Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello Dieter

First off congratulations on your article and indeed book. I do hope you consider having it all published in English. You have pulled together a lot of useful scholarship and raised some really challenging questions. I think the time is right for this more critical kind of approach. Western astrologers have been going back through astrological history to trace their heritage and its time Indian astrologers did the same. The difference though , as you point out, is that in India this has become tied to religious beliefs which often obscure an honest appraisal of the evidence.

Dieterkoch wrote:

Anyway, Jain astrologers and Buddhists are really not present in these discussions. We are usually discussing with Hindus.

In contemporary discussions you are no doubt right that the overwhelming amount of contemporary Indian astrology is within the Hindu community. If that is your only focus I see your point. My emphasis was instead referring back to the title of this thread-Ancient Indian Astrology. I dont think it is entirely accurate to describe indigenous Indian astrological practices as exclusively 'Hindu'.

Much of what we understand as characteristically part of the Hindu religion today developed following the Muslims invasions of India. In particular the shift towards the more devotional Bhakti movements and a more clearly monotheist trend in Indian religion away from the monism of earlier Vedanta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_movement

India was also more religiously plural at the time astrological ideas came from the west. I know that Martin has previously dismissed any Buddhist involvement in this citing early Buddhist opposition to astrology. There may be some truth in this. However, I think the more heterodox Mahayana Buddhists may well have been more open to astrology. We see this in Tibetan Buddhism today. One interesting phenomena today is the presence of Indian astrological ideas amongst the Singhalese Buddhists of Sri Lanka. We have also had Pakistani Muslims on Skyscript who claim to be astrologers. Clearly then Indian astrological ideas transcend the religious divide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_in_Sri_Lanka

Dieterkoch wrote:

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?

Afraid not. I dont think using the term 'Jain astrology' means I have to accept your term 'Hindu astrology.' Rather I see Jain astrology today as simply another sub-set of Indian astrology in the same way contemporary schools such as the Jaimini or Tajika are.


Dieterkoch wrote:

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".

I am no authority either.
Here is a link to a piece on Jain astrology from the website I mentioned at the start of this article:

http://www.ancientindianastrology.com/c ... &Itemid=59

There are a few books around on contemporary Jain astrology being sold by Indian astrological bookstores. These can be purchased online.

More generally, I think your criticism that Indian astrology is implictly inferior due to its lack of character analysis with signs is rather unfair. This seems to reflect the bias of modern western astrology. If you look at texts in the western astrological tradition you will also find relatively little description of personality by sign. Vettius Valens is very unusual amongst hellenistic authors is devoting any space to describing the signs by psychological characteristics. Generally, in traditional astrology the description of signs is quite terse. This tradition continues down to the 17th century and we can still see it amongst astrologers like William Lilly.

Here is William Lilly's description of the sign of Aries:

http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/aries.html

There is usually far more emphasis on the role of planets as the active agents and psychological determinants in signs, as house rulers and by aspectual relationship. In essence Indian astrology has retained this hellenistic and medieval approach while modern western astrology has moved towards 'signism'.

Mark

Martin Gansten wrote:

'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.

Hello Martin,

I dont deny Jainism has gone through significant changes over the last 2,500 years. Although due to its limited geographical area and numerical size Jainism has certainly remained more homogeneous than other faiths such as Hinduism or Buddhism. In any case I was really making a point on the antquity of some of the Jain texts in Prakrit which may give interesting insights into the earlier Indian astrological tradition. My interest was more the historical origins of Indian astrology rather than just contemporary practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prakrit

To survive the small Jain community in western India have had to fit into the majority Hindu culture around it. That included being fitted into the Hindu caste system. Still, the Jains I have met here in the UK would not consider themselves Hindu. They are very proud of the ancient Jain faith and its traditions which distinguish them from mainstream Hinduism. In a cultural, or sociological sense though Jainism did become seen by many Hindu's as just another indigenous sect. Whether because of this and factors such as high literacy Jains have had an influence far exceeding their numbers in Indian society. For example, the Gujarat born Mahatma Gandhi seems to have been partially influenced by Jain ethical values in his teachings.

If the Jain community really accepted your position though they would not have campaigned so vigorously to be defined as a non-Hindu religious minority at the time of the framing of the Indian constitution.

Mark

Mark wrote:I was really making a point on the antquity of some of the Jain texts in Prakrit which may give interesting insights into the earlier Indian astrological tradition. My interest was more the historical origins of Indian astrology rather than just contemporary practice.

I probably use the word 'astrology' in a more narrow sense than you do. There was some indigenous star-lore in India before horoscopic astrology was imported wholesale in the early centuries CE, and at least some of this lore was in fact Vedic, but I am not aware of any of it being explicitly Jaina. So if we want to call such star-lore 'astrology', then I think there is more evidence of early 'Vedic astrology' than of early 'Jaina astrology'. In any case, neither has very much to do with later Indian astrology.

In a cultural, or sociological sense though Jainism did become seen by many Hindu's as just another indigenous sect. [...] If the Jain community really accepted your position though they would not have campaigned so vigorously to be defined as a non-Hindu religious minority at the time of the framing of the Indian constitution.

It's not my position; I'm just reporting a fact. Even the relatively small Jain community is not completely homogenous, and a fair number of Jains actually give their religious affiliation as 'Jain-Hindu' or 'Hindu-Jain'. I don't make these things up.

Later edit: I forgot to mention that some well-known classical texts on Indian astrology (e. g., the M?nas?gar?) were authored by Jains. Except for the introductory verses invoking divine blessings (common in all types of Sanskrit works, religious or secular), though, you couldn't tell. It's standard Indian astrology with no distinguishing features -- quite unlike works on T?jika, which is very much a separate tradition (and one which, again, was embraced by Jains and Hindus alike).

From a brief look at the website linked to in this thread I got some further information about the Jain contribution to Indian astrology. For example from Karnataka alone there were important texts by Jain astrologers such as Kalakacharya (the originator of Ramala Jyotish), and the astronomer/mathematician Mahaveeracharya (Jyotisha Patala and Ganita sara samgraha) which became popular texts in this state. Other important Jain contributions include the Adbhuta Sagara written by the Jain king Ballala sena in the 13th century CE. There is also research that the famous Indian astronomer Aryabhata originated from a Jain background.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14146948/Iden ... -Tradition

Mark

Mark wrote:From a brief look at the website linked to in this thread I got some further information about the Jain contribution to Indian astrology. For example from Karnataka alone there were important texts by Jain astrologers such as Kalakacharya (the originator of Ramala Jyotish)

The Jains have indeed played an important part in the intellectual history of India, including astrology. Ramala, however, did not originate with them: it is Sanskritized Arabic geomancy. The name derives from Arabic raml, 'sand'.

Hi Mark and Martin,

thanks a lot for your comments. Criticism is very welcome, it helps me to improve my text (and the book from which it is taken).

Mark wrote: More generally, I think your criticism that Indian astrology is implictly inferior due to its lack of character analysis with signs is rather unfair. This seems to reflect the bias of modern western astrology. ...

You are right. I am aware that this is the weakest part of the article. Today I updated it and hope it is a bit better now.

Dieter

om indraya namaha

I didn't want to come back here anymore, and I am not planning on responding to anything here anymore, but this usurpation of the zodiac by jyotish idea has never been seriously pondered by me until recently, so I wasn't able to respond appropriately in previous posts, due to the freshness and seriousness of this new-to-me, pondering of this type of information.

After further reflections on the matter, it occurred to me that some people will take this idea that the 360 divided by twelve idea, since it appears that it originated in the near east and not in bharata, is proof that the jyotish zodiac is an erroneous application of this idea to the fixed star nakshatra system.

Now, let us assume for the sake of argument, that this idea of the zodiac being transferred from the hellenists or persians or whoever, to India, is true.

I may be wrong about this, but it appears that the Western version of the time-frame of this spread of the zodiac through the ancient world, happened when the two zodiacs basically corresponded with each other, i.e. the sidereal signs were basically situated where the tropical signs were.

Now, since India already had a star-based nakshatra astrology system, it was perfectly natural to create a placement of the zodiac within the star-based nakshatras, and continue adjusting the astrology frame of reference with the stars.

Whereas, in the Near East the zodiac was adjusted to the astrology frame of reference with the vernal equinox as the centuries progressed.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the rulerships and various other astrology rules were developed around the time of the approximate convergence of the stars and the seasons.

This leaves us with the knowledge that these basic astrology rules were created when the two zodiacs were positioned about the same.

Premise: The 12 sign zodiac and certain rules, were created when the sidereal and tropical zodiacs were together.

Therefore, the conclusion that because the zodiac originated in the Near East, means that the sidereal zodiac is false, is erroneous and does not follow from the premises. This idea of the usurpation of the zodiac by jyotish does not invalidate the sidereal system. We could easily suggest that certain basic astrology rules were created at the time when the two zodiacs approximately coincided, therefore, it cannot be claimed with certainty that the zodiac and various astrology rules, applied to the seasons and not the stars.

In reality, assuming this Western-claimed historical information is true, we still do not actually know which zodiac is the "correct" one. One could easily create an argument in support of the sidereal zodiac based on this information.

It does seem like a wise idea not to argue about which zodiac is "correct." It seems like in these situations we all end up with a bad taste in our mouth and nothing was gained. I myself, gave a good bad example, in a thread I created in response to this issue, on how not to approach and discuss this issue.

In the end, we are each likely to continue using whichever system we prefer.

I made plenty of questionable statements in this thread, including Hindu rules concerning wealth and astrology and such (contrary to the Manusmrti). I found myself in the strange position of trying to defend jyotish astrology based on Hindu rules, but the later developments of the thread, reminded me that one of my gurus was a Jain and he said that Jainism is the oldest teaching in bharata (this is of course hotly contested as well). Given that contemporary scholars have likely misdated the Buddha to the 5th century bc rather than the 19th century bc, I am skeptical of the dating of Mahavira to the 6th century bc. Contemporary scholars have sometimes claimed that Mahavira was the founder of Jainism, but according to the Jains themselves, Mahavira came along long after Jainism was founded. The Jains say Mahavira revived the age-old Jain tradition. Mahavira was the 24th tirthankara! One of the tirthankaras was also a woman. I suspect Mahavira was around the 16th century bc. and the other tirthankaras stretch back into the mists of time.

My mistake in this thread was to accept the premise that jyotish astrology only applies to Hindu tradition. The other mistake was to accept the premise that Hindu thought is the source of all of India's traditions. The third mistake was to not recognize immediately, that the zodiacs were converged at the same time that the zodiac was alleged to have been systematized and spread throughout the ancient world. So now we are back where we started - nowhere. Right where I like to be!

shanti

om

Varuna wrote:

Given that contemporary scholars have likely misdated the Buddha to the 5th century bc rather than the 19th century bc, I am skeptical of the dating of Mahavira to the 6th century bc.

I dont think that suggestion regarding the dating of the Buddha or Mahavira is very credible. There has been considerable debate over sources and whether the Buddha lived in the 6th , 5th or even into the 4th century BCE. Unlike the Greek or Roman cultures the ancient Indians were not that interested in recording historical developments. We see the same difficulty in dating Indian astrological sources. The Buddha's life can be timed with some approximation from dating of Kings etc mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures and later royal lineages such as the reign of Ashoka the Great which are directly linked to the parinibbana of the Buddha. From Buddhist texts we know the Buddha was a younger contemporary of Mahavira.

The Theravada Buddhist Pali canon records that Mahavira and Gautama Buddha were contemporaries and according to the Pali scriptures Gautama Buddha was aware of Mahavira's existence as well as his community of monks. The Pali Canon does not record that the two teachers ever met, but there are several instances of Mahavira's disciples questioning Gautama Buddha to be found in various suttas.

In the more conservative Theravada Buddhist countries (Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka) the life of the Buddha is dated 623 BCE to 543 BCE. Hence in the Theravada or southern Buddhist calendar the year is therefore currently 2,544 of the Buddhist era (BE) since the passing away or parinibbana of the Buddha.

However, scholars have tended to favour later dates.

This from Wikipedia:

According to the P?li historical chronicles of Sri Lanka, the D?pava?sa and Mah?va?sa, the coronation of A?oka (P?li: Asoka) is 218 years after the death of Buddha. According to two textual records in Chinese , the coronation of A?oka is 116 years after the death of Buddha. Therefore, the time of Buddha's passing is either 486 BCE according to Therav?da record or 383 BCE according to Mahayana record. However, the actual date traditionally accepted as the date of the Buddha's death in Therav?da countries is 544 or 543 BCE, because the reign of A?oka was traditionally reckoned to be about 60 years earlier than current estimates.

.........Recent indological studies have indicated that the Parinibbana of the Buddha may be even later than previously supposed. A majority of the scholars at a symposium held in 1988 in G?ttingen regarding the problem were inclined towards a date of 440?360 BCE. However, their calculations were based on the chronology of Tibetan Buddhism, preferred over that of the Dipavamsa/Mahavamasa; the modified chronology, in order to work, needs to identify the Indian ruler Kalasoka, son of Susunaga, with the Emperor Asoka, son of Bindusara. It should also be noted that the Sri Lankan chronicles are based on even earlier works and that the Buddhist canon was first put into writing in Sri Lanka.

I am scepitical of the research linked to the Tibetan texts both because it relies on a much later written source and it ignores the need to link the Buddhas's life to that of Mahavira. The traditional Jaina date for Mahavira's birth is 599 BC and his death 527BCE , but it probably came somewhat later than this if we consider the life of Buddha and the dates for the Magadha kings Bimbisara and Ajatashatru.

A popular date used by western scholars for the Buddhas birth (566 BCE) would mean Mahavira was already 33 at the time of the Buddha's birth. The Jain scriptures maintain Mahavira died at the age of 72. Buddhist tradition claims Guatama Siddartha became enlightened and therefore a Buddha (literally the title Buddha means 'the awakened one'') at the age of 35. Using the Jaina chronology Mahavira would have been 67 by then (531 BCE) which about 5 years before the death of Mahavira. This is not totally implausible although it could equally be the case that Mahivira was born some years later than Jaina tradition maintains or the Buddha a few years earlier than the popular date of 566 BCE for his birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magadha

You are quite correct though that the Jains claim their religion is much older. The Jains believe in the "present age" there have been 24 tirthankaras - although there is little evidence for the existence of most of these. Mahavira is claimed as the most recent. However, there is some evidence of what the Jains claim as the tirthankara preceding Mahavira who was a figure called Parshva. He allegedly lived about 250 years before Mahavira and was the possible founder of Jainism. The Buddhists have a similar notion of the Buddha being one in a successon of Buddhas.

It has been suggested that modern Hinduism is essentially an amalgam of two contrasting and at times conflicting traditions in Indian ancient indigenous religion. Firstly, the familar Vedic-Brahmanic strand focused on rituals, sacrifices, external observances and the caste system. Secondly, the shramanic strand focused on the inner spiritual life and denying worldly pleasures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism

It has been claimed the shramana is the original pre-Brahmanic religion of India. The Jains and Buddhists were part of that ancient shramana tradition. In the ancient world that dimension was represented by numerous other sects too such as the Samkhya and Ajivikas etc. Samkhya was later linked in with the theistic The Yoga S?tras of Pata?jali that constitute the foundational text of R?ja Yoga. Togther Yoga-Samkhya became one one of the six orthodox ?stika schools of Hindu philosophy, and R?ja Yoga is the highest (or royal) practice. However, it seems that Samkhya started out as a non-theistic, school of thought that stemmed from the shramana or non-vedic tradition.

Most shramanas followed yogic practices such as meditation and lived as alms mendicants. They had a common emphasis on ideas such as Karma, rebirth, samsara, ahimsa and moksha. Some claim the Upanishads came from a reforming wing in Brahmanism influenced by shramanism while others see it as fundamentally a product of shramanism itself.

Mark

om indraya namaha

The thought occurred today, that our generations of astrologers have a task ahead of them. This task requires a study of the available astronomical and astrological texts from the oldest remaining literature in the traditions both east and west. From the little bit of study I have done thus far, I know the ancient texts in India sometimes emphasize the Solar year, and sometimes the Lunar year, and sometimes the Tropical Zodiac, and sometimes the Sidereal zodiac.

What the next generation of astrology students need to do, is to create a fusion of the differing cycles into one chart. This chart would have layers to it and would include the various frames of reference in one wheel, sort of like synastry charts, but with more layers and more complexity. This is easily possible today with computers.

I do not believe it is about which 360 divided by twelve idea is the correct one; I believe they are both important, combined with the lunar nakshatras and the rulerships and rules which pertain alone to the star-based nakshatras.

The various astrology rules from both the east and the west would be only applied to those levels of the chart which they pertain to.

If charts are created with many layers, rather than future astrologers only learning the time-tested rules applying to their system and fighting with each other who is right, they will be encouraged to work together and create a new astrology that makes the current state of affairs look like the story of the 4 men and the elephant in the dark, who each only understood the part they touched, and then argued about the nature of an elephant based on their limited perception of the elephant.

In India charts were written in a counterclockwise direction north of the equator and in a clockwise direction south of the equator; this worked for the sidereal zodiac. The northern and southern hemisphere calculations of this new fusion chart I am envisioning, would have to have this calculation included in the new fusion chart, and the Sun cycle tropical zodiac level/aspect would need to be reversed for southern charts.

It would be simple to interlay the zodiacs in whichever order and place they belong, depending on whether it is a northern or southern chart, by simply laying the zodiacs and nakshatras on the outside of the circle. One layer would be the respective tropical zodiac, and one layer would be the sidereal and lunar nakshatra/zodiac. Then the program would have more than one ayanamsha option and details like this.

Not only would the fighting be over on if an elephant has the nature of a pillar (the leg one person touched), or the nature of a fan (the ear another person touched), but it would also address the astrology persecution. No one would be able to point out the discrepancy between the 12 constellations and the signs, and no one would be able to point out the northern-southern hemisphere issue. Astrology would be covered from all assaults both within and without. Not that we need to be concerned with what someone else thinks, but it would help the situation.

The belligerent astrology/er persecutors could just be told to chew on hologram universes and epistemology for awhile.

There is a 60 year cycle used in jyotish and chinese astrology, which may be based on a Jupiter-Saturn cycle, and the 12 year chinese astrology system may refer to the Jupiter cycle. We could find these kind of similarities and incorporate them into this new astrology system.

Maybe it is time for more intensive broader scholarship and a new paradigm.

Maybe I am dreaming.

om

Mark,

Good points.

I am sort of a neo-platonist, pythagorean, taoist, sufi, eremite, hasidic, samkhyan, advaitan, shraman, siderealist/tropicalist/lunar nakshatra astrologer and some other things. Probably insane as well.

I think I said all that I felt the need to say on this forum by now.

cheers

p.s.

The post I made at the bottom of the previous page might be more relevant to astrologers than this post. I should mention it because it may not be seen otherwise.

It was a proposition to all astrologers.

It isn't that we would all need to become experts in every aspect of astrology but if all charts were made in the inclusive proposed way, it seems like it would go a long way towards harmony and protection and such.

That proposed chart format wouldn't take into account all of the various techniques and schools of astrology, but the basics would be covered, I think.

From a book accessible on the website at the start of this thread:

"The years of Jupiter take their names from the several nakshatras in which he reappears after his conjunction with the Sun; and these names are identical with the names of the lunar months" (Brihat Samhita VII.1).

There is also a wealth of information on how to read eclipses in this text.

Here is another list of years called Samvatsaras: 60 calendar years. I have no idea where this list was found or when the start of these years begins. In my notes I wrote 12 samvatsaras=1 cycle of Jupiter; 30 samvatsaras=1 cycle of Saturn.

The order of this list changed from the original, it is noted in my notes.

1 (old #35 year). Prabhava (1987-88)
2. Vibhava
3. Shukla
4. Pramoda
5. Prajapati
6. Angirasa
7. Shrimukha
8. Bhava
9. Yuva
10. Dhatri
11. Ishvara
12. Bahudhanya
13. Pramadhi
14. Vikrama
15. Vrisha
16. Chitrabhanu
17. Svabhanu
18. Tarana
19. Parthiva
20. Vyaya
21. Sarvajeeth
22. Sarvadhari
23. Virodhi
24. Vikrita
25. Khara (2011-12)
26 (This used to be #60). Nandana
27(This used to be #1). Vijaya
28. Jaya
29. Manmadha
30. Durmukhi
31. Hevilambi
32. Vilambi
33. Vikari
34. Sharvari
35. Plava
36. Shubhakruti
37. Sobhakruthi
38. Krodhi
39. Vishvavasu
40. Parabhava
41. Plavanga
42. Kilaka
43. Saumya
44. Sadharana
45. Virodhikruthi
46. Paridhavi
47. Pramadicha
48. Ananda
49. Rakshasa
50. Anala
51. Pingala
52. Kalayukthi
53. Siddharthi
54. Raudra
55. Durmathi
56. Dundubhi
57. Rudhirodgari
58. Raktakshi
59. Krodhana (1985-86)
60. Akshaya (1986-87)

Note: I don't yet know if these years are connected with the Jupiter section in the Brihat Samhita.

It is not in agreement with some older Hindu scholars that Zeta Piscium is the star referred to in the old literature as Revati. Some Hindu scholars believe that Revati was a different star which is no longer visible and it was placed on the ecliptic.

"One should perform the sraddha ceremony on the Makara-sankranti or on the Karkata-sankranti. One should also perform this ceremony on the Mesa-sankranti day and the Tula-sankranti day, in the yoga named Vyatipata, on that day in which three lunar tithis are conjoined, during an eclipse of either the moon or the sun, on the 12th lunar day, and in the Sravana naksatra. One should perform this ceremony on the Aksaya-triya day, on the ninth lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month of Kartika, on the four astakas in the winter season and cool season, on the seventh lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month of magha naksatra and the full moon day, and on the days when the moon is completely full, or not quite completely full, when these days are conjoined with the naksatras from which the names of certain months are derived. One should also perform the sraddha ceremony on the 12th lunar day when it is in conjunction with any of the naksatras named Anuradha, Sravana, Uttara phalguni, Uttarasadha, or Uttara bhadrapada. Again, one should perform this ceremony when the eleventh lunar day is in conjunction with either Uttara phalguin, Uttarasadha, or Uttara bhadrapada. Finally, one should perform this ceremony on days conjoined with one's own birth star [janma naksatra] or with Sravana naksatra" (Srimad Bhagavatam 7.14.20-23).

From the above paragraph one can see that one would need to either be an expert astronomer or astrologer, or know one, to know when to perform certain religious ceremonies in Hinduism. "For example, in the Surya siddhanta the Vyatipata yoga is defined as the time when 'the moon and sun are in different ayanas, the sum of their longitude is equal to 6 signs (nearly) and their declinations are equal" (Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard Thompson). This example of the timing of ceremonies may shed some light on certain statements made in the Manusmriti.

"We would suggest that the dating of the start of Kali yuga at 3102 b.c. is based on actual historical accounts, and that the tradition of an unusual alignment of the planets at this time is also a matter of historical fact. The opinion of modern scholars is that the epoch of Kali yuga was concocted during the early medieval period. According to this hypothesis, Indian astronomy used borrowed Greek astronomy to determine that a near planetary alignment occurred in 3102 b.c. After performing the laborious calculations needed to discover this, they then invented the fictitious era of Kali yuga and convinced the entire subcontinent of India that this era had been going on for some three thousand years. Subsequently, many different Puranas were written in accordance with this chronology, and people all over India became convinced that these works, although unknown to their forefathers, were really thousands of years old.

One might ask why anyone would even think of searching for astronomical alignments over a period of thousands of years into the past and then redefining the history of an entire civilization on the basis of a particular discovered alignment. It seems more plausible to suppose that the story of Kali yuga is genuine, that the alignment occurring at its start is a matter of historical recollection, and that the Puranas really were written prior to the beginning of this era" (Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard Thompson).

Although my studies of astrology are in their infancy, my knowledge of human nature is not. Cui bono is the question here. Why would Indians go through the trouble of creating fictitious past dates and history of their civilization? Why would western contemporary scholars ignore their claims?

The answer to the second question is very simple: ethnocentrism.

The Library of Alexandria was destroyed, and so the West was left with comparatively recent scraps of writings from history. Western scholars approached Indology with their limited preconceptions and with ethnocentrism.

How did Indians know the diameter of the planets? They did know them.

The Surya siddhanta give close to exact diameters, according to modern measurements of the moon, mercury, earth, mars, and saturn. The figures for venus and jupiter are halved and so it could have been a later transcriber error with those two concerning radius and diameter. The sun diameter is off as well.

This is a fascinating study.

Dear Varuna:

"One should perform the sraddha ceremony on the Makara-sankranti or on the Karkata-sankranti. One should also perform this ceremony on the Mesa-sankranti day and the Tula-sankranti day, ..." " (Srimad Bhagavatam 7.14.20-23).

(For those who do not understand the Sanskrit terms: Samkranti means "ingress". The quotation is about ingresses of the Sun into sidereal Capricorn, Cancer, Aries, and Libra. Shraddha is a ceremony in honour of dead relatives.)

Varuna, what translation do you quote? It is wrong! Completely misleading!
I looked into the Sanskrit text. You should read the Gita Press translation, which is more correct:

"He should (similarly) perform their ?r?ddha at the time oft he summer and winter solstices and vernal and autumnal equinoxes; during the particular (seventeenth) astronomical division of time called Vyatp?ta..."

The Sanskrit version is:
ayane vi?uve kury?d vyat?p?te dinak?aye
A litteral translation of this very concise text would be:
"At the solstice, at the equinox one should perform (it), in Vyat?p?ta(yoga), in the evening,..."

This instruction does not refer to sidereal but to tropical celestial events.

This example of the timing of ceremonies may shed some light on certain statements made in the Manusmriti.

I agree, it shows an example of what real Vedic astrologers did and what kind of astrology is accepted in the Vedic writings.

"We would suggest that the dating of the start of Kali yuga at 3102 b.c. is based on actual historical accounts, and that the tradition of an unusual alignment of the planets at this time is also a matter of historical fact. The opinion of modern scholars is that the epoch of Kali yuga was concocted during the early medieval period. According to this hypothesis, Indian astronomy used borrowed Greek astronomy to determine that a near planetary alignment occurred in 3102 b.c. After performing the laborious calculations needed to discover this, they then invented the fictitious era of Kali yuga and convinced the entire subcontinent of India that this era had been going on for some three thousand years. Subsequently, many different Puranas were written in accordance with this chronology, and people all over India became convinced that these works, although unknown to their forefathers, were really thousands of years old.
One might ask why anyone would even think of searching for astronomical alignments over a period of thousands of years into the past and then redefining the history of an entire civilization on the basis of a particular discovered alignment.
It seems more plausible to suppose that the story of Kali yuga is genuine, that the alignment occurring at its start is a matter of historical recollection, and that the Puranas really were written prior to the beginning of this era" (Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard Thompson).

Richard Thompson is wrong.
I tried to explain it in my article. Ancient Indian planetary theories just worked like this. It was assumed that all planets meet in one celestial point at the beginning and end of a huge period of time (yuga or kalpa). You certainly are familiar with the concept of pralaya (dissolution of everything) in Hindu cosmology. At the time of pralaya all planets meet in a great conjunction. Ancient Hindu planetary theories always give the number of cycles for each planet between two such planetary pralayas where all planets return to their initial point. Knowing these numbers of cycles and the date of the last planetary pralaya, one can calculate the current positions of the planets. Now, as for this kind of ephemeris calculations an initial point is required, they had to "reconstruct" one, and they chose Feb. 17/18, 3102 BC.

Some more facts:
The oldest reference to the Kaliyuga era is found in Aryabhata around 500 AD.
The planetary theory of the Suryasiddhanta, as I described it above, gives best results around 500 AD with an increasing error for the more remote past and for more recent times. Thus, there can be hardly a doubt that the Kaliyuga era was invented only in late antiquity.

Perhaps you should have another look into my article and study its details.

Although my studies of astrology are in their infancy, my knowledge of human nature is not. Cui bono is the question here. Why would Indians go through the trouble of creating fictitious past dates and history of their civilization? Why would western contemporary scholars ignore their claims?
The answer to the second question is very simple: ethnocentrism.

Everytime I hear a Hindu talking about "ethnocentrism", I am a bit speechless... It seems that Hindus themselves are usually not aware that many Hindu scholars and pseudo-scholars try to prove at any price that their culture is the oldest and most spiritual of the whole world, actually the origin of all Human culture.
Of course I am aware that modern technology and science threatens to destroy ancient traditions and cultures, not only in India. I am also aware that some scientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries may have had a eurocentric or even Christian bias in their understanding of Hindu culture. But does this really apply to modern indologists and scientists? Where do Western scientists believe is the origin of their culture? In America or Europe? Rather in ancient Iraq, Egypt, and Palestine/Israel, which today are Muslim and Jewish countries. Where do they believe was the origin of all human beings? In America? In Europe? No, in Africa! Where do they believe is the origin of all Indo-European languages? In Europe? No, in Central Asia.
There is strong resistence among Hindu scholars against this kind of facts. They want India to be the origin of everything. And if it turned out that this is not the case, their whole belief systems would break down. For this reason, Hindu scholars often have a very biased view of their own sacred writings.

Dieter