Thanks Mark, initially I just wrote a reply which somewhat turned into Blavatskybashing, but I erased it since the purpose of the thread is indeed the Sun in classical astrology. A few short remarks about modern astrology though are useful to point out the differences between modern and traditional so I wouldn't regret it too much for having mentioned Greene.

I point out it is similar and ask for a date

This is a nonsensical approach. Obviously no one writes down "Well here is a new idea and today's date is ....." And no one has researched this and for good reason. It doesn't matter. This board exists to discuss traditional astrology not do research for others.

The only reason to continually ask for a date is to pretend that this conversation belongs on a traditional list and the purpose is to discuss psychological astrology where it does not belong. Therefore all of it has been deleted, and will continue to be deleted as I see fit.

Tom

Sun in Vedic astrology- quite consistently denotes -"Atman" or the Soul.It also means self or individual.

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scri ... rection=AU

From Brihat Parashara Hora:

12-13. Planet governances. Sun is the soul of all. Moon is the mind. Mars is ones strength. Mercury is speech-giver, while Jupiter confers Knowledge and happiness. Venus governs semen (potency), while Saturn denotes grief.

Now, bring in the Theosophists and their study of Srimad Bhagvad Gita and the Upanishads and the various ways Atman has been used in texts :

http://vedabase.net/a/atman

and you have a ground for Sun-sign astrology.
Traditionally, an afflicted sun- would give a troubled eyesight, short stature or trouble with bones, troubles to father and from the King etc.

Most of the predictions about individual in India is done by the sidereal Moon sign: the names are given by the alphabet ascribed to the quarter of the Lunar mansion, the nature described by the Moon sign and transits of Jupiter, Saturn and Nodes predicted by Moon sign itself.The Lunar masion numerical tally is also done for compatability testing.

It seems as if whatever there was for Moon in Traditional Indian astrology was switched over to the Sun because Theosophy and related groups are primarily Sun worshippers.

But this is purely my speculation.

The influence of Theosophy and associated Occult masonry was very strong in India.Upanishads and Tantric texts have been translated by Theosophical leaning translators and they are quite good as well . They can generally be noted by their translation of certain words into "The shining one" or references to the "Master" and for giving an alternate viewpoint or theory or a new manuscript discovered somewhere.


PD

Eddy wrote:Here's an article about Varahamihira. http://www.iranchamber.com/personalitie ... mihira.php
He was born and lived in Ujjain, India but was of the Iranian people who mainly were Sun worshippers. The indigenous people of India didn't like the Iranians which can be seen in their religious ideas as can be seen in the following:

the article wrote:The Irano-Aryans were Aryan Sun-worshippers of Surya, representative of the forces of Light and Day, while the Vedic Brahmins were adherents of the Semitic Moon-cult of Sin or Chandra, representative of the forces of Darkness and the Night. It must be recalled that the prime god in the Vedas is Indra, a derivative of Indu, the moon-god, while the Irano-Aryan sun-god Surya is cursed in the selenolatric (moon-worshipping) Vedas and Puranas as "Asura" or demon. Instead, the Vaidiks worship the "devas" (a term cognate with the English "devil"), while these "daivas" are considered malevolent spirits in the Iranic tradition. Indeed, the Vedic cult is the very opposite of the Aryan or Iranian religion, and is anti-Aryan in spirit, one of the main proofs for the non-Aryan origin of the Vedic Brahmins.

I'm sorry, but this is hogwash, and whoever wrote it clearly had some rather twisted agenda of their own, equating Iranian with Aryan and 'the forces of Light', and Indian with Semitic (!) and 'the forces of Darkness'. Here are some basic historical facts:

1. The Vedic Indians (i.e., the people who composed the Vedas) were (almost certainly) not the indigenous people of India.
2. Vedic and Old Iranian are two very closely related languages, both belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. In other words, they are both 'Aryan', not Semitic. (There is no such term as 'Irano-Aryan' in common use.) The ancient Indians referred to themselves as arya, the Iranians called themselves ariya. The two cultures are very similar in many respects.
3. The Sun god held a far more prominent place in Vedic religion than the Moon god. There were in fact several Vedic solar deities representing different aspects of the Sun. Surya is the name of one such Vedic deity, not an Iranian one.
4. In the Vedic language, the words deva and asura are both used in the sense of 'god, deity'. Later, the word asura came to be used in the sense of 'demon'. The opposite development is true of the Old Iranian cognates daiva and ahura. The English word 'devil' is not in any way related to deva/daiva, but is derived from the Greek diabolos. (Etymology isn't just about finding words that sound alike.) Similarly, the name Indra is not derived from Indu.

Now can we please have less of the devil-worshipping 'Semitic' brahmins and the forces of darkness, and a more discriminating use of Internet sources?

Hi Martin,

While I agree about the diablolical Internet hogwash, it's not reason to treat Eddy like an asura because of it.

1. The Vedic Indians (i.e., the people who composed the Vedas) were (almost certainly) not the indigenous people of India.

Hello Martin,

That is what I had always read although there seems to be a lot of people now trying to deny there was ever an 'Ayran invasion/settlement of northern India. Thus the Vedas are claimed to be part of the indigenous Indian heritage. For example the American practitioner of Indian astrology David Frawley has argued this. Its usually seems to be proposed by people like Frawley who have religious beliefs that favour making the Vedas an ancient indigenous Indian development.

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/a ... awley.html

Martin,

As you have been reading the thread I was wondering if you could comment on the role of the Sun in Indian astrology? I am now rather confused whether to conclude it was seen as a malefic, benefic or common planet. How representative is the selection of the Brihat Parashara Hora quoted by Pankajdubey?

Mark

GR wrote:While I agree about the diablolical Internet hogwash, it's not reason to treat Eddy like an asura because of it.

No, you are quite right. I meant no offence towards Eddy, and apologize if he felt hurt (though I still feel we should all be alert when it comes to the sort of sources we reference). It just gets to me when people deliberately twist the facts to serve their own sordid little schemes, the way the author of that article did.

Mark wrote:That is what I had always read although there seems to be a lot of people now trying to deny there was ever an 'Ayran invasion/settlement of northern India.

There are, and they have a case of sorts, but it is a very weak one. Still, that's why I added the 'almost certainly'. The problem is that the issue has become intensely politicized.

As you have been reading the thread I was wondering if you could comment on the role of the Sun in Indian astrology? I am now rather confused whether to conclude it was seen as a malefic, benefic or common planet. How representative is the selection of the Brihat Parashara Hora quoted by Pankajdubey?

The problem with the BPH is that there are so many versions of it about. But to the best of my knowledge, all the Indian sources treat the Sun as a malefic -- which is not to say that it doesn't signify good things (the Self, kings, gold, the father, etc); it is just a harsh influence on other planets or on a house. I recall one modern author (G. K. Ojha) making the distinction that the Sun is kr?ra (harsh, fierce) but not p?pa (evil). I don't know if that was his own observation or taken from some other source. Most texts, however, do not hesitate to call the Sun p?pa.

Mark wrote: As you have been reading the thread I was wondering if you could comment on the role of the Sun in Indian astrology? I am now rather confused whether to conclude it was seen as a malefic, benefic or common planet. ?

Now I don't know if someone else has already mentioned in this thread, but we know quite well that the Sun is anareta - killing planet- when the Moon is the prorogator, even in our Western astrology.

margherita

There's something to it --

There are 2 dynasties which are accounted for in the Puranas (i don't do sanskrit so merely report) a Solar & a Lunar Dynasty ...

The Lunar seems to have been the chtonic (pre Vedic) with the nakshatras adapted by the Aryans x000 BC from the earlier cultures (eg Harappan, whose astronomy seems similar to the Sumerian -- both cultures prefix a word which signifies that it is celestrial -- the Sumerian with a * the Harappan with a fish symbol.

One man's asura is another man's deva ...

I think the Sun Worshippers (Solar Dynasty) came in there after Cyrus's conquests with the Magi who learned the Babylonian (Semitic) arts -- the Magi being a priestly caste/tribe of Medes similar to the semitic Levites or the Hindu Brahmin ... and, I believe, are called Maga Brahmins

The classical hindu naming rituals are lunar insofar as the sound associated with the pada of the nakshatra of the native's moon is incorporated into the infant's name

Lunar, the Ante Semitic (eg pre Babyonian)

No offence taken Martin. Since I myself can be very critical, I sure accept a critical response towards me as long as it is scientifically well founded with reliable authors/scientific articles. To find historical truth it sometimes is necessary to cause some pain by demystification.

I don't know how closely you examined the article, did you read it (entirely)? If the quote scared you off immediately, please have a closer look at the article, it's not all devils and darkness. I don't know much about which authors are reliable in the Indian culture studies but the article seems quite reasonable and not weird fantasy issues in it. Perhaps the writer got wrong conclusions but what do you think of the authors in the sources mentioned? Dravidian culture is mentioned and there's absolutely no Koenraad Elst alike aryan invasion denial in it. Astrophysicist Rajesh Kochhar is mentioned. Concerning his negative view on astrology (sorry to say this but, which often is a good safeguard against esoteric bias), it's sure there's no risk of any new-age stuff in at least this man's ideas http://www.hvk.org/articles/0601/95.html

Margherita wrote:

Now I don't know if someone else has already mentioned in this thread, but we know quite well that the Sun is anareta - killing planet- when the Moon is the prorogator, even in our Western astrology.

From the Skyscript Glossary

A planet that is capable of signifying destruction and therefore offers a threat to the hyleg, ('giver or life'), at birth and by direction. The anareta may be a malefic planet, the lord of the 8th, the almuten of the lord of the 8th, or a planet placed in the 8th house. The terms of the infortunes are called anaretic degrees.

So surely any planet can be the anareta not just the Sun?

Equally cant the Sun be the Prorogator ie the Apheta or Life Giver, in contrast to the Anareta? I understood by day in aphetical places, the Sun holds the position of Prorogator; by night the Moon?

Mark