No, I was not aware of Dieter Koch and his work. Thank you for informing me of such. The authors I quoted in the previous post, give extensive details on how they arrive at their dating of events including the eclipses, and the calculations they used are not something I have verified - nor could I, at my present level of knowledge.

If someone here disagrees that those eclipses could have happened on those dates, please speak up.

I agree with some of the points in the Koch article; I also disagree with some of the points; and I am neutral on other points - simply due to a lack of knowledge on my part, to decide either way.

I would encourage Koch to study those articles which are at the Indian astrology website, not just the books I quoted, but other ones as well.

I am aware of the huge problem of the ayanamsha, but at my current level of studies I have not yet decided which one is correct, or if different ones are correct at different time periods - due to a possible irregular rate of change of the precession of the equinoxes. The srimad bhagavatam has a very different ayanamsha calculation as well. I am aware of around 20 different ayanamshas, but I do not yet have the knowledge of how they were decided. I would also love to find the truth on the ayanamsha because without the correct one, much of the divisional chart information will be wrong. I am not qualified to say anything about the ayanamsha as of now.

The sama veda and the rg veda are not man-made, they are of the Cosmos/God; numerous other later texts in hindu tradition are made by humans, therefore not all of the texts are infallible.

There are different paths for different temperaments. Koch needs to understand this. I am not raised a hindu, but I am sure the two vedas mentioned, are infallible, and not of human origin. There are reasons why some of us believe the vedas cannot be questioned, and I am not willing to explain to the uninitiated and in public, on why this is so. It simply is so, and it is a fact to some of us.

However, other texts can be questioned, and this includes astrology texts. Koch in his criticisms, and his opponents as well, need to understand the difference between bhakti yoga and jnana yoga. Here are some excerpts from a jnana yoga scripture:

"The remark of a child is to be accepted, if it is in accordance with reason; but the remark of even Brahma, the creator of the world, is to be rejected like a piece of straw if it does not accord with reason...

The wrong notion that this world is real has become deep rooted on account of persistent wrong thinking. However, it can be removed that very day on which you resort to the company of holy men and to the study of the holy scripture. Of all scriptures this Maharamayana is best. What is found here is found elsewhere; what is not found here is not found anywhere else. However, if one does not wish to study this one is welcome to study any other scripture - there is no objection to this." - Maharamayana

Here is an excerpt from a bhakti yoga scripture:

"In the dream state a man sees many beings within himself, and in the waking state he sees himself as a single individual (he himself being the substratum for both these). Similarily, a man should regard all the beings in the universe and himself as identical with me. I am the consciousness that is the unity in diversity; when one forgets me he is entangled in diversity and worldly activity. Such activity is the cause of sorrow, whereas non-volitional activity is wisdom. Such wisdom gives birth to devotion to me. Cultivate this wisdom and you will soon attain perfection." - Srimad Bhagavatam

Now we can see the difference between jnana and bhakti yoga. Christianity and Islam are both bhakti yoga, for example. Any scripture which endorses complete surrender to fill-in-the-blank, is a bhakti yoga path, and it suits some temperaments. Other people are suited to the jnana yoga path e.g. buddhists. This is a short explanation, but it would take pages and volumes to go into all of this.

Some people follow both bhakti and jnana yoga, in different ways.

Dieter Koch needs to revise his article to eradicate it of false statements concerning the origins and dates of jyotish.

"Some scholars have claimed that the Babylonians invented the zodiac of 360 degrees around 700 BCE. Many claim that India received the knowledge of the zodiac from Babylonia or even later from Greece. However, as old as the Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic text, there are clear references to a chakra or wheel of 360 spokes placed in the sky." - Frawley

The term 'yavana' does not refer to Greeks, and it would be nice if our scholars would eventually acknowledge this fact.

"Indian astronomy is claimed to be borrowed from the Greeks, but the Vedanga Jyotisha cannot be dated later than the 14th century BC" - Astronomical dating of events in Indian history

I personally believe the 360 divided by twelve idea is far older than what our scholars believe.

There exist vedic deities and stories with parallels in Norse religion, when the scholars know how long ago these people split, then they will have an idea of how much older these things are then what they currently think. A time frame could be established when genetics is better understood, because then it could be found when the split happened. Then, astrology would have to be assumed to be dated earlier than the time of the Aryan/Indo-European tribal split.

The Sumerian and Egyptian currently espoused chronology is also wrong. These cultures used astrology long before is currently accepted. If you study the original lineages of Sumerian, Egyptian, and Vedic history, you will find that they are identical. I know that the European history was identical as well because of other similarities in ancient cultural teachings, but their roots were destroyed too long ago to look at any lineage listing.

Therefore, a European who studies the vedic tradition including the nakshatras, will be regaining their lost roots from the invasion and subjugation by Judeo-Christianity.

Did you know that people in the ancient Gilgamesh story had blue and green eyes? Did you know that Shiva had blond hair? The ancestors of these ancient traditions spent a long time in the lower latitudes and so their physical characteristics have changed since those days, many thousands of years ago. The hindus are cousins of the European tribes.

There are shadow forces in our midst who have destroyed the European roots and gotten Europeans to worship another group of people, in order to practice mind-control on them and to subjugate them. They have made it a thought-crime to be proud of European heritage and ancestry, while they continuously assert their own. The Aryan invasion myth is a myth because the hindus and Europeans are both originally from the same group of people.

If you are embarrassed and offended by these words, it is because of the thought-control program inserted into your mind. We can sit here and be offended by each other, or we can acknowledge that it is not a crime to have different ideas and beliefs and values. Although there are some who would like to make the previous few paragraphs a crime.

I believe astrology is a remnant of a science from a higher civilization from a previous world age, and so the argument about whether the hindus gained their knowledge from the greeks, is completely irrelevant and does not address the actual history.

The bias of Koch shines through his article like a spotlight, therefore I will be suspicious of his, otherwise well-researched article.

This is not about tropical vs sidereal to me, this is about finding the truth of the matter. Koch started his research with the assumption that the sidereal is wrong, end of question, and then he went about attempting to prove it. If Koch is right, then Australians are some mixed up people, i.e. Cancer Suns who are really Capricorn Suns etc.

I agree the rituals were done according to the seasons, however, this does not also imply that the nakshatras were based on the seasons. I know the modern hindu panchanga is wrong...

The panchanga, the rituals, and the nakshatras are not necessarily all equal and the same thing here. We are discussing different cycles imposed on one another, sort of like the Mayan calendars. We are discussing lunar cycles, lunar star-based nakshatras, solar cycles, and solar star-based mansions vs. solar cycle mansions.

From all appearances, I am not the only one stumbling along in the dark, trying to sort out this mess.

Dieter Koch is actually behaving in the same manner as Max M?ller, they both studied Hindu thought, not because they were interested in it, but because they both wanted to uproot it, this renders both of their opinions on the matter, suspect from the beginning.

Koch: "But in Vedic texts, lists of the lunar mansions always start with K?ttik?" This is an untruth or error, some of them start and end with the phalgunis.


Koch: "Indian astrology, as we know it today, is mainly used for clarification of worldly matters, aiming at earthly happiness." This is of course true to the vast majority of the population, but that is because of certain laws, where the majority of humans will be trapped in delusion and not ever care to contemplate higher things and seek liberation. For example:

"[The planets] are merely channels through which past karmic forces fructify...They provide opportunities for self-evolution provided they are taken in the right manner...

The scriptures [such as the viveka chudamani] have already described that various sheaths [auras] that account for the astromental as well as physical well being of the person cover the inner man or the essential core of the individual. His capacity to absorb the finer forces impinging upon the inner man and to react to them depends upon the nature and composition of these sheaths...planetary forces always affect these sheaths and induce the individual to evolve and to unveil his latent faculties. These forces are ever harmonized with the past karmic forces already generated by him. The planetary deities have arranged them in a specific order...If these forces could be intelligently understood, the individual could utilize them to accelerate his inner development. Planetary periodicity is in this way purposive...Knowledge of this sequence and the comprehension of one's archetypal goal gives the person strength and foresight to proceed confidently and to bear cheerfully the difficulties of the path." - Behari

Also:

"A genuine yogi sits and meditates not for fifteen minutes or half an hour but for years on end. He disciplines himself to endure all the physical discomforts caused by weather, and even when approached by a tiger or other dangerous animal, he remains fearless. Finally he raises himself (the soul) to the top of his skull and leaves the body at an astrologically auspicious moment" - Swami Prabhupada

Koch: "After the 'Laws of Manu,' people who earn their living through astrology are not allowed to attend Vedic rituals. Bh??ma, the great hero of the Mah?bh?rata epic also counts astrologers among the 'most depraved of the Brahmins'. Not only does he consider it shameful 'to earn one?s living from the stars' but even more generally the predicting of astrological dates or the performing of 'star sacrifices.'"
This is misleading, probably unintentionally by Koch, because the issue here isn't astrology, the issue is a brahmin (priest) becoming a vaishya (merchant). A Brahmin's karman was to perform sacrifices and other religious rituals, but in the source Koch cited, it lists even performing religious rituals (for money) as against the karman of a Brahmin. This is absolutely absurd, since it was a Brahmin position in society to do so. A Brahmin was always supposed to only earn their living through charity from the king and/or the other members of society. These rules were to prevent Brahmins from chasing wealth and thereby destroying the priesthood and themselves.

The truth is that only Brahmins were allowed to study astrology, and there was good reason for this.

Also, there is a difference between dwija (twice-born) on the symbolic/societal level and dwija in the true meaning of it. Dwija in the true meaning is an enlightened being.


Koch: "The spiritual claim of 'Vedic' astrology also deserves a note. From the point of view of Ved?nta, i.e. of spiritual liberation (mok?a?), astrology is completely irrelevant. K???a never says in the Bhagavadg?t? that astrology be required to attain to spiritual liberation." Koch is deliberately attacking those seekers who also practice astrology due to their immaturity level on the path. But on the other hand, astrologers who talk about spirituality should walk their talk and talk less.


Koch: "Whoever dares to critically question Hindu astrology enters an ideological minefield. Many Hindu scholars see approaches of Western science to their culture, history and sacred texts as assaults upon their spiritual tradition and their national pride. Unfortunately, some of them are not willing or able to discuss the matters in a sober and objective way but respond with aggression, tell their opponents that they have no competence at all, ridicule them, or accuse them of telling lies or wanting to destroy Hindu culture. Others avoid a real discussion, saying, e.g.: 'The texts of the Vedas have been written in such a way that the non-initiated should not be able to interpret it'. At least, these were the words that a Hindu scholar used when I just wanted a rational discussion on problematic passages in the Vedic writings. Western followers of Eastern teachings unfortunately often take over such patterns of behaviour."
This argument is again misleading, that person who told Koch that the non-initiated should not be able to interpret it, was referring specifically to the vedas. There is a damn good reason why curiosity-seekers and maligners and others should never understand the vedas. These type of people should not even be able to study astrology, but now everyone has access to it.


"In accordance with the prarabdha [karma] of each, the One whose function it is to ordain makes each to act. What will not happen will never happen, whatever effort one may put forth. And what will happen will not fail to happen, however much one may seek to prevent it. This is certain. The part of wisdom therefore is to stay quiet." - Ramana Maharshi

Jyotish is the study of this karma.

Koch cannot be a seeker or student of the religious teachings of India, based on this article. I dare say he does not know more about this matter than I do. The gurus never gave every person the same advice. There were different teachings for householders as opposed to sannyasins. And individuals each received a different teaching from the guru. Every person is unique and every person needs different teachings, the gurus knew this and they knew how to identify what a person needed, because they were gurus. Therefore, Koch's attempt to place the entire religious teachings of the various sects in India into one box, just does not fit.



Koch: "The Indians themselves do not call their astrology 'Vedic', or have not done so until recently. The traditional expression is simply jyoti?am, i.e. the '(science) of the lights.' The term 'Vedic astrology' appeared only in recent decades, with the aforementioned boom of Hindu astrology in the West. Evil tongues say that the term was invented only because 'Vedic' ? i.e. spiritual ? astrology sells better. In the West, it was made very popular by well-known American astrologers, e.g. David Frawley. It enjoys in?creasing popularity even among Indian astrologers."
This is true and it is good of Koch to point this out, for those who are true seekers:
"A man's desire for a woman is innocence itself compared to the lusting for an everlasting personal bliss. The mind is a cheat. The more pious it seems, the worse the betrayal." - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaja


Koch is also right about this: jyotish is not necessary for true seekers, and it is a distraction.

Koch should know that jyotish is also called "the eye of the vedas."

There are going to be numerous contradictions in something as large as hinduism, or even something as large as a human being. This is where right discrimination comes in...

Hi Varuna,

I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".
This is the end of every discussion, of human thought and science. We have to believe. Thus, myth is winning the victory over rationality.
It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists, saying the Bible is not man-made but a revelation, God himself speaking - a justification for all kind of (a)morals.
Like Kepler - who said, "God is the most supreme geometer" - I think we should use our brains in order better to understand god's creation.

Richard

Richard Vetter wrote:I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".

It also happens to contradict the orthodox position of most Hindu schools of thought (such as Vedanta), namely, that the Vedas are eternal and unauthored.

Richard Vetter wrote:Hi Varuna,

I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".
This is the end of every discussion, of human thought and science. We have to believe. Thus, myth is winning the victory over rationality.
It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists, saying the Bible is not man-made but a revelation, God himself speaking - a justification for all kind of (a)morals.
Like Kepler - who said, "God is the most supreme geometer" - I think we should use our brains in order better to understand god's creation.

Richard

Richard,

Firstly, I stated: "The sama veda and the rg veda are not man-made, they are of the Cosmos/God"

I was very careful in my choice in wording and I will explain this in the next post in response to Martin.

Secondly, one needs faith in any matter of human endeavor, and this includes what you are proposing. For example, you have faith that it is possible to better understand the Creation, and that it is desirable to do so, and that you have tools and ways to do this. You have faith in the idea that the world exists, and in your relationship with this thing you call Creation.

I understand your frustration with people who believe in some text and who are unwilling to question it, e.g. the vedas or the bible. I have also experienced this frustration with these people at certain times in life. No discussions are allowed in this situation.

However, bhakti and faith are not of the intellect and they will never be of the intellect, but it seems like people need some basis or foundation for their position in this ephemeral dream-world. Faith provides that basis. Every person I have ever met, has some basis for their ideas on who they are and what the world is, and what their place in this world is.

Your temperament may not be one of a bhakti, and if so you will never agree with this attitude. Maybe you do not even understand it. Or maybe you do understand it but you look at it differently from others. Here is a rhetorical question:

Should everyone think exactly the same and live the way you think they should?

There are different qualities and levels of bhakti as well. Faith is of the heart and belief is of the mind - I don't believe in the vedas in the same way a Christian believes in the actual intellectual exercises/writings and stories in the Bible. The vedas do not have intellectual meaning.

I would encourage you to follow the path that has heart for you. If Kepler is an inspiration to you, then walk that path. I am not against trying to understand the Great Mystery like our scientists do. I am from a family of scientists. I grew up with scientific texts, e.g. I was studying geology and paleontology and evolutionary theory and such, before it was taught to us in grade school.

I have walked in those shoes.

Science didn't satisfy me as I became an adult, it was no longer a path of heart for me.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Richard Vetter wrote:I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".

It also happens to contradict the orthodox position of most Hindu schools of thought (such as Vedanta), namely, that the Vedas are eternal and unauthored.

Martin,

I wrote: "The sama veda and the rg veda are not man-made, they are of the Cosmos/God"

We need to look at the term: 'of.' This term 'of' was meant to imply "sharing the same nature and identity as." This is opposed to 'from,' as in: "created by."

Also, we need to look into the slash mark: / This slash mark was intended to convey the idea that the Cosmos is God and God is the Cosmos. The Cosmos was written with the idea that the definition of cosmos is: the all. In other words, everything that has ever existed and that ever will exist and everything that has never existed and will never exist and everything in between all of these things and outside all of these things and inside all of these things.

It is difficult to put this concept into words, but you know what I meant.

You know vedanta and so do I. We both understand these things, therefore, I meant it the same way you wrote it.

Also, the reason the wording was so awkward is because I edited that statement after I posted it by deleting part of it, because I wrote something more revealing and I decided not to do so.

Part of this post was immature, so it was deleted.

The problem with religious scripture is the intermediate person holding the pencil.

It reminds me of a dialogue between lawyer and witness in a criminal trial in which the witness, a security guard, tells about his guard dog which was said to have recognised a criminal by smell.

Witness: My guard dog is never mistaken, that's for sure.
Lawyer: Are you mistaken sometimes?
Witness: Yes sure, I'm human and humans make mistakes from time to time.
Witness: If you are mistaken sometimes, how can you be sure that your guard dog is never mistaken?

Eddy,

Thank you for responding. I needed a break and I still do, which may have been clear based on my previous post, part of which was deleted because it was immature and not called for.

We are in a situation where we are going to be going around in circles now.

I don't mean to dismiss your post, but I don't feel like writing anything now, and I don't even know if you were trying to start a debate, or if you were making a reply on how you believe and leaving it at that?

How far do you take this epistemic stance, concerning human fallibility? Do you place all types of human second-hand (eg book) knowledge in this? Do you place knowledge based on the senses (eg sight, sound) in this? Since you are presumably a human, do you trust your own mind? Do you trust your senses? Do you consider the news media as a valid source? Do you trust history books? What is your opinion of biology and other science textbooks? What about the decisions of law courts? And so on and so forth.

Can you teach me how to discern epistemological-sound knowledge, from your perspective?

Are you suggesting there is some untruth in all scriptures? Are you suggesting that all scriptures are full of untruth from top to bottom?

Divine inspiration may exist but scriptures that were wrtitten down after preceding centuries of oral passing through of stories should not be taken litteraly as directly of god.

Richard,

Koch has revised that article:

http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm

I would also revise this statement I made: "Koch cannot be a seeker or student of [hindu thought]."

I am not qualified to say there are no other errors in his article, but two of them still stand out.

Koch: "But in Vedic texts, lists of the lunar mansions always start with K?ttik?"
This is an error, and here are some examples, from Frawley's work:

?Uttara Phalguni is the mouth of the year. Purva Phalguni is its tail, just as two ends of a thing meet so these two ends of the year meet together? (Gopatha Brahmana I.19).

?The full Moon night in the Phalgunis is the beginning of the year; the latter Phalgunis are the beginning, the former the end. Just as the two ends of a circle unite, so these two ends of the year are connected?? (Kaushitaki Brahmana V.1).

?Chitra is the head of Prajapati [the God of sacrifice or the year], Swati the heart, Hasta the hand, Vishakha the thighs, and Anuradha the foot? (Taittiriya Brahmana I.5.2.2).

I am not suggesting that these different order schemes are based on the same reasoning, but Koch's Krittika statement is misleading in light of the above quotes.

One other part which stands out as an error is the first citation at the end of the article:


"1 An impressive example is the interpretation of ChUp 6.8.7: tat satyam sa ?tm? tat tvam asi, "this is the true, this is the Self, this art thou". The Dvaitaved?nta tradition of Madhv?c?rya, which teaches the difference between the individual and God, reads the same text: tat satyam sa ?tm?-atat tvam asi, "... this is the true, this is the (divine) Self, this thou art not". Such violent treatment of sacred texts are anything but rare. Although the Advaitaved?nta tradition of ?a?kar?c?rya, from a superficial level, seems to be more in tune with the meaning of quoted text, on a more subtle level it also twists the meaning of the text. As a result of the radical non-duality of all things taught by ?a?kara, the teaching of K???a, which is essentially focused on selfless deeds, understood as a constant sacrifice to God, is twisted into a doctrine of the unreality of all individual existence, within which selfless deeds and worship ultimately make no sense at all. Similar phenomena appear in the astrological tradition, as I will show below."

The mountain analogy is necessary to see why these teachings appear contradictory. Those different teachings are for people starting out at the bottom of the mountain, where the paths are different (due to differing temperaments), but at the top of the mountain the paths reach the same place. The difference is only a matter of perspective and level on the path. Scholars separate and classify things.

Martin,

It is difficult to communicate using words, so if I write something from the perspective of hindu thought and jyotish, and it appears contradictory to the teachings, it is good that you point it out, because if it appears wrong to you, that means it will be very misleading to someone who does not have a background in this area.

I would never have realized that my statement Richard and yourself pointed out, was read the way it was.