Is surya siddhant scripture or not? This I want to know. I could agree with everything else

It's a śāstra, but it must contain the relevant info. @Hope People are just going on saying Sūryasiddhānta mentions the starting date of Kaliyuga, when it doesn't. If it does, they should quote the ślokas. But how can they? Most of them haven't even read the śāstra.

Thanks But as far as I know these books (with due respect to them)- Āryabhaṭīya, Śiṣyadhīvṛddhidatantra, Siddhāntaśiromaṇi don't classify as scriptures. With Physical evidences too these things don't match as Mahabharat is an Iron Age story and Iron age as per modern history begins only in 1200 BC.

What nonsense? @river These are proper jyotiṣa śāstras. No one in tradition disagrees with them, on this issue. Who told you these aren't śāstras? Śāstras doesn't mean only itihāsa-purāṇa fyi.

All shastras must comply with the physical evidence we have or must be re-interpreted, otherwise any second shastra could be used as an authority to contradict others.

@User29449 show me any śāstra which contradict the ones I have mentioned. I am quoting Laghubhāskarīya too, in a moment. So, these would be śāstras of Āryabhaṭa I and his commentators such as Sūryadeva, Nīlakaṇṭha, etc., Lalla, Bhāskara I, and Bhāskara II. How much more support do you need? The whole jyotiṣa paramparā concurs on this fact.

@river The above msg is also addressed to you.

@Bingming Why do I need any shastra or any commentator, if a single physical concept contradicts, it is futile, no matter the thousands of commentaries it has. The actual values of yuga system given in puranas are far off.

@Bingming But the thing is on what basis, these scriptures claim the date to be 3000 BC ? They must tell on what basis they tell the date 3000 BC. ( I respect these scriptures but on what basis they tell the date ? I don't think these scriptures classify as Dharma Shastra.

@river Yukteshvar Giri had an explanation for the Yuga system and that matches the scientific evidence we have. But according to that timescale, Kaliyuga hasn't started yet.

Dharmaśāstras deal with the matters of kārya & akārya, these are jyotiṣa śāstras. Please don't confuse the two @river

@User 29449 Kaliyuga started during the reign of Parikshit. That thing is written in Mabhabharat, there is no confusion in it.

@river I doubt. Dr Frawley had written some stuff using his timescales that offers better perspective on the age of Krishna and Rama using Mahabharata only. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… I'm out of the convo as this is out of my area of knowledge including planetery calculations.

@User29449 You can read Āryabhaṭīya, Siddhāntaśiromaṇi, etc. your ownself. They accept the durations of the yugas mentioned in Purāṇas. They aren't mentioning their own made-up durations. They were part of a proper tradition, unlike say modern-day Indologists, or people like Frawley or Yukteshwar. If you reject the durations mentioned in jyotiṣa śāstras of time cycles, you reject the time durations of Purāṇas too simply, because they're aligned. Now, it's upto you to reject śāstras or not.

@Bingming I already said, that tradition and traditionalists don't matter to me than the people who interpret things that actually make sense. Traditionalists if they contradict reality are as useless as people admitting lilliputian as real.

Alright, that's your personal opinion, so I have nothing more to say. @User29449

@Bingming wait aren't some jyotish shastras not linked with vedas more treatsies, than they are scripture or revealed word?

@User29449 except for direct observations made by science such as the world is a globe and all that we don't have to accept the scientific timeline as religious folk, if any evidence 3000 yrs ago from Aryabhatta's time it wouldn't be found. Science is based and rightfully so on the notion of naturalism and a self sustaining natural world without an intelligence maintaining it.

@Haridasa The jyotiṣa śāstras I quoted aren't part of the Veda. So, they aren't śruti. However they come under the Jyotiṣa Vedāṅga, which is one of the 6 aṅgas of Veda (śikṣā, vyākaraṇa, chanda, kalpa, & jyotiṣa)

@User29449 so are people who cherry-pick verses to fit their meaning in case of direct observations made by science such as species change overtime physically can be accepted what cannot is evolution is the origin of life or even different species formed from one this is against shastras if you accept one you disregard the other. As stated by Dushyant in my chat. The observations of science must be accepted they are physical proof and fact. The conclusions due to being naturalistic as well as the lack of enough evidence for older human civilizations can be disregarded.

@Bingming okay I know they have religious conatation, but I didn't know if they were divine word unlike Vishnu Purana.

The ones cited in the messages are śāstras written by historical ācāryas, who belonged to a proper paramparā. So, these śāstras aren't like Purāṇas. Purāṇas come from time immemorial, from Brahmā himself. They have existed even before Vyāsa. @Haridasa

@User29449 in my opinion use science to learn about the natural world and its laws, but when it comes to its use of interpretation of timelines if you're religious then Shastras have more authority that is final. Similiarly if Shastras go against direct observations, then science has to be accepted.

@Bingming indeed they're more works of authority or reliable scholars, than divine word though correct?

That's right. @Haridasa

@Bingming yep, and do you have any criticism from a more traditional standpoint on my view of science and religion?

Well, I don't bother much with people having standpoint like User29449. Science can't say anything on the matter of yugas. In matters in which science has the ability to comment upon, we do take its opinion, but the issue of yugas is beyond science, as in western empirical investigation and analysis. @Haridasa A 'scientist' can't say anything on there being a pralaya at the end of kalpa, but śāstras do say that.

@User29449 in my opinion you don't understand how physical evidence works, now in the study history it is important to only go off of primary sources and physical evidence to reconstruct that timeline, but physical evidence decays and timelines based off of it could be flawed based on the amount of such evidence known or recovered. Your question is more historical than scientific which history at least in India has become politicized by extremeist views on both sides.

@Bingming I agree with you science in my view only can explain the workings of prakriti or raw matter everything else is up to shastra.

I am an enthusiast of both science and religion, but I respect the boundaries both have due to known evidence. I will assume when exploring science that the world is secular and naturalistic, but deep down I have faith not belief, but trust something more is out there and that is stated in scripture. I think it is dangerous, however, to state scriptures must agree with history which itself has not only been heavily politcized by both sides, but also is based on known evidence. Of which the unknown is likely gone.

@Haridasa Don't tag me with nonsense. In case there is any evidence of the yuga system in Puranas correlates with evidence, then show me. My stance is clear, neither Vedas nor Vedanta or even historical evidence endorses such timelines.

@User29449 None of the Vedāntācāryas of old reject Purāṇic view of yugas. This stance of rejection among a section of Hindus, is primarily since colonial times, when the Indian Hindus started thinking themselves 'educated' and adopted the opinions of their colonial masters. You may reject, as you wish. But this is very much a part of tradition. Śruti is not the only śāstra out there. In tradition, śruti is considered with Purāṇas, etc.

@Bingming I reject. So what?

my arguement is if their was evidence, then we likely wouldn't have it :)