Talk:Surya Siddhanta

message: In the introduction, it is written that the work was done 10,000 years ago which can not be true!
NicolasDelerue 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Vastu 2 Vaastu Consulting and Audarya Fellowship, Brahmarishi Mayan is supposed to have lived over 10,000 years ago in a now-submerged land south of India and then migrated to southern India. He is supposed to have written many mathematical and physical texts at the level of modern science (nuclear physics, etc.) which were not understood by past scholars so they excluded them from the Vedas. V. Ganapati Sthapati claims to have recovered those texts. Vedic astrology includes the "Ancient Surya Sidhata" by Maya. I have doubts that this is the modern Surya Siddhanta, so I am removing that entire paragraph. Furthermore, no specific source was provided, just the government of Tamil Nadu, whose capital, Chennai, is where Sthapati is headquartered. If Mayan is supposed to have written at the level of modern science, how did he manage to write a treatise that had to be revised at least twice and is still inaccurate? — Joe Kress 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mamuni Mayan or Mahamuni Maya (Asura)

message: no evidence for translations (into Arabic, Latin or any other language) is presented for times predating 1858. The Arabs in the 8th century translated Brahmagupta and Aryabhata, but I can find no evidence that this obscure text made it into Arabic. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: You article claims that it is based upon Burgess. But it actually is based upon wrong ideas of a theosophist Dwight William Johnson which he deliberatety publicised in the name of Surya Siddhanta. Fowlwe and Fowler innocently took the wrong values of years from Johnson. From Fowler,you took it. I do not want to quarrel with all these people. I have a lot of valuable information, which you will be glad to read once you give me your email address. You can creeate a temporary email address for purpose, if you think I do not deserve your email address.
	 
You will be surprised to know that a western publisher is publishing Surya Siddhanta editions after aditions, while the material inside has nothing to do with Surya Siddhanta. How many of experts of Surya Siddhanta have actually read it? Do some soul searching. Wiki is yours, and I will keep out, as you wish. But I cannot keep out of Surya Siddhanta, because I know it million times more than you do. I am not insulting you. I simply mean to say that I know the published as well as unpublisher oral traditions of Surya Siddhanta, from which almanacs are still made in India. You must change your attitude . If Wiki misinforms the public, the loss will be great. )
:you are free to help improving this article. But if you want to contribute, you need to make an effort to understand how Wikipedia works. Read the following:
:Wikipedia:Talkpages: Post your messages on the talkpage, not in the article
:Wikipedia:No original research: We will only consider material that can be traced to notable publications. 
:Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: We do not aim at presenting the "truth" on Surya Siddhanta. All we want to do is report on notable opinions. Your knowledge of the "unpublished Surya Siddhanta" is completely worthless on Wikipedia until you have published it somewhere else first.
:until you show signs of having read and understood these pages, I will not continue this debate. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cut from article

message: To DAB : I had read WP:NOR  &c  before I had made my contribution to  'Surya Siddhanta' , which you removerd.  I had merely mentioned in my message to you that I know published as well as unpublished versions of  knowledge of Surya Siddhanta, but I had not added these unpublished things to Wiki. It is presently impossible for me to publish this unpublished version either in press or in Wiki,even if you wish it. But this unpublished version is completetely verifiable and in total conformity to the published version; it is not my invention. My mistake was that I informed you about my knowledge of this oral tradition , which you mistook to be what I had contributed to Wiki. Every word I had contributed was already published. For instance, I made a reference to Panchsiddhantika published by Chowkhambha of Varanasi, which you removed because you thought it to be outside your definition of  "notable publications". But Chowkhambha is world's biggest publisher of books related to indology, and it has published scores of thousands of indological books in English, Sanskrit and Hindi, which are damned cheap compared to Western publications due to low costs of publication in India. Can it be declared to be unreliable just because it happens to be in India ? The book I had quoted was written by a German and an Indian, who were original researchers and original commentators of Panchsiddhantika. Hence, I think your comment refers not to Chowkhambha but to my book published by Sky Research Centre of Delhi, which is not a well known publisher. This book (Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta) contained what is expicitly implied in the name of the book. I knew that these equations would not be understood by those who do not possess a first hand knowledge of Surya Siddhanta, and therefore I was already constructing a web site where I wanted to transfer these calculations. But you intervened before I could shift this complicated material. But if you think this material is my invention, then you you are mistaken.  You have yourself included materials in your articles which are figments of imagination from Johnson's 'Exegesis...', not verifiable. But each and every word I had contributed is absolutely veriable. Instead of allowing me a chance to defend myself, you imposed a ban, and refused to respond to my messages, which was leading me towards misgivings. Now as you have responded, I find your approach is perfectly rational and welcome. But I must clarify some points.
E. Burgess was unfortunate to have worked during a period when relations between Christian missionaries and Hindu pandits were at their worst, due to 1857 uprising in India. Burgess was a missionary. He could not win the confidence of a bulk of pandits, and therefore could not gain access either to the available commentaries (e.g., Siddhanta-tattva-viveka by Kamlakara Bhatta of 16th century,as well as other Sanskrit commentaries, which have never been translated in any language even today). Even the oldest commentary on Surya Siddhanta (Gooraartha-prakash by Ranganaatha) has not been translated even in any modern Indian language, leave aside any Western language. In spite of such problems, Burgess made dauntless efforts and succeeded in deciphering a majority of original verses, for which he must be thanked. But Sootiswoode, a fellow of Royal Society of Britain, made a better clarification of most important mathematical formulae of Surya Siddhanta in 1862 (Journal of Royal Society). I was surprised to find that Sootiswoode knew better than many heads of departments of Jyotisha in Indian universities who are supposed to be experts of the subject. Unfortunately, Sootiswoode was forgotten by later generations. But there were significant shortcomings in his work too, which no commentator cared to remove. Pandit Sudhakar Dwivedi (the collaborator of G.Thibaut in the commentary of Panchsiddhantika) wrote a commentary on Surya Siddhanta in Sanskrit, which was worse to that of Sootiswoode as far as elucidation of practical equations are concerned. At present, Sanskrit commentary by Pandit Kapileshwar Shashtri(1948) is considered to be the most exhaustive and clear among all commentaries on Surya Siddhanta by teachers and students of Jyotisha in all Indian universities where Surya Siddhanta is taught in Sanskrit medium. But even this commentary made no advancement upon Sootiswoode. Recently, some Indian and Western scholars stooped so low as to publish fake commentaries. Pt Ramchandra Pandey published a Hindi commentary of Surya Siddhanta (2000), which Chowkhambha published because Pt Pandey was head of department of Jyotisha in Benaras Hindu University (a central university of the government of India). He did not know practical formulae, but was bold enough to publish utterly false explanations, which I refuted in a peer-reviewed Journal of Jyotisha published from Varanasi(Jyotisha Vaijnaniki Patrika,2005). Pt Pandey failed to refute me, and kept silent. In my refutation, I published some unpublished equations, together with their explanations on the basis of existing text of Surya Siddhanta. But I did not publish all equations, because I had myself filed a lawsuit against another government Sanskrit university of India(KSD Sanskrit University), charging its faculty of being incapable of theaching Surya Siddhanta or any ancient astronomical text prescribed in the syllabus at post graduate level. I won the battle, but the university is not implementing the court order, for which I have again filed a contempt of court  petition. Before this lawsuit is finally decided, I am unable to publish the obscure equations of Surya Siddhanta. Hence you should believe in me if I assert that I am not desirous of adding these unpublished equations of Surya Siddhanta to Wiki. 
These equations are not mine, but are part of the original Surya Siddhanta, from which Surya Siddhantic Makaranda Tables were made in AD 1478 , which are the basis of all Surya Siddhantic almanacs being published in India. These tables can be made only from the unpublished equations I possess. Is it not a proof that these equations are not mine,but belong to the old tradition of Surya Siddhanta ? Makaranda Tables had been translated into Engligh by John Bentley who had opined in 1799 that Surya Siddhanta belonged to 1091 AD (Makaranda Tables has been translated into Hindi and published by Chowkhambha in 1998). Makaranda Tables are Surya Siddhantic : first verse of original Makaranda Tables (1478 AD) explicitly calls these tables to be Surya Siddhantic, and published as well as unpublished equations of Surya Siddhanta also prove these tables to be Surya Siddhantic. On these grounds even these unpublished equations are proven to be completely Surya Siddhantic. I did not give these unpublished equations in Wiki. I merely referred to these unpublished equations in my misplaced messages to you, and unfortunately you misunderstood me. 
As far as ' Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta' is concerned, it is my book, but all its equations are totally based upon published versions of Surya Siddhanta. I am intending to put these equations on a new article ( in Wiki, if you agree, or in a new website if you disagree). But I am myself against the inclusion of these calculations in the article on Surya Siddhanta, not because they are unverifiable or wrong, but because these calculations are known to a few people and may lead to misgivings among those who rely upon popular commentaries and do not have time to examine the original text of Surya Siddhanta. The detailed verification of these calculations involves complicated math (which I did not and will not give in Wiki) and should not be included in the article on Surya Siddhanta. I had stopped editing Wiki due to this consideration, and was revising the article on Surya Siddhanta in  Ms Word when you intervened.
Lack of commucication leads to misunderstanding. Now that you have responded, I see you are a rational creature. I want your cooperation. But I differ on one point from you : you say  "We do not aim at presenting the "truth" on Surya Siddhanta. All we want to do is report on notable opinions".  Who will decide whose opinion is 'notable' and whose opinion should be ignored ? Clearly, those persons should decide this issue who know the topic well. And it should be done in collaborative manner, within the guidelines of Wiki. 'No Original Research' may imply different meanings to different persons. Johnson's "Exegesis..." may be viewed by some to be an original research which gives results in the name of Surya Siddhanta , but it  is actually the result of personal calculations made by him on the basis of certain intuitive observations made by Madam Blavatsky one century ago( the latter did not mention Surya Siddhanta). It is utter dishonesty to propound a new theory in the name of an ancient one. I improved that passage, and gave lengths of sidereal and tropical years as stated in existing version of Surya Siddhanta. You regarded Johnson's opinioons to be notable, because he published his work in West, and my opinions, which have been vindicated by Patna High Court , are not notable in your view because my book was published by a small Indian publisher. Surya Siddhanta is a book of mathematics, as far as its equations are concerned, and in mathematics personal opinions do not count, whether they are notable or not. The original text of Surya Siddhanta is the only authority about itself, and no third person has the right to say, rightly or wrongly, what is there in this text. If you feel it to be a tricky issue, you can resolve it through emails. I have guided many doctoral researches , and I know the policies of Wiki well. But I was annoyed because you were not responding, and also because I was unable to create an account in my name ( I created one in a fake name later) : 'Vinay Jha'  and 'Vinayjhaa' still exist as users (these were created by me), but they do not work.  If you can afford some time, please delete these two user names 'Vinay Jha'  and 'Vinayjhaa' from Wiki, which were created by me but could not be activated due to reasons not known to me, so that I could change my fake user name to the genuine one and work in the Wiki.
You know I made no change to your editing after you removed my contributions, hence you should not prevent editing of Surya Siddhanta in Wiki: others may want to edit it.I was already observing a self-imposed ban. My only trouble was that I still do not know your email address, which you can post to  vinayjhaa@gmail.com .  I know the objectives of Wiki well and you can rely upon me, but you should not take any drastic action without trying first to communicate with me : this is also a Wiki policy. I hope you may work with me in many projects in future,once your misgivings are gone. This long letter is not fit for Wiki Talk, that is why I asked for youe email address. 
The Surya Siddhantic sidereal year has 365.258756481 days, which is different from modern value, yet I call Surya Siddhanta to be accurate. It will seem illogical to you. But Surya Siddhanta clearly states that its planets are not the planets of physical world, they belong to a different world, and mathematical verification of this assertion of Surya Siddhanta is possible but very difficult and complicated.  Before being repulsed by these comments, you should read the whole argument. If no 'NOTABLE'  Western commentator recognised that Surya Siddhantic planets should not be confused with material bodies in the sky, it is their fault. Commentators are not the yardstick; the criterion is the text of Surya Siddhanta, which is available in English as well.Kamlakara Bhatta had stressed this peculiarity of Surya Siddhanta in 16th century. I had quoted Surya Siddhanta that "it states that it was composed over 2 million years ago". You asked for "citation needed". I can cite the chapter and verse of the text.You may find it in Burgess too. But modern commentators assumed Surya Siddhantic planets to be material bodies, and made a direct comparison with scientific values without taking a recourse to the Drik-pakshiya Ganita of Surya Siddhantic school. What I believe is immaterial, what the text states is truth, which Wikipedians must accept and write about,even if notable commentators overlooked these facts. You may avoid personal opinions, you should not avoid facts even if is stated by me or you. You must allow the truth of Surya Siddhanta to come out, which is not my personal opinion, but what is explicitly stated in the Surya Siddhanta itself , but deliberately or innocently ignored by many modern commentators. If one insists that Surya Siddhantic planets are material planets, then I cannot work for Wiki, because it is a falsehood not supported by the text. The best authority on Surya Siddhanta is Surya Siddhanta itself, which you should help me to bring forth. Many past commentators have stated true views about Surya Siddhanta, but they are being ignored. If Johnson's 'Exegesis..' is propagated as a genuine work on Surya Siddhanta, it will be disastrous for everyone interested in facts. He is guided by fanatic intuition which has no connection with Surya Siddhanta. Surya Siddhantic period of precession is 24000 years, on whose basis I had given correct values, which you removed.- Vinay Jha
VJha 12:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FACTS  AND  FICTION

message: your own book, 
:Vinay Jha, Deduction of Modern Astronomy from Surya Siddhanta, Sky Research Centre, Delhi (2006), ISBN xxxxxxxxxxxxx
may well be cited here, responsibly, with a brief summary of Jha's (your) opinion on the topic. It appears that this is self-published. No evidence of the existence even of this "Sky Research Centre" is available online. worldcatlibraries.org (which lists very obscure literature) gives no pertinent result for Vinay Jha. I am afraid you will first have to show that your book even exists. Maybe your first step should be to compile your own website on your ideas, so that Wikipedia will at least have that to work on. dab (𒁳) 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2006, a book was published in Hindi in which all major constants of modern astronomy were mathematically deduced, by means of theorems, from Surya Siddhanta ! But the author stated that Surya Siddhantic planets occupy different positions in heaven than material planets (Vinay Jha,2006),which amounts to stating that there are at least two universes, one phenomenal universe of matter open to human senses, and the other noumenal universe of gods who are presiding deities of material planets of phenomenal world [...] If the claims made in this Hindi book is accepted, it will mean that constants of modern astronomy were known to ancient Surya Siddhantic scholars with a high degree of precision ! 
I am sorry, but this is blatant WP:FRINGE/pseudoscience. If you really have a stringent derivation of "all major constants of modern astronomy" (which ones? "all"?), I suggest you publish a preprint on http://arxiv.org/ -- once your paper is hosted on arxiv.org, we may briefly refer to it. This is the very, very least: you cannot just come to Wikipedia and announce ground-breaking philological/archaeoastronomical discoveries that have not been announced even in preprint form. For chrissakes, even Subhash Kak puts his merry exploits on arxiv.org before pestering Wikipedia with them. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of where Vinay Jha's researches and writings goes, if it's not where we can look at it, than the useful parts can't be included in the articles.  It sounds like there might be enough information to put stuff in lots of articles (maybe not the main points, but the minority opinion sections for sure).  I add my voice to Dab's, please host the information somewhere it can be looked at.  --Rocksanddirt 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please take this original research elsewhere: once it's published, we may perhaps be able to briefly mention it as minority opinion. Until then, however, we really don't need this material. Moreschi  Talk 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jha (2006)

message: DAB's viewpoint is perfect. I never insisted that my book must be discussed in Wiki. I had only asked for his opinion whether I should put some intricate math relating Surya Siddhanta with modern astronomy on a new website or on a new page in Wiki, because I was sure the article on Surya Siddhanta was not a proper place for it. He voted for a new website, adding that my book  "may well be cited here, responsibly, with a brief summary of Jha's (your) opinion on the topic."  I fully endorse this view of DAB,and therefore there is no controversy now.
The confusion was created by additional remarks by DAB and some other users, which implied that some users had not read my contributions to Wiki and were misinterpreting mine or DAB's remarks. You(Joe Kress) should not think that I do not know the meaning of original research, I was using this term in irony which you missed, but DAB understood because he has worked on the topic. You are mistaken that mainstream scholars are against me. Only one person (head of department of Jyotisha in KSD Sanskrit University) is against me, not on any academic point, but because he wanted to keep me out of any discussion on Surya Siddhanta in order to hide his own incompetence which was later proven by his own university which voted overwhelmingly in my favour. I won the legal battle against him due to overwhelming support of all experts who were invited by the university to resolve the issue, but the head of department is now taking recourse to hideous means in order to convinve the court that my views had been implemented, while in reality he does not want to implement the decision which have been ordered by the Vice Chancellor (in my favour).
There is another scholar( a retired professor of Varanasi) whose commentary of Surya Siddhanta was refuted by me in a peer reviewed Journal of Varanasi, and no one refuted my views, and the debate ended there.
But these debates were mostly about method of finding true position of planets acoording to Surya Siddhantic method, and not about comparison of Surya Siddhanta with modern science. You are right in saying "citing the Surya Siddhanta is not sufficient—you must convince other scholars to show that your view is not a minority view. Unfortunately, entrenched views of the "establishment" may not allow that to happen for several decades."  My book was read by almost all the mainstream scholars of India concerned with Surya Siddhanta, but no one has yet has either refuted or accepted my views. They are shying away from discussing this subject because it is not only difficult but risky as well. The theorems given in my book were not invented by me, they were handed over to me with the blessings of my departed teacher who was the Vice Chancellor on my university. Most people rely on secondary sources and do not read the original text of Surya Siddhanta (commented by Burgess or others). I will never be able to convince such persons.
Your remark is unjust that I am denigrating some scholars' views as "fake commentaries". You will laugh at those fake scholars when you know the truth. One was Pt Ramchandra Pandey, who wrote in his commentary that the value of equation of centre depended solely upon latitude of the onlooker ! I refuted his view and he refrained from challenging my view, because he was almost cipher in math but wanted to show himself as an expert of Surya Siddhanta.The debate ended there. Academic debate is not denigration. Students in India are being misled by his wrong commentary (in Hindi) of Surya Siddhanta.
The main point which all of you outside India fail to see is that Surya Siddhanta and methods based upon it are still the basis of religious almanacs for a majority of Indians, while for you it may be merely an ancient text having little or no relevance today. Whether Surya Siddhanta is correct or incorrect is another issue; I just mean to say that it still indespensable for Hindus. Timing for events like marriage cannot be decided without it. That is why it is a compulsory part of syllabus in all government sanskrit universities of India. I am sure it is not compulsory in any Western university. Therefore, I fear I will find few peers of Surya Siddhanta in West at present, although there were many in the past. I have not called any Western commentary as fake. Johnson's book 'Exegesis of Hindu Time Cycles'  is not a commentary of Surya Siddhanta, it merely cited a few verses of Surya Siddhanta and then (deceitfully) said that on the basis of these verses the value of tropical and sidereal year was such and such. DAB thought these conclusions were genuine and cited them in his article on Surya Siddhanta. But Johnson was actually giving his own views, which had no connection with Surya Siddhanta. It is wrong,ethically, to express a novel idea in the name of an ancient theory. Johnson wanted to prove that Surya Siddhantic year was very close to modern value, which is not the case. Surya Siddhantic year has a very complicated relation to modern value, which I wanted to show, but DAB misunderstood me before I could finish. I will pu this matter elsewhere,mas suggested by DAB. Unfortunately, you are thinking Johnson belongs to 'mainstream' and my view is a minority view, because you have perhaps not read either his work or my contribution to Wiki. Your remarks are mainly based upon material in the talk page.
DAB has asked me to contribute to Surya Siddhanta page of Wiki, with just one qualification that the section dealing with relation of modern astronomy should contain my views only in a responsible manner, and the calculations of my book should be put elsewhere (on a separate website). I do not differ from him, hence you are mistaken if you think that there is any conflict of interest between DAB and me.
I have made scientific software for almanac making, and that has been used by Hindus in the New World. In India, many government and non-governmental organisations, including Bihar State Sanskrit Academy, are publishing Surya Siddhantic almanacs from my free software in many states of India .All my work is free, I do not work for money. I made these softwares because a majority of people in India cannot do without Surya Siddhanta, and hand-made almanacs are highly crude. The top brass of academicians entrusted with teaching Surya Siddhanta at post graduate level in India are in the editorial board of almanacs made from my software, of which I am only the mathematician. I am myself regarded as a peer by all these peers. Even those who may differ from me in private have never refuted any of my views publicly. It is only the relation of Surya Siddhanta with modern astronomy which is causing problems of comprehension, being a difficult topic. I do not know how to make this topic simple. Scientists do not know Surya Siddhanta, and pandits do not know science. I fail to find scholars like Bapu Dev Shashtri or E. Burgess in the present generation. Hence I am even thinking of burying my book, as my late teacher did, from whom I got all the crucial ideas. Everywhere indology is in decline. Original texts are not even being read .
Ask DAB if he has any conflict of interest  now . Conflict was created by lack of communication. I am sorry that a useless debate was created,  just because there was some unknown technical problem which prevented me from becoming a user, and therefore I was forced to contribute anonymously. Otherwise he must have contacted me before taking recourse to extreme steps. I think the controversy is over,and it is growing too big and is not necessary for future contributors to this article.
Please read my contribution to talk page on Mamuni Mayan. - Vinay Jha.VJha 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can you please be more concise? I don't think anybody has the time to read your lengthy posts. Wikipedia is very simple: it wants you to cite your references point by point. Very boring really, but there you are. You are welcome to cite published academic references point by point, and we'll include those in the article. Protracted ramblings about epistemology in general on talkpages will be ignored. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Joe Kress

message: I am looking for help understanding recent edits to the articles Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn that claim there are estimates of the diameters of these planets in the Surya Siddhanta.  If anyone can help confirm this and explain what method was used, I would appreciate you dropping by at this section in the Jupiter talk page.  Thanks.  CosineKitty (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting expert help to understand origin of planet diameter estimates 

message: 1) The paper by Johson on "Exegesis of Surya Siddhanta", which I have canceled, is unacceptable on many counts. First was never published. Second many formulas are screwed up (at least on my browser) and can be fixed only with considerable effort. Most importantly is deceitful: for instance he proposes a formula to compute the sidereal yare and provides the result with many decimals, but unfortunately he is not able to compute them correctly. So the value, which he proposes and which appears everywhere in the paper, has no foundation at all and is also one day off values accepted by modern science.
2)The different value, so unbelievebly close to exact values, proposed in the paper has no source nor explanation. I assume is simply a claim boasted by a theosophist or other esotericist species.
Pinea (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unheard of "theories" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Surya Siddhanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_2_thompson.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Journal of Scientific Exploration reliable enough to use as a source for planet sizes?
Right now, in the planet characteristic section, it reads as if the Surya Siddhanta gave exact diameters of the multiple planets. There is no direct size given in the book but only apparent (angular) diameters and distances. Both of these are wildly wrong, but multiplying them gives a few numbers right. The paper given as reference suggests that this is because ancient Indians had some unknown method of measuring planet sizes accurately but not distances. This seems like a fringe theory to me. Also, the way the paragraph was written, it neglected to mention these issues. I have added a sentence about the problems now. But even now, things like the completely wrong size of the sun is missing, for example. I think that the entire paragraph needs to be considered fringe and removed. -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Raziman, if you have the time, please review Indian astronomy, Hindu astronomy and Jyotisha for fringecruft and scope overlap between articles. These topics need constant attention, because there is no end to the flood of dedicated but misguided or sub-standard additions (I exhausted my patience on this topic about ten years ago). --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an unfortunate amount of fringe on these topics on Wikipedia. I am not very active here, got to this page only because someone on Quora was using this Wiki page for bloated Ancient India claims. I will see what I can do -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to add a paragraph on the 2010 archaeastronomy paper, they should write a proper summary and create an "archaeastronomy" section. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal of Scientific Exploration 

message: Koch has written an entire book rebutting Oaks claim. And Oak's claims of finding astronomical data hangs around one Sasnkrit word 'pr̥ṣṭham' that can be translated as many things. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like it could be something worth citing; I don't see any work under that name cited in the article thus far. GPinkerton (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Oh OK, if it doesn't deal explicitly with the Surya Siddhanta specifically it's probably best to leave it out. GPinkerton (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I think it would be undue weight to do anything but. GPinkerton (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've done so now. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing Discussion

message: Hi Guys, I added the sine tables as described in Surya Siddhanta and translated by E. Burgess in his book. I found these sine calculations very interesting. As Burgess described in his commentary that for an acute observer these second degree differences are remarkable, which provides an increment of about 1/225th part to the corresponding sine values. I am a new user and spent a lot of time understanding formatting and stuff. I am fascinated by these sine and declination calculations. I think these will be interesting for the users too. God it took a little while to find how to add sign here --Xavidesh (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and welcome to the project. GPinkerton (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you. When I have time, I will try to add more useful and interesting content to this wiki page. Will probably seek your feedback in future. Cheers.--Xavidesh (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of sine tables

message: Can anyone clarify this from the third paragraph: . ChandlerMinh (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heliocentrism? 

message: The tradition of Hellenistic astronomy ended in the West after Late Antiquity. According to Cromer, the Surya Siddhanta and other Indian texts reflect the primitive state of Greek science, nevertheless played an important part in the history of science, through its translation in Arabic and stimulating the Arabic sciences.[39] According to a study by Dennis Duke that compares Greek models with Indian models based on the oldest Indian manuscripts such as the Surya Siddhanta with fully described models, the Greek influence on Indian astronomy is strongly likely to be pre-Ptolemaic.[16]
Please provide a better source for these lines Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof 

message: I see many such Indian wiki article which refers to Vedic era are sabotaged by someone who want to wipe out the fact that Vedic science is advanced and older than west and referring Greek or Alexander as source of all such knowledge. 84.67.25.120 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say is true (that "Vedic science is advanced and older than west" [sic]), you'll be able to find no end of reliable sources confirming as such. Please feel free to add them when you do. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

text: The Mahabharata literally calls the Greeks as ‘Sarvajna’ meaning ‘omniscient’. Greeks had made a mechanical computer 2100 years ago. can you show any one single thing from India that can match the craftsmanship like that of Antikythera Mechanism ChandlerMinh (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern of sabotage 

message: Second sentence in the third paragraph of the lead was previously:
and now it says:
In both cases, the source cited is the same (Thompson, 2007). However the source does not talk anything about heliocentrism. so I am changing it to the original. ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heliocentrism without a proper source