Jump to content

Back to Nanakshahi calendar?


Dsinghd
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/22/2019 at 11:07 AM, chatanga1 said:

What Gurbani basis? 

Guru Sahib Ji has written 2 Barah Maha's in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, there are two Barah Maha's in Sri Dasam Granth as well. Guru Sahib has written the Ruti Salok bani, and there are three banis that talk about Tithis. 

To say that Guru Sahib talked about the months is an understatement.

Nakakshahi has 12 months, starting from Chet as it is the first month in Barah Maha. Using the Tropical Year, it keeps the calendar in sync with the Ruts given in the Barah Maha and in Ruti Salok. 

In the month of Asarh (Harh), in Barah Mah Tukhari, Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: 

ਰਥੁ ਫਿਰੈ ਛਾਇਆ ਧਨ ਤਾਕੈ ਟੀਡੁ ਲਵੈ ਮੰਝਿ ਬਾਰੇ ॥

ਰਥੁ ਫਿਰੈ refers to the Summer Solstice (Dakhshnayn) which Guru Sahib has described in the month of Harh.

In less than 500 years, around year 2400, the summer solstice will start occurring in the month of Jeth. This is due to Bikrami using the Sidereal Year. Nanakshahi using the Tropical Year will still the Summer Solstice in the month of Harh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, FreshMind13 said:

His reason #1 still stands, Bikrami uses the Nirayana Year, not the Sayana Year, so it's not linked to the seasons.

Anyway, I'm not going to comment on his theological arguments for Nanakshahi, I can only support him on a scientific and Gurbani basis.

Well, I'm glad you acknowledged this. Now that Pal Singh Purewal's basis for emergency imposition of his calendar on the Panth is out of the way, we can have a calm discussion about his calendar and any need the Panth might have for it, or for someone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

Maybe Purewal got some dates wrong, he is human.

"Maybe" purewal got them wrong? Or Guru Sahib got them wrong?

It's one or the other. If purewal could have gotten his dates wrong, why such a fuss to change something in the Panth? Surely it would be better to proceed on sound footing?

 

4 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

From what I read, Purewal didn't even want to get his book published because his calculations didn't match the dates in Sri Dasam Granth. He has explained that here.

 

Maybe it would have been better for purewal to give up his attempt to change the calendar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chatanga1 said:

"Maybe" purewal got them wrong? Or Guru Sahib got them wrong?

It's one or the other. If purewal could have gotten his dates wrong, why such a fuss to change something in the Panth? Surely it would be better to proceed on sound footing?

Maybe it would have been better for purewal to give up his attempt to change the calendar?

So are we just going to attack Purewal or the Nanakshahi Calendar?

And btw, Purewal's calculation for that date is not wrong. It is corroborated with many Jantris published by other Panchang scholars.

Guru Sahib cannot be wrong, Guru Sahib is perfect. But we have to acknowledge not everything is black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chatanga1 said:

Purewal based his new dates on one calendar. I thought it was on Khalsa tricentary but if not, then SGGS tricentary on 2008. It was on one of these occasions that he based it on.

Nanakshahi was released in 2003, how could he have used a year in the future? 23 Poh, 2064 BK was on January 7, 2008 and Poh Sudi 7, 2064 BK was on January 15, 2008. There was no "base year". I'm still baffled by this as mathematically, when calculating Nanakshahi dates, there is no base year used anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Both Guru Sahib and Purewal cannot be right.

I will show other examples aside from Purewal then:

An Indian Ephemeris, Vol VI, Swamikannu Pillai

Pages-from-2015.73149.An-Indian-Ephemeris-Ad-700-To-Ad-1799-Vol-Iv_text.pdf-compressor.thumb.png.d63e01af069422e48e1b3c703629eacb.png

Pancanga software (version 3.14), By M. YANO and M. FUSHIMI, Kyoto University, Japan.

LV0R8vb.png

According to Purewal, if we use 1754 Sammat, Bhadon Sudi 8 comes on Sunday. Maybe Guru Sahib used elapsed years instead of Vartmaan years? This is a question for scholars to look at Puratan Birhs of Sri Dasam Granth or do research in history to figure out why. I have given the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FreshMind13 said:

Nanakshahi was released in 2003, how could he have used a year in the future? 23 Poh, 2064 BK was on January 7, 2008 and Poh Sudi 7, 2064 BK was on January 15, 2008. There was no "base year". I'm still baffled by this as mathematically, when calculating Nanakshahi dates, there is no base year used anywhere.

I will try and find the article which tells of which year purewal used. I was sure it was the tricentary of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use