

Markandeya Rishi has replied to the texts from Bhanu Maharaja regarding the

muhurta issue. Although he is maintaining some personal doubts and would

like to see more research conducted, he has no objection to the committee

phasing over to fixed muhurta mode as soon as possible. I concur with him on

that. When the phase over will be is another discussion.

 

Regarding copyright issues, things became quite convoluted due to a whole

series of misunderstandings. I have spent the last few days in communication

with other devotees on the subject, and here is an overview of the current

status:

 

1. The BBT passed a resolution in April 2005 assigning whatever rights they

had in VCal to the GBC. They never communicated this to the GBC, and the GBC

has never accepted the rights. Nor would the GBC be prepared to accept

disputed rights.

 

2. The result of this is that the BBT Trustees are not willing to say or do

anything, since they assume that they have already transferred the rights.

The GBC is also not willing to say or do anything since they never asked for

the disputed rights in the first place.

 

3. Satyanarayan Prabhu's text of last February was inappropriate. He was

trying to make a quick solution to satisfy you, but it was in conflict with

points 1 and 2. One or more BBT Trustees also privately objected to his text

at the time. The objecting trustee(s) felt that BBT had certainly

contributed substantially to the writing of VCal, so they could not see why

a copyright notice in your exclusive name would be appropriate.

 

4. I am forced to conclude that the VCal rights are just as they were prior

to April 2005 -- the BBT has published the program with its exclusive

copyright notice. Thus, on my own I cannot change what I have written at the

vcal site.

 

However, there is an opportunity to move forward here. The GBC Body could be

approached to accept the rights offered by the BBT if there was no dispute

connected with them. This I would like to negotiate with you.

 

Perhaps we can agree that the VCal software can belong to you and the GBC

Body jointly. We could then republish them with a revised copyright notice

(and perhaps even fix the muhurta calculation in the process). Further uses

for the source code could be restricted to those things to which both you

and the VCal committee agree.

 

What do you think? Can we move in this direction and sort out the details?

 

Please let me know.

 

I have added Praghosa Prabhu as a receiver in his capacity as ISKCON CCO. He

will be the official endoser and communicator to the GBC should we reach

agreement on the above.

 

Hoping this finds you well.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Satyanarayana Prabhu responded thusly:

 

Hare Krishna... I wish to state that I see some misinterpretations or

misrepresentations in Bhaktarupa Prabhu's letter. Not only in the text of

Brahma Muhurta Prabhu comments, but in the validity of the assignment of

rights by the BBT to the GBC.

 

In the first case, it is a fact that when I sent that letter stating that

the BBT officially wanted their name removed from the copyright notice, this

was precisely what Brahma Muhurta Prabhu had requested be done.

 

I also stated in that letter my own personal understanding that since the

BBT was to be removed from the copyright notice, this meant that

Shyamasundara Prabhu was to be put on the notice. This indeed was my

personal understanding. And *no one* from the BBT objected when I sent out

that letter.

 

Whatever my personal opinion was about who should get the rights following

the removal of the BBT from the copyright notice, and whatever Brahma

Muhurta's opinion was about the same thing, amounts to our personal opinions

or understandings, which is exactly how they were presented.

 

However I wrote my statement primarily to try to avoid exactly what

eventually happened, which was our receipt of a letter from Bhaktarupa

Prabhu claiming that the BBT had made a "half decision" in his words (by

simply removing ourselves from the copyright notice). He said that we should

have officially assigned the rights to Shyamasundara Prabhu. So my personal

understanding was put there as a suggestion to do just that, so that there

might be ultimately be some kind of "full decision". The fact is that BBT

could *not* officially assign the rights to Shyamasundara Prabhu because it

had already assigned the rights to the GBC in April 2005.

 

In my humble opinion, Bhaktarupa Prabhu's current letter is no solution at

all as it puts the situation back into the "half decision" or worse

category, the very one that he didn't want to be in.

 

It is important to note that Bhaktarupa Prabhu himself, by his own

admission, had requested the BBT (several times in the past to different

Trustees) to assign the VCal rights to the GBC. He clearly and unambiguously requested this. The BBT decided in April 2005 to do just that. Now that the situation is not to his liking, he says that the GBC, who he represents, never asked for the rights in the first place. Obviously this is counter to the history of what happened.

 

Please note that the official resolution and notice from the BBT was

basically this:

 

1) That all rights we may have had in the VCal program are transferred to

the GBC, and

 

2) That we request that the BBT be removed from the copyright notice.

 

Therefore since the GBC, through their deputed representative, clearly did

request that the BBT assign them the rights (or whatever rights it might

have) in the VCal program, and since the BBT made the transfer, we see that

the GBC now clearly owns whatever rights the BBT may have had. Therefore it

is now up to them, or their deputed representative, to decide how they wish

to proceed from here.

 

ys,

Satyanarayana dasa

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu responded:

 

Dear Satyanarayan Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

Prabhuji, I tried my best to discuss these issues with you and/or the BBT

trustees, but you all said that you were out of the picture and that I

should try to work something out on my own. Even though I felt the BBT was

turning a blind eye to significant but excusable errors in the way they have

handled this issue, still I tried my best to suggest to Shyamasundara Prabhu

a peaceful way forward that would hopefully save the BBT trustees from

having to get back involved. Then you choose to pick it to pieces in a

semi-public forum! I guess I should be grateful for getting so much mercy

from the vaisnavas!

 

If you want to have an in-depth discussion about who is mistaken about what

as far as the current status is concerned, then that is fine. I have

analyzed the situation as best I can with my limited intellectual powers and

would be happy if you together with some other BBT trustees took the time to

show me where my analysis is faulty. But barring that, there is no way that

I will be able to change the copyright notice on my own, short of coming to

some sort of peaceful settlement with Shyamasundara Prabhu. I am not saying

this to be obstinent or to give the BBT or Shyamasundara Prabhu a hard time.

Believe me, I have not asked to be put in this situation.

 

And what is the big harm to anyone with the compromise plan that I have

offered? The BBT trustees get the biggest benefit, as they are off the hook

for their series of significant (but excusable) errors in the way they have

handled the issue. Shyamasundara Prabhu gets mention in the VCal copyright

notice, something that he does not have now, and there is a possibility that

his desire to have ISKCON devotees follow fixed muhurta ekadasis may get

realized sooner rather than later. I get to sleep peacefully at night, and

there is the possibility, depending on Shyamasundara Prabhu's blessings,

that I may be able to peek at the VCal source code when I organize the

writing of its replacement software.

 

And there may be other solutions as well. I am open to suggestions. I was

just trying to move the situation forward based upon the situation you left

me with.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Satyanarayana Prabhu responded:

 

Dear Bhaktarupa Prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP

 

Hari bol Prabhu, thank you kindly for your letter, but may I first humbly

note that it is our view that your good self was the one picking apart my

original letter -- as well as the BBT's decisions on this matter -- and that

you had presented the issue in a way that we did not agree with. That was

the part of your letter just sent, and previous letters, that I had a

problem with. Naturally I cannot just let that go by without a response,

since I do not feel that the BBT body or myself were incorrect in how we

responded to the issue.

 

But I hope we can let this rest now -- or even agree to somewhat disagree

about certain points -- but still let it rest now.

 

Certainly though I have no problem with the other part of your letter, where

you suggest a positive compromise. I think this can be seen as a logical and

reasonable suggestion, and indeed it is now your suggestion to make. No

doubt everyone appreciates the efforts being made to resolve this issue

intelligently and in a mutually beneficial way.

 

Thank you again, Prabhu. Hare Krishna.

 

Your servant,

Satyanarayana dasa

(Text PAMHO:11778288) --------------------------------------

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

 

Bhaktarupa dasa refuses to recognize my copyright of VCAL

 

After a lot of back and forth the following text from a BBT Trustee to Bhaktarupa Prabhu sums up Bhaktarupa’s mentality.

 

Letter PAMHO:11860155 (44 lines)

From: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA)

Date: 06-Jul-06 05:49 -0400

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71484] (received:

06-Jul-06 06:20 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31756]

(received: 06-Jul-06 09:49 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27203] (received: 06-Jul-06 14:00 -0400)

Cc: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Cc: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78541] (received: 06-Jul-06 06:07 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78496] (received: 06-Jul-06 06:08 -0400)

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [54765] (received: 06-Jul-06 06:22 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17649] (received: 10-Jul-06

16:05 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21135] (received: 06-Jul-06 12:12

-0400)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71124] (received: 06-Jul-06

13:17 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [82444] (received: 06-Jul-06 11:07 -0400)

Subject: VCal

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

>then I will put myself potentially in trouble if I disregard all that and

>act based upon someone's unofficial opinion of what the BBT Trustees REALLY

>meant to say or do.

 

Potentially in trouble from whom? From the BBT? You know that is not true,

since you have been told 100 times that they don't care what happens. And

when, along with the BBT official statement, I included out my unofficial

opinion as a trustee -- which I clearly said it was -- none of the other

trustees said a word. Not a peep. Why not? Because THEY DON'T CARE (caps

added for emphasis). Why don't they care? Because they officially gave

whatever rights they may have had in VCAL to the GBC over 15 months ago.

 

My God, Prabhu, is it not possible for you to understand this simple fact?

 

I think that this has gone way beyond micro hair-splitting, and has entered

some twilight zone realm of either plain, outright dishonesty on your part,

or, Krishna forbid, possibly some form of mental disturbance or worse on

your part. If the latter, then just know that you are loved as a brother,

Prabhu, and everyone is genuinely concerned for your well-being.

 

But if you are just being plain dishonest, why can't you at least *try* to

be truthful? Everyone sees what you are doing. Brilliant personalities are

attached as recipients to these emails, and they clearly see what is

happening. You are simply trying to hide (behind poor and very transparent

word jugglary) this simple fact:

 

You - Bhaktarupa Prabhu -- do not wish to recognize Shyamasundara Prabhu as the sole copyright holder of VCal. PERIOD.

 

Just admit it already! Because everyone else sees it plain as day.

 

Stop trying to hide behind the BBT and your odd, convoluted misinterpretations that have no basis in reality. Stop being dishonest. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the BBT who gave their rights to the GBC about 15 months ago. Please stop doing this already. It just makes you look more and more foolish.

 

Just own up to your own actions, and work this out honestly. And I am sure

*everyone* would appreciate if you would just immediately take this out of

the public arena, if you would kindly stop wasting everyone's precious time

with this, and just work it out with Shyamasundara Prabhu privately. Please!

 

ys,

sd

(Text PAMHO:11860155) --------------------------------------

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:11860387 (21 lines)

From: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA)

Date: 06-Jul-06 06:32 -0400

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71490] (received:

06-Jul-06 08:03 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31761]

(received: 06-Jul-06 09:49 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27209] (received: 06-Jul-06 14:00 -0400)

Cc: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78553] (received: 06-Jul-06 08:51 -0400)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [28972] (received: 07-Jul-06

00:51 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78505] (received: 06-Jul-06 06:47 -0400)

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [54771] (received: 06-Jul-06 06:45 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17655] (received: 10-Jul-06

16:05 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21140] (received: 06-Jul-06 12:12

-0400)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71128] (received: 06-Jul-06

13:17 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [82452] (received: 06-Jul-06 11:07 -0400)

Cc-For: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Reference: Text PAMHO:11860321 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11865005 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: VCal

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

>If you can kindly quote a statement by the BBT Trustees where they admit that

>they had no business publishing VCal under their own copyright, then fine.

>But don't refer to BBT resolutions that say something else entirely and

>expect me to accept your interpolation of what those resolutions really mean

>to say.

 

More word jugglery. The BBT has fully renounced any interest, possible

rights, and ownership it ever had or may have ever had in VCal.

 

This is what I mean by your being blatantly dishonest. You know that the BBT

has nothing to do with this subject anymore, yet you keep trying to pull

them back in, expecting everyone to believe that you will somehow "get

in trouble" with the BBT if they don't issue further statements on the matter.

 

Again this has NOTHING to do with the BBT anymore. Nothing at all. And it is

not complicated in the least. This simply has to do with your own desire not

to give recognition to Shyamasundara Prabhu for VCal. This is the plain and

simple truth which you for some reason refuse to admit.

 

ys,

sd

(Text PAMHO:11860387) --------------------------------------

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:11861306 (29 lines)

From: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA)

Date: 06-Jul-06 09:13 -0400

To: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78565] (received: 07-Jul-06 03:08 -0400)

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71498] (received:

06-Jul-06 09:41 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31769]

(received: 06-Jul-06 09:49 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27216] (received: 06-Jul-06 14:00 -0400)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [28979] (received: 07-Jul-06

00:51 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78513] (received: 06-Jul-06 10:06 -0400)

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [54780] (received: 07-Jul-06 00:14 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17660] (received: 10-Jul-06

16:05 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21146] (received: 06-Jul-06 12:12

-0400)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71137] (received: 06-Jul-06

13:17 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [82469] (received: 06-Jul-06 11:07 -0400)

Cc-For: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Reference: Text PAMHO:11861239 by Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11864999 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: VCal

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

>is there some written record fo the transfer of rights to the gbc?

 

 

Here is the BBT resolution on the transfer. I don't know about any further

written records on it:

 

 

Correspondence Proposal CP05-01 21/MAR/05

 

===============

VCAL COPYRIGHTS

===============

 

The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc., (BBTI) assigns to the

ISKCON Governing Body Commission Society (registered in Calcutta under the

West Bengal Society Act) whatever rights BBTI may have in Vcal (Vedic

Calendar calculation software). BBTI does not guarantee that it holds any

rights in the Vcal software.

 

 

Bhima dasa: 22/MAR/05 In favor

Brahma Muhurta dasa: 23/MAR/05 In favor

Madhusevita dasa: 26/MAR/05 In favor

Jayadvaita Swami: 27/MAR/05 In favor

Svavasa dasa: 29/MAR/05 In favor

Satyanarayana dasa: 07/APR/05 In favor

 

 

CP05-01 PASSES.

(Text PAMHO:11861306) --------------------------------------

 

 

Bhaktarupa Prabhu denies he represented the GBC to the BBT.

 

In this text Bhaktarupa Prabhu contradicts himself and now says he never represented the GBC when he requested the BBT to get the copyrights from me. This is blatant dishonesty as I was approached by several BBT trustees to hand over the copyrights at his instance and the BBT admit to the same.

 

 

Letter PAMHO:11861130 (13 lines)

From: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Date: 06-Jul-06 08:42 -0400 (18:12 +0530)

To: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78560] (received: 06-Jul-06 08:51 -0400)

To: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA) [8141] (received:

06-Jul-06 08:56 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31767]

(received: 06-Jul-06 09:49 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27214] (received: 06-Jul-06 14:00 -0400)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [28976] (received: 07-Jul-06

00:51 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78511] (received: 06-Jul-06 10:06 -0400)

Cc: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP [54778] (received: 07-Jul-06 00:14 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17658] (received: 10-Jul-06

16:05 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21143] (received: 06-Jul-06 12:12

-0400)

Cc: "GKD" <gregjay@bluebottle.com> (sender: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP

(Vedic Astrologer) (USA))

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71135] (received: 06-Jul-06

13:17 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [82464] (received: 06-Jul-06 11:07 -0400)

Cc-For: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Reference: Text PAMHO:11860448 by Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT -

USA)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11865000 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: VCal

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

> >so what does the GBC say?

>

> Leave it to our wonderful Bhanu Maharaja to go right to the core of the

> matter.

>

> I have no idea what they say, Maharaja. Somehow "someone" is apparantly

> claiming to represent them, or perhaps he is just speaking on his own

> behalf.

 

The site says very clearly that it is my full responsibility. I have never

claimed to officially represent the GBC in any of this copyright discussion.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

(Text PAMHO:11861130) --------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:11868914 (12 lines)

From: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP

Date: 07-Jul-06 15:01 -0400 (21:01 +0200)

To: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78651] (received: 07-Jul-06 23:16 -0400)

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71516] (received:

07-Jul-06 21:09 -0400)

To: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA) [8169] (received:

07-Jul-06 15:25 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31796]

(received: 08-Jul-06 06:34 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27313] (received: 07-Jul-06 15:33 -0400)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [29041] (received: 07-Jul-06

23:44 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78667] (received: 07-Jul-06 22:14 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17687] (received: 10-Jul-06

16:05 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21197] (received: 08-Jul-06 09:44

-0400)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71270] (received: 08-Jul-06

12:05 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [82721] (received: 08-Jul-06 14:34 -0400)

Cc-For: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Reference: Text PAMHO:11864999 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: VCal

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

> I sympathize with the BBT for they have been subjected to the same game as

> I have and we both want this silly game to end. But Bhaktarupa doesn't for

> reasons clearly stated by Satyanarayana Prabhu in a previous letter.

>

> The BBT and I are unified in this matter.

 

Its clear to everyone. But when a person has their own motivations

but refuses to admit them, then the issue becomes obfuscated, especially to

someone who is not honestly admitting their motives.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

(Text PAMHO:11868914) --------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

Letter PAMHO:11870235 (25 lines)

From: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP

Date: 08-Jul-06 00:38 -0400 (06:38 +0200)

To: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78663] (received: 08-Jul-06 00:42 -0400)

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71524] (received:

08-Jul-06 01:35 -0400)

To: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA) [8171] (received:

08-Jul-06 09:45 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31799]

(received: 08-Jul-06 06:34 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27318] (received: 08-Jul-06 06:38 -0400)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [29047] (received: 08-Jul-06

04:45 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78676] (received: 08-Jul-06 01:03 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17691] (received: 10-Jul-06

16:05 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21203] (received: 08-Jul-06 09:45

-0400)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71279] (received: 08-Jul-06

12:05 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [82732] (received: 08-Jul-06 14:34 -0400)

Cc-For: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Reference: Text PAMHO:11870178 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Subject: VCal

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

> My dear godbrothers Shyamasundara, Harisauri, and Satyanarayan Prabhus,

>

> I am sure you all have the best intentions in trying to help me see the

> light of day in this issue, and I appreciate your sincere efforts. I have

> tried my best to explain my position carefully, but there must be some

> serious lacking in my communication skills that I am not able to clear up

> the misunderstandings that each of you have.

 

I think this seems to be the crux of the issue Bhakta Rupa prabhu.

You are convinced that it is myself, Satyanarayan prabhu and Shyamasundara

prabhu that have the misunderstanding, whereas we are all of one voice: that

Shyama has the copyright. That's it. And once you admit this, there is no

more misunderstanding.

 

So your above statement continues to be the problem.

 

> I am convinced that this matter can be resolved peacefully, but not in the

> way we are going now.

 

Good, that's a start. Now if you will just accept what everyone else

has, that the copyright is Shyama's, then we don't need to continue with

this.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

(Text PAMHO:11870235) --------------------------------------

 

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:11892025 (21 lines)

From: Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP

Date: 12-Jul-06 07:28 -0400 (13:28 +0200)

To: Bhanu Swami (Madras - IN) [78790] (received: 12-Jul-06 17:56 -0400)

To: Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN) [71580] (received:

12-Jul-06 07:31 -0400)

To: Satyanarayana (das) ACBSP (Hartford, CT - USA) [8192] (received:

12-Jul-06 08:30 -0400)

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31856]

(received: 12-Jul-06 11:30 -0400)

Cc: AC Bhaktivaibhava Swami [27431] (received: 12-Jul-06 10:06 -0400)

Cc: Secretary to Bhakti Vijnana Goswami [29165] (received: 12-Jul-06

14:03 -0400)

Cc: Sivarama Swami [78892] (received: 12-Jul-06 09:33 -0400)

Cc: Madhu Sevita (das) ACBSP (GBC) (I) [17721] (received: 13-Jul-06

03:09 -0400)

Cc: Svavasa (das) ACBSP (NA-BBT) [21258] (received: 12-Jul-06 12:08

-0400)

Cc: Lilasuka (das) BCS (GBC Secretariat) [71453] (received: 12-Jul-06

07:33 -0400)

Cc: Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL) [83252] (received: 13-Jul-06 09:14 -0400)

Cc-For: Bhakti Vijnana Goswami (GBC) (Moscow - R)

Reference: Text PAMHO:11891908 by Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

Comment: Text PAMHO:11893963 by Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer)

(USA)

Subject: VCal

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

>

> Sorry for not responding sooner. I was not able to read my emails the last

> couple of days.

>

> Prabhuji, the VCal executable program that I am using to make the

> calculations at the site has been available to all for many years now. It

> very carefully states that it is copyrighted by the BBT. No document that

> I have ever seen, barring an emailed personal opinion of one BBT trustee,

> states that you are the actual owner of the software. You have not sent me

> even a single document to back up your insistence that I list you as the

> owner. Thus your request is quite unreasonable and I am powerless to act

> upon it.

>

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

We are all wasting our breath here prabhus. I suggest you try other

means rather than continue on this merry-go-round. No one is in, and no one is

listening.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

(Text PAMHO:11892025) --------------------------------------

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

 

 

From: XYZ ACBSP

Date: 08-Jul-06 10:37 -0400 (16:37 +0200)

To: ABC ACBSP

To: Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [31820]

(USA)

Subject: VCal

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

> Because of my previous experience with him I will ask him one more time to

> do the right thing. Otherwise I will use other means available to resolve

> this.

 

Yes, he can be a gentleman when you don't have any managerial

dealings with him. But he is the epitome of the obstructive, blind

bureaucrat who cannot see the trees for the woods. It’s the way his brain

works unfortunately and I am quite sure you will have to use other means

because his computer is down and there's no one in.

 

XYZ dasa

 

 

 

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |