Skyscript Astrology Forum

Here is another aspect of the Koch article, which should be rephrased, since the Indians do not consider the Mahabharata to be prehistory.

Koch: The situation is similar in later Vedic texts like the great Mah?bh?rata epic, which relates us the story of an apocalyptic war in Indian prehistory.

"These scholars have discounted the fact that two of the greatest epics of
the world, Ramayana and Mahabharata are traditionally regarded as itihasa s, i.e., historic texts and that there are in addition, a host of supporting texts in the form of Puranas. Ignoring the fact that Bharata has its own sense of history and the purpose of history, which differs
from their own concept of history, the scholars have systematically misrepresented the chronology of Bharata" - Astronomical dating of events from Indian history

Also, first the Western story:

Koch: "From about the second century AD on, astrologers and astronomers from Hellenistic Egypt brought their knowledge to India and triggered a development that took the Indian sciences of the sky to new heights."

Koch: "The oldest astrological work in Sanskrit that knows the zodiac is the Yavanaj?taka ("birth chart according to the Greeks") by Sphujidhvaja, a textbook of astrology in verse that, according to its own testimony, is based on a Sanskrit translation of a Greek original. David Pingree suggested that this text was written in the 2nd century BC in Alexandria and came to India around 150 AD."

Koch: "Other old works from the Greek-inspired era, the so-called Siddh?ntas..."

Koch: "As has been said already, the most ancient astrological text, the Yavanaj?takam, teaches that the zodiac is fixed at the cardinal points of the year and at the same time also at the lunar mansions. According to David Pingree, this text was written around the year 150 AD."


For those who are interested in the history of astronomy and astrology, should we also consider what 'hindu' scholars say?

Here are some excerpts from: Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard Thompson. I was not going to copy the entire chapter, but I took excerpts to illustrate the hindu viewpoint on this matter, in order to demonstrate that maybe we should reconsider history from the hindu perspective, before imposing the Western version onto them.

I don't know if this book is still in print, but for those who are interested in this history of astronomical science issue, it may be something worth finding and taking into consideration.

Now, the hindu story:

"Nonetheless, even though our knowledge of the history of ancient astronomy is extremely incomplete, there are scholars who believe that they can uncover important parts of this history by speculative reconstruction. One example of this is a paper entitled ' The Recovery of Early Greek Astronomy from India,' by David Pingree (PG). In order to indicate the complexities and pitfalls of the speculative process, we will examine the key argument of this paper in detail. This will involve the use of a number of technical astronomical terms, but we will explain these as we go along. Our method will be to first present Pingree's theory, and then give his reasons for accepting this theory as true. Then step by step we will show the fallacies in his reasoning and present an alternative theory that is in better agreement with the facts..." p. 182

"...Now, how does Pingree know that this is what Aryabhata did some 1,400 years ago? His key argument is that if we us Ptolemaic calculations to reproduce Aryabhata's supposed steps, then we obtain Aryabhata's parameters for mean planetary motion almost exactly. Aryabhata's parameters, listed under R in Table A2.1, are in the hundreds of thousands and millions. Column (1) of this table lists the differences between Aryabhata's parameters and these parameters as reconstructed by Pingree. For example, for Jupiter, Aryabhata's rate is 364,224 revolutions per yuga cycle, and Pingree's reconstruction is larger than this by 4. Since these differences are very small, it is hard to imagine how Aryabhata could have arrived at his parameters without following the scenario that Pingree proposes. This makes it seem that Pingree's conclusion concerning Aryabhata is indisputable, and equally so his contention that nearly every aspect of Indian astronomy was imported by Greek sources without acknowledgement (PG, pp. 114-5).

An argument such as Pingree's has a great impact on the academic world. It tends to be immediately convincing to scholars, and it becomes established as a foundation stone in an imposing school of thought that cannot be easily challenged by nonprofessionals. As a result, scholars in other fields (such as comparative religion and history) accept the conclusions of such a school as a matter of course, and modify their own views in accordance with it..." p. 184

"However, one can indeed find other ways by which Aryabhata could have arrived at his parameters. The Brahmapaksa parameters are expressed in revolutions per kalpa of 4,320,000,000 years, whereas Aryabhata wanted parameters in revolutions per yuga cycle of 4,320,000 years (See Table A2.3). What happens if we simply divide the Brahmapaksa parameters by 1,000 and then round them off to suitable integers of the form 4n or 4n + 2? Column (4) of Table A2.1 shows the differences between the parameters computed in this way and Aryabhata's original parameters..." p. 184

"...As we shall see, this fine tuning can be accounted for in ways other than the one advocated by Pingree. To do this, it is first necessary to examine Pingree's argument more closely..." p. 185

"After we have checked our Ptolemaic calculations at the Kali-yuga starting date, the next step is to perform these calculations for noon of March 21, A.D. 499, the date of Aryabhata's alleged calculations. There are 454,759 days from Ptolemy's epoch to this date. If we compute the Ptolemaic mean positions for this date, a number of interesting points emerge. First of all, the Ptolemaic mean longitudes do not at all agree with Pingree's figures, as given in his Table 2 (PG, p. 116). This can be seen by comparing the rightmost and leftmost columns of Table A2.2." p. 187

"We have also not been able to account for the discrepancies between the middle and rightmost columns of Table A2.2, for it would seem that calculations for 454,759 days after Ptolemy's epoch should be even more precise than calculations for 860,172.25 days before that epoch. (We note that Pingree's Ptolemaic calculations apparently have not been corrected for the time difference between Ptolemy's city of Alexandria and Aryabhata's city of Ujjain; this possible correction does not account for the discrepancy.)" p. 188-9

"For Venus and Mercury the errors in Pingree's reconstruction of Aryabhata's parameters turn out to be worse than those reported by Pingree in his paper. (Compare columns 1 and 2 of Table A2.1.) This indicates errors on Pingree's part, but it might be argued that it does not detract very badly from his hypothesis. We therefore ask, Is there some reasonable way of reconstructing Aryabhata's parameters that produce smaller errors for all of the planets than Pingree's method? The answer is yes. To explain this, we must turn to a discussion of the mean positions of the planets according to modern astronomy..." p. 189

"...Let us suppose that Aryabhata did this, and that he then computed his parameters using his observed longitudes rather than longitudes copied from a Greek table. This leads to a reconstruction of his parameters based on modern calculation of the differences between mean longitudes and the sun's mean longitude. The longitudes and resulting parameters for this reconstruction are listed in the last two columns of Table A2.3, and the errors in this reconstruction are listed in column (5) of Table A2.1. As we can see, these errors are zero, except for Mercury, where the error is equal to that in Pingree's reported reconstruction (see columns (1) and (2)). Thus, the hypothesis of observation yields better results than the hypothesis of copying from Greek tables..." p. 193

"...Persia is the natural link between India and the West, but of this country Neugebauer says:

'We know of Pahlavi translations of such first and second century astrological writings as Teucer and Vettius Valens and the presence of 'Indian books' as well as of the 'Roman megesti' around A.D. 250 under Shapur I. Under Khosro I,... was revised, around A.D. 550, the famous Zij ash-Shah, which has been shown to be greatly dependent on Hindu sources (NG, p..'" p. 194

"...In the remaining part of this appendix, we will give two more examples of the process of speculative reconstruction. These examples deal with the theoretical ideas and mathematical methods of Indian astronomy, which Western historians of science say were derived entirely from Greeks or Babylonians via Greek intermediaries." p. 194

"...These statements certainly convey the impression that the Indian sine-table was directly obtained from a related trigonometrical table used by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus. However, what do we find if we actually examine the paper by G.J. Toomer that these authorities are citing? Let us briefly consider this.

The first thing that we learn from this paper is that there are no surviving Greek documents containing Hipparchus' chord table, even in a fragmentary form. Indeed, 'there is no explicit evidence about the nature of Hipparchus' chord table,' and no real proof that such a table ever existed (TMI, p. 6). It is important to note that only one work of Hipparchus' has ever survived - a commentary on the stars - and this does not present his mathematical methods. As we have already noted, this is typical of the state of our knowledge of pre-Ptolemaic Greek astronomy..." p. 195

"...By this reasoning Toomer maintains that ' the nature of Hipparchus' chord table is conclusively established' (TMI, p.16). Since the table has the structure of an Indian sine table, it follows that Indian trigonometry must have been derived from the Greeks. The idea that Greeks may have been influenced by Indian developments is never even suggested by modern Western historians of science. But in this case, of course, we have no evidence for influence either way, since the connection between Hipparchus' two numbers and the Indian sine table is purely speculative..." p. 196

"...Since the chord table of Hipparchus has not survived (if it ever existed), it is remarkable that such slender evidence can be offered as the basis for 'inevitable' conclusions about it. Yet, as we have seen, such speculative reconstructions are not unusual in the field of the history of science. Here we will give one more example. This is provided by the mathematician B.L. van der Waerden, who traces back Hipparchus' trigonometry to the Greek mathematician Apollonius of Perge (VW, pp. 211-12). Van der Waerden's reasoning goes as follows:..." p. 197

"...We have discussed the arguments of Pingree, Toomer, and van der Waerden in detail to show the kind of foundations that underlie scholarly conclusions about the origins of Indian astronomy. The main characteristic of these foundations is that they are composed almost entirely of unsupported assumptions, biased interpretations, and imaginary reconstructions. It is unfortunate, however, that after many scholars have presented arguments of this type in learned treatises, the arguments accumulate to produce an imposing stratified deposit of apparently indisputable authority. In this way, supposedly solid facts are established by the fossilization of fanciful speculations whose original direction was determined by scholarly prejudice. Ultimately, these facts are presented in elementary texts and popular books, and accepted on faith by innocent people." p. 198

I am not trying to pick on Koch, but it just so happened I came across Pingree in three sources at the same time, and so I thought it should be mentioned that there is conflicting stories about Pingree and his research. And the story of Pingree's research is foundational to the current understanding of the history of astronomy.

Eddy referenced me to a paper by Pingree earlier in this thread:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972JHA.....3...27P

Richard referenced me to Koch's article at astro.com and that article was partly based on Pingree.

Then, I started reading more of Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy, and there was this Pingree again. Pingree is one of the main scholars whom is referenced to by others and it appears that his research is questionable.

Fate it seems...

Varuna,

thank you for your comments on my article (http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm), which I. I would like to answer to some of your points:

varuna wrote: 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

Frawley is wrong. The wheel of 12 spokes with ?720 sons in pairs? (Rigveda 1.164.11 and 48 ) refers to the twelve months (12 x 30 days and 30 nights). I discussed this in footnote No. 4 of my article. Please read here: http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic ... otnote4sym

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

I do not know what you mean by ?what our scholars believe?. However, 360 divided by twelve is no proof of a zodiac. It is much more likely that it refers to the twelve months. Kindly note, names of zodiac signs are not mentioned in the Vedas, month names are - many times!

varuna wrote: 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.

I am talking about nakshatra *lists*. Please show me a *list* of nakshatras that start with Uttaraphalguni.
Where the Brahmanas say that Uttaraphalguni or another nakshatra is the mouth of the year, this refers to a calendar in which this nakshatra marked the beginning of the year. But this is not a *list* of nakshatra names. If I overlooked one that starts with another nakshatra, I am willing to learn. Please give me a reference. The nakshatra Krittika is extremely important in the Vedic texts and the Mahabharata, much more than any other nakshatra.

As to Madhvacharya, Shankaracharya, you say:

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.

I do not believe this, and I think that only Advaitavadis would agree with it, no other school of Vedanta would agree. Reading "tat" or "atat" is not the same! To me it seems obvious that the two teachings *are* and do not only "appear" in contradiction with each other. And from this it follows that one or both must be in contradiction with Vedic writings.

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.

Thanks for this clarification. Maybe I am going to far here. But please look at my 3rd quotation from the Mahabharata in footnote 16 (http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic ... otnote4sym). May be this is not only about money but at predicting in general.

I do not want to judge Hindu astrology based on this single verse. However, you agree with me in the following point:

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

Kind regards

Dieter Koch

Hi Dieter,

You are very welcome. I salute you from one seeker to another.

Firstly, I would like to make a general statement, and state a premise, for the benefit of each of us and everyone else: History, from the standpoint of ordinary mortals, is a supposition and second-hand knowledge.

"Just as the accession of treasure in a dream is useless, so also is second-hand knowledge" (Tripura Rahasya XV.27).

Now then, to start...

" I discussed this in footnote No. 4 of my article."

footnote 4: "Vedic astrologers contradict this statement and claim that as a matter of fact the zodiac signs are mentioned in the Vedas. Waradpande in "New Light on the Date of the Rgveda", p.13-24, refers to the following places in ?gveda: Leo/Lion (si?ha?) in RV 5.83.3 and 9.89.3, Virgo/Virgin (kany?) in RV 6.49.7, Gemini/Twins (mithunau) in RV 3.39.3 and Taurus/Bull (v?shabha?) in RV 6.47.5 and 8.93.1.

None of these references is convincing. Let us first look at the last one, which, at a first glance, is most striking:

ud ghed abhi ?rut?magha? v??abha? nary?pasam | ast?ram e?i s?rya
(RV 8.93.1)

"Up, o Surya, you rise, to <Indra>, the Bull, who is known for his gifts, whose deeds are heroic, to the archer."

This verse allegedly refers to the zodiac sign of Taurus, and as a matter of fact, the word v??abha? used here is a common Sanskrit name of this zodiac sign. The mention of the "archer" (ast?), which would associate Sagittarius, is ignored, though. Why? Because the common name of Sagittarius is dhanu? or "bow"? However, it is completely impossible that the "bull" here be meant as the constellation or zodiac sign Taurus. In the Vedic scriptures, "bull" is a common title for great heroes, such as Arjuna or other great heroes of the Mah?bh?rata epic, but especially for the Vedic storm and rain god Indra, to whom this hymn is addressed. In other words: The word "bull" in our verse does not refer to a constellation, but is an often-used title of the hero Indra. Those who apply this verse to the constellation or zodiac sign of Taurus, are obviously not aware of the signification of the bull metaphor in ancient Indian warriorhood.

Waradpande also refers to the following verse taken from a hymn to the rain god Parjanya:

rath?va ka?ay??v?? abhik?ipann ?vir d?t?n k??ute var?y?? aha
d?r?t si?hasya stanath? ud ?rate yat parjanya? k??ute var?ya? nabha?
(RV 5.83.3)

"Like the charioteer driving the horses by the whip, he makes the messengers of rain appear. / From afar the roars of the lion arise declare, when Parjanya makes the rain clouds."

Interpreting the "lion" as the constellation Leo would be far-fetched. The verse is just comparing the thundering rain god with a roaring lion. Besides, "lion" was an often used title for heroes and heroic gods, similar to the title "bull". This explanation also holds for the following verse from a hymn to Soma:

si?ha? nasanta madhvo ay?sa? harim aru?a? divo asya patim
??ro yutsu prathama? p?cchate g? asya cak?as? pari p?ty uk?? (RV 9.89.3)

"The sweet (cows) approach the lion, the dexterous, yellowish, reddish Lord of this sky. The foremost hero in battles looks after the cows, the bull guards them with his eye."

"Lion" here is a title of Soma, addressed as a moon god, not as the constellation of Leo. Besides he is called the "foremost hero in battles" and "bull". The cows are probably the Pleiades or some other stars.

"Vedic" astrologers also refer to ?gveda 1.164.11 and 48. The twelve subdivisions of the year mentioned there allegedly prove that the zodiac was known. The text reads:

dv?da??ra? nahi taj jar?ya vavarti cakra? pari dy?m ?tasya
? putr? agne mithun?so atra sapta ?at?ni vi??ati? ca tasthu?

"This wheel of twelve spokes of divine order revolves around the sky without fatigue. Upon it, o Agni, stand in pairs 720 sons."

However, never do we find a name list of the twelve zodiac signs in Vedic texts, and not even one clear mentioning of a single zodiac sign. What we do find, though, are name lists of the twelve months. This verse therefore no doubt alludes to the twelve months of the year, and the "720" stands for the number of days and nights in an "ideal year" of 360 days. Such an "ideal year" still underlies today?s Indian lunar calendars. They consist of 12 months of 30 Tithis each, where one Tithi roughly corresponds to one day. The details of the calendar calculation in ?gvedic times are not exactly known. However, as the year is said to "revolve around the sky," we can surmise that a somewhat similar method was used as described in the cuneiform text Epinnu (mul.apin). This text also uses an ideal year of 360 days (12 months of 30 days each) and lists the ideal dates on which different stars or constellations had their heliacal risings. The correlation of heliacal risings with calendar dates served the purpose of timely insertion of leap months. In the Vedic calendar the positions of the full moons in the lunar mansions could have been used for this purpose. It is interesting that Epinnu does not correlate months and zodiac signs, and that it lists 17, not 12, ecliptic constellations. Among these are some of today?s zodiac, but some are missing or bear other names. E.g. Aries was called the "Hired Man" and Virgo was known as the "Furrow". The example of Epinnu impressively demonstrates that a twelve-spoke wheel in ?gveda not necessarily indicates the circle of the twelve zodiac signs."

(RV 8.93.1) It is also traditionally taught that Indra rides an elephant and one of the things he carries is a bow. Some people said that Indra represents the Sun, but then other people said Indra represents Jupiter/Brihaspati/Guru/Ganesha. So we see Indra associated with the Sun, but then we also see Indra associated with elephants and Jupiter. In the RV 8.93.1 quote you gave, we do see Surya (Sun and something else) mentioned in the hymn to Indra. Indra is also called the king of heaven, so is it the Sun or is it Jupiter or is it both? The nakshatra of Rohini (found in Taurus) is also symbolized by a red ox or ox-cart among other things. Karttikeya is the son of Shiva, and he was raised by the wives of the seven rshis who are represented by the Pleiades which are in Krittika nakshatra. There may not be mention of Karttikeya in the vedas, but it is not hard to see the similarity in the name of Karttikeya and Krittika nakshatra. Karttikeya is always pictured with his bow and arrows and he is a God of war and an archer, and is one of the representations of Mars to some; the krittika nakshatra being at the end of Aries and the beginning of Taurus. The arrow also represents dynamic movement in a certain direction, and is sometimes seen as a symbol of the spiritual urge, and the bow symbolizes the potential energy of the search. Mrigashira is halfways in Taurus and one of the descriptions of mrigashirsha is "the seeking star," and which we have seen, seeking can also be represented by a bow and arrow. Also, this may not be relevant to the issue: but it may be of interest that mrigashira, besides being called the "head of the deer," is also located in the bow of orion where sidereal Taurus meets Gemini.

So far I have only addressed the first quote in your 4th citation and it is not a complete job, but it illustrates that it should not be difficult to do this with each quote concerning the alleged zodiac signs in the vedas, used in this 4th citation. The symbolism is so varied. So now, we can look at these 3 nakshatras associated with Taurus the bull in jyotish, and we have found symbolism of either an archer or a bull, with each one of them, albeit in an indirect way, through the nakshatra symbolism. We have found some archer symbolism associated in jyotish with two of the nakshatras located in the area of Taurus the bull, by looking at the first quote (RV 8.93.1), and the third (or rather the second in order) nakshatra associated with an ox.

One could of course argue, that this symbolism I used just now, came after the vedas, and was passed down through the puranas and jyotish teachings; but on the other hand, one could also use those teachings to link them to the vedas as part of an unbroken oral tradition. It depends on what one wants to demonstrate. This is the trouble with second-hand knowledge.

The nakshatras are based on the stars, and various nakshatra-based dasha sequences (periods of timing) are based on the Moon's position in the nakshatras.

You may be correct that the 360 and 12 references to wheels in the sky, are only concerned with the calendar and not the sky as well. So the question becomes: How many units of measurement across the sky, were there in the original nakshatra sequence? Surely, the nakshatras reached around the entire sky and had a certain division to them, with a certain total number of units of measurement.

When I stated: "what our scholars believe," I meant that every paradigm of thought becomes a cult. The academic world is a cult, just as much as any religion. The academic world has its own set of dogma and it also practices excommunication of its members for heretical thoughts. The academic world either crucifies its paradigm-breakers and then later worships them, or some get "lucky" and get worshiped in their own lifetime. The truly lucky ones are the ones who don't get noticed. I was thinking of the yugas when I wrote that statement.

Scholars do know a lot about their specialized field of knowledge, this is true. So they have a right to consider others as more ignorant than themselves in whichever areas they have specialized in. But on the other hand, almost everything most scholars know, is second-hand knowledge.

I will concede to you that the 12 signs were not originally mentioned in the supposedly oldest texts of the vedic tradition. I do not feel compelled to state that the rg veda quotes are in reference to a sign just because it state 'bull' or 'lion.' I will also concede that the 360 divided by 12 is referring to a calendar, this seems very plausible. I will even concede that the list of nakshatras from krittika is different from those 3 other orders. I believe there is a deeper significance to the krttika starting point, than that it happened to be in a certain position at a certain time. I read another citation, where you claim that the krttika starting point is because it was at a certain place at a certain time. This I do not believe. You and Frawley are in agreement on this point, but I am not. I referenced a text early on in this thread about this issue.

I have only studied astrology a little bit for a handful of years. I believe you have studied astrology much longer and more intensively and you have accomplished things in this field. I saw your name at the swiss ephemeris at astro.com, for example. I will give you the same respect I give to a scholar who has done these kind of things. I am a nothing and a nobody, who from time to time, writes strange things on the internet for amusement and for other reasons.

I almost became a scholar as well, but fate had other plans.

I did not mean any disrespect towards you.

I will not concede our disagreement on the mountain analogy, and maybe I will write more in response to this later.

And I will look more closely at this rule against astrology practice, including your citation.

om tat sat

Dieter,

I should clarify, I was not praising you, but I was trying not to discourage you. If you would have come here listing your titles and accomplishments, I would have laughed.

I wasn't conceding those things because I know you are right about them, I was conceding because I don't know. I actually do ponder if what you say is true.

I read the feedback about your article at the forum on astrodienst. There were, generally speaking (with some exceptions), two reactions: praise and blame. The people who praised you didn't do it because they know the background and history and veracity of it, they did it because they agree with your paradigm. Same with the people who blamed you, not because they knew, but because it was against their paradigm.

"The world has always found a way to praise and a way to blame, it always has and it always will." - ancient saying by the time of 1800 bc resaid by siddhartha gautama

Some people have said: Don't be moved by praise and blame. It is easy to feel good or bad about these things, but it may be harmful for seekers.

I know you noticed this post, but you may want to ponder further the second post on the first page of that thread by ConnieD. It was reply #6 on that feedback about your article thread at astrodienst. The important thing about the sama and rg vedas is not the intellectual level of them.

The important thing to know concerning this zodiac issue is that, regardless of the truth of the matter, the nakshatras are based on the stars.

You have read Plotinus, and other teachings from the hindu traditions, and apparently various other teachings as well.

The sufis say it is like salt, one can write learned treatises on the subject of salt, but if one has never tasted it, one does not actually know what salt is.

There have been beach bums who built sand castles on the beach who are more worthy of praise than the best scholars.

I would be surprised if I am telling you something you don't already know, since you likely are much older than me.

The Maharamayana answers Ramanuja's doubts. But this is second-hand knowledge unless it has been truly known. Ramanuja did not dive into the ocean.

I do not actually enjoy debating with people, but it has apparently been this one's karma. Usually someone either gets the appearance of having lost, or they get trapped through argumentation. I witnessed the humiliation in my professors when I trapped them through argumentation, in my somewhat brief sojourn into the ivory towers. I lost heart in it.

It is easy to forget there is a human on the other end of the line when debating through the internet.

One of the doubts I have about this alleged wrong use of the zodiac in jyotish, is the Valmiki Ramayana.

I do not have the full version of this text yet, where it mentions the birth details, but I have heard people mention about Rama and his 3 brothers and the astronomical details of their births.

The Ramayana is both a historical text and a metaphorical text, from the days when gods walked the earth with men. Rama is from the treta yuga, and there is mention of the term yavana in this text as well. The Mahabharata is from about 3,000 bc or the end of the Bronze Age, and the Ramayana is much older, from the end of the Silver Age.

Rama was born with a placement in the end of punarvasu nakshatra; Bharata was born in pushya nakshatra; Shatrughna and Lakshmana were born in aslesha nakshatra.

The nakshatra placements of these brothers, all fit into the sidereal zodiac sign of Cancer (but there is no mention of Cancer itself!). This seems very strange when the claim is made that the northern-hemisphere, seasonal-based zodiac was only transferred in recent times by the yavanas.

The claim could be made that this is a later interpolation of the Ramayana, but I certainly am not willing to desecrate the scriptures and Indian ithihasas in order to make them match modern biased, speculation of history.

If I have to choose between modern reconstructed, speculated history, and the traditional ithihasas and stories of when gods walked the earth, I choose the parallel reality worldview of the ithihasas.

Dieter,

This thread has been an interesting discussion and I have learned things along the way.

Nevertheless, I was told in person by a brahmin, and I have read elsewhere, that jyotish has been for brahmins and not for other varnas. It is wearisome to try and sort out this mess even in this area, because of the usual conflicting teachings. I decided to appeal to the Manusmrti in this case, and here is what I found:

"81. Let him worship, according to the rule, the sages by the private recitation of the Veda, the gods by burnt oblations, the manes by funeral offerings (Sraddha), men by (gifts of) food, and the Bhutas by the Bali offering.

151. Let him not entertain at a Sraddha...

162. A trainer of elephants, oxen, horses, or camels, he who subsists by astrology,...

167. A Brahmana who knows (the sacred law) should shun at (sacrifices) both (to the gods and to the manes) these lowest of twice-born men, whose conduct is reprehensible, and who are unworthy (to sit) in the company (at a repast)" (Manusmrti Book III).

The contemporary brahmins who have been traditionally taught jyotish through their teachers have the understanding that this is the purview of brahmins. It is not very comforting to see these contradictions from the ancient texts and the contemporary understanding.

I wonder how this is reconciled. Although there are some brahmins today who practice jyotish, they do also have the understanding among themselves that this it is difficult karma to be an astrologer, because of certain esoteric reasons, but I never heard them say it was actually against certain ancient rules for brahmins.

My speculation would be that the explanation is either a) you and I are missing some oral teaching which explains why this possibly apparent contradiction exists or b) the darkness of kali yuga is ever increasing.

In support of a) I have one idea on why it is not a contradiction for these brahmin astrologers to practice astrology and still not break the rules based on what I was personally told by a brahmin, but it is speculation and would not be very heartwarming to hear, and so I don't want to state it.

In support of b) We do know that the brahmin varna has been upturned and even almost obliterated due to misguided, kali yuga, western-influenced affirmative action programs in effect in India in efforts to establish "equality." We know that this agenda is against dharma and all of the ancient codes, and we know that the prophesies of the degeneration of the kali yuga are being fulfilled right before our eyes, eg some of them state that all people will be low-born and there will only be one caste, and even sudras will be in power. This is already the case in the West with merchants and usurers and sudras in power today.

We also know that many brahmins no longer value the vedas and the ancient teachings and they are mainly following misguided western kali yuga influences and teaching. This was prophesied as well.


Also, since it is difficult to refute the alleged usurpation and wrong use of the tropical zodiac in jyotish, I would rather ask some hard questions in return.

I started a thread here titled: the myth of the tropical zodiac. Here is some of the content:

Since some have seen fit to call into question the use of the zodiac by jyotish, I would likewise call into question the use of the zodiac, by those who try and diminish jyotisha.

It is my understanding that the earliest use of astrology in the so-called Western tradition is based on stars, and not seasons, and this use started somewhat earlier than 4.000 years ago (according to contemporary post-modern theory of dating - which contradicts the history teachings of the ancients).

Nowadays there are astrologers who use a seasonal based astrology, but this is entirely contradictory to the roots of their tradition(s).

Why do some astrologers insist on using a seasonal based measurement for their astrology, when it is clear that the roots of the tradition do not use the seasons?

Why do some astrologers insist on using a northern-hemisphere seasonal based zodiac, which is rendered absurd by the existence of the southern hemisphere?

At least jyotish is consistent in this regards of trying to keep it with the stars.

The use of various house systems have allowed them to continue using the wrong zodiac, because many times the cusp ruler of the tropical zodiac houses is the same as it would be in the jyotish whole sign house system, but what will they do in the future when the zodiacs do not coincide as closely and let them get away with the wrong zodiac?

They developed other techniques besides placing as much importance on the ruler of the ascendant, to gain insight into the native, because unlike the jyotish system, the ascendant rulers usually do not fit the native anymore.

It is easy to challenge these issues that involve the changes and obscurity of the passing millenia. It is difficult to defend the zodiac use by jyotish, just as it is difficult to defend the zodiac use by the so-called Western tradition.

This zodiac problem actually goes both ways, so those who question jyotish use of it, don't actually have a solid foundation to stand on either.

Please show me mention of the seasonal based zodiac in the earliest astrology references in the near-East. The zodiac is not known to exist in the earliest Western information either! The earliest astrology references in both systems, use the stars. Jyotish still uses the stars...

There are still many, many obscure and untranslated texts on various subjects, in India today, so maybe someday more evidence will be discovered which will change the entire perspective on this issue, or lack of perspective, as it were. For example, I have read portions of two jyotish texts this year, that most likely no Westerner had ever read prior to recently. If you are interested, there is some new to the West, jyotish information on the website at the beginning of this thread, and there is some on the jagganathahora software program.

Dieter, when you get the time to respond to what you wish to, and this discussion is over, let me know everything has been addressed appropriately to your satisfaction, either here or via pm.

I have gained some troubling knowledge in the search for answers to one of your questions. It has been one of the seemingly never-ending and numerous times in life where everything one thinks has been turned upside down (it is non-astrology related). I am now questioning my peculiar habit of writing strange things on the internet, based on this new and troubling information. *sigh*

I am likely a rakshasa or maybe a sudra, so those brahmin issues are luckily none of my concern.

om

Varuna,

I appreciate your honesty and open mind. I understand that this is emotionally difficult stuff for Hindu astrologers. However, it seems to me that in order to find the path to truth and enlightenment one has to practice non-attachment and objectivity. This is what the Vedic and Vedantic texts themselves teach, isn?t it?

I am a bit astonished that you are talking about a "revision" of my article. I did not revise it and I wonder what exactly you read. Probably the statements which you took offense with are still in it and you just overlooked them. Or did you read another article? The German version of it? Today I realised that it ends with two paragraphs of a former version which I had thought I had deleted.

varuna wrote: The article gave the appearance of being designed to uproot hindu thought.

No, this article is the result of my research on the topic. True, I do not believe that Hindu astrology is really Vedic, but there are also Hindus who say that "Vedic" astrology is not Vedic at all and even in contradiction with the Vedas (e.g. famous Avtar Krishen Kaul). Also true: I believe that the teachings of Advaitavedanta are not in agreement with the Vedas, especially not with the Gita. But here again, I have support from other Hindu philosophical schools, which, however, are a minority. So I do not "uproot" anything that has not been "uprooted" before me, by real Hindus with a spiritual background.

As to the problem that the Law of Manu seems to forbid astrology: A Hindu astrologer (a real Hindu!) explained me: Astrology is ok as long as one does not earn one?s living with it. I think, you can read Manu in this sense. Whether this is really what he meant, I am not sure. But is it so important? According to the teachings of Krishna there is only one thing that matters: Everything one does should be done as an offering to him. The true yogi lives upon "what is left of his offerings".

The verses in the Ramayana Epic about the birth of Rama and his brothers are highly problematic. They are not contained in all editions of the epic, and not in the Baroda Critical Edition. There have been many emotional debates about them in Hindu forums. There is no agreement about how exactly to interpret these verses. Besides, all attempts to find a historical date that fits the text seem to fail.

As to the problems of the tropical zodiac and the history of the zodiac in general, please forgive me that I do not want to discuss this complicated topic in a forum and spend a lot of time with it, especially as I am working on an essay about it, which I hope to publish very soon. After it will be published, I will be ready to discuss.

Kind regards

Dieter

dieterkoch wrote: True, I do not believe that Hindu astrology is really Vedic, but there are also Hindus who say that "Vedic" astrology is not Vedic at all and even in contradiction with the Vedas (e.g. famous Avtar Krishen Kaul).

I doubt whether 'Hindu astrology' would be an any better term. Better is to call it 'Indian astrology', or since there are Persian elements in it, 'Astrology as practiced by most Indian people'.

Dieter Koch's article wrote:The tropical-sidereal problem becomes even more complicated by the fact that the sidereal zodiac is used in a quite different way in Indian astrology than the tropical zodiac in western astrology. Traditional Indian astrology is extremely focused on fate prediction and character compatibility (for weddings) and not so much on psychological character interpretation, as taught in the West.

Ancient western was/is also about the more material things in life.

I once read an Indian astrologer commenting on this fate or litteral view. He argued that the astrology was indeed for prediction and concrete issues etc. For the spiritual part Indians have their religious scriptures etc.

I think that 500 years ago in Western Europe it was not much different. For future issues or wanting to know if a seaman would ever return from the East, one would go to the astrologer. For spiritual needs one consulted a priest. Nowadays people don't go to church anymore but consult a psychological astrologer. And they send an email to find out whether the seaman is still above the water surface.

Eddy wrote:

I doubt whether 'Hindu astrology' would be an any better term. Better is to call it 'Indian astrology', or since there are Persian elements in it, 'Astrology as practiced by most Indian people'.

I quite agree. Its equally inaccurate. Martin Gansten has made this point on a previous thread. The terms Indian and Vedic or Hindu astrology are not synonymous. There is also an ancient and venerable tradition of Jain astrology in India. Like the Buddhists the Jains rejected the spiritual authority of the Vedas and are certainly not Hindu. They have not received the attention they deserve for several reasons. Firstly, the relatively small size of the Jain community, its cultural inclusiveness, and and the obsession in some modern largely Vaishnavite circles to present the development of Indian astrology as exclusively 'Vedic' or 'Hindu'.

Both terms are a total misnomer. In ancient India there was no 'Hinduism' in the modern sense of the word. The Vedas were not universally recognized as texts of religious authority in much of India. The Buddhist and Jain religious texts make it clear there was a lot of religious pluralism in ancient India before Brahmanism or Vedism became the dominant religious world view across India. For example during the The Maurya Empire, Ashoka the Great (304 BCE?232 BCE) encouraged religious tolerance between the different religions but favoured Buddhism by supporting Buddhist missionaries across the world.

In the period following the decline of the Maurya Empire and the conquests of Alexander the Great north-western India (modern Pakistan/Afghanistan) was controlled by a series of Indo-Greek Kingdoms which were Buddhist. Note: Hence the presence of the so called Bamiyan Buddha destroyed by the Taliban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom

The transmission of Greek astrology to India probably came through these Indo-Greek Buddhists.

What is interesting about the Jain astrological tradition is that most of its classic texts remain untranslated. I suspect the more homogenous nature of Jain cultural development may prove an extremely rich resource of ancient Indian astrological lore for researchers in the future. Unfortunately, many of the texts currently held up as classics of ancient Indian astrology (e.g. Brihat Parashara Hora Shashtra) are quite clearly riddled with later interpolations.

Mark

om

Eddie and Mark,

Eddy wrote:

Dieter Koch's article wrote:The tropical-sidereal problem becomes even more complicated by the fact that the sidereal zodiac is used in a quite different way in Indian astrology than the tropical zodiac in western astrology. Traditional Indian astrology is extremely focused on fate prediction and character compatibility (for weddings) and not so much on psychological character interpretation, as taught in the West.

Ancient western was/is also about the more material things in life.
...
I think that 500 years ago in Western Europe it was not much different.

Thank you. Indeed, this part of the article needs a review.

Mark wrote:Eddy wrote:

I doubt whether 'Hindu astrology' would be an any better term. Better is to call it 'Indian astrology', or since there are Persian elements in it, 'Astrology as practiced by most Indian people'.

I quite agree. Its equally inaccurate. Martin Gansten has made this point on a previous thread. The terms Indian and Vedic or Hindu astrology are not synonymous. There is also an ancient and venerable tradition of Jain astrology in India.

I have not seen that post of Martin Gansten that you refer to, so I may miss the point in what follows. If you could give me a link or tell me what he said, I would appreciate.

As to the "Jain astrological tradition", Mark: By using this expression, you apparently agree that there is also a "Hindu astrological tradition", don?t you? Anyway, Jain astrologers and Buddhists are really not present in these discussions. We are usually discussing with Hindus. At least I am.

In my opinion, it does not matter much what we call it, except for one point. The term "Vedic" contains a claim of spiritual authority and divine revelation. This is mere religious propaganda, and not the truth, as I have tried to show. It is for this reason that I prefer the term "Hindu astrology", because it does not contain any propaganda. Against "Indian astrology", the term "Hindu astrology" has the advantage that (1) it mentions those with whom we are mostly discussing (ignoring Western "Vedic" astrologers, though) and (2) expresses the fact that this astrology is indeed imbedded in a religious belief system. In my opinion it is much more precise and telling than "Indian astrology".

I have to concede that I know very little about the Jain tradition. I assume that the techniques are very similar as in the Hindu tradition, but I do not know exactly what ramifications my article has for Jain astrology. But then, again, it is wise to avoid the more general term "Indian astrology".

Dieter

I don't want to get too embroiled either in this discussion or in the related tropical/sidereal one (from which I have kept away despite the occasional itch on seeing certain remarks on both sides!), but as my name came up:

To my mind, 'Indian astrology' is a slightly preferable term to 'Hindu astrology', but really the difference isn't all that great. 'Hindu', after all, originally means nothing but 'Indian', and although Jainism is indeed an ancient tradition separate from Vedic and post-Vedic ones, it underwent an extensive 'Hinduization' in medieval times, and in practice many Jains do define themselves as Hindus of a sort. The important thing is to avoid 'Vedic', because that term is simply historically inaccurate.

However, I don't think this argument really holds up:

dieterkoch wrote:"Hindu astrology" has the advantage that [...] [it] expresses the fact that this astrology is indeed imbedded in a religious belief system.

Hinduism is such an enormously diverse collection of traditions and beliefs (including the acceptance or rejection of astrology), embraced by almost a billion individuals, that little if anything is learned about a form of astrology by designating it as Hindu. As far as I can see, all forms of astrology everywhere in the world (including the modern western world) have been embedded in religious and other cultural belief systems; there is nothing different about Indian astrology in this regard.