James wrote:
Another question i have is when did the change happen from 28 to 27 nakshatras, or are both of them considered too far back historically to know??
Therese wrote:
This is covered in one source I have (Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astrology by Prof. K.D. Abhyankar, I-S.E.R.V.E, 2007). Abhyankar mentions that the Vedanga Jyotisa of 1400 BC reduced the number of naksatras from 28 to 27 for mathematical reasons and made the nakshatras 13 1/3 degrees of he ecliptic. The Abhijit nakshatra was dropped. Abhyankar states that when the zodiac signs came to India around 500 B.C. there was an attempt to incorporate them into the nakshatra system. The attempt was made by the Jain astronomers, and the incorporation was completed by the Siddhantic astronomers.
However, in The Divine Forces of the Lunar Nakshatras as Portrayed in the Vedas (Shree Ganapati Productions, 2015) Radhe makes this interesting statement in discussing the Taittriya Brahmana which lists 28 nakshatras:
Therese wrote:
This list of the Nakshatras differs from the certainly older list given in the Taittiriya-Samhita (TS.4.4.10.1-3) by the fact that it contains 28 nakshatras instead of 27, Abhijit having been inserted between the Second Asadhas and Srona. (p. 179)
I hadn't seen this mentioned anywhere else that the original number of nakshatras was probably 27 rather than 28. Radhe's book is an excellent source for tracing the earliest history of the naksatras. A great deal of research went into the book.
As you are aware Therese the dating of Indian religious and astrological texts is a subject of ongoing debate and disagreement. For example, while Prof. K.D. Abhyankar may support the oldest possible date for the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisa other scholars date the text to the last few centuries BCE. for example Michael Witzel notes:
Only if one is convinced that Lagadha intended the solstice to be exactly at alpha Delphini of Dhanishta, one can date his observations back to the late second millennium. Since that cannot be shown beyond doubt, since the composition of the text is in Late Epic language, and since its contents have clear resemblances to Babylonian works, the text must belong to a late period, to the last centuries BCE
The existence of 28 Nakshatras seems to be very ancient rather than a late interpolation as you seem to be suggesting. For example, there are 28 Nakshatra listed in the Atharvaveda which is dated from approximately 1200 to 100BCE. This challenges the assumption the 28th Nakshatra was a late addition. It can be argued the contrary may be true ie that the 27 Lunar Mansions only became the norm in Indian astrology at a much later point.
Further evidence to support this view is provided by the scholar Bill Mak who has written about Indian Naksahtra horoscopes preserved in China which date back as early as the first centuries CE. These use 28 nakshatras rather than 27. The older examples were also still using the Nakshatra Krittika as the first Nakshatra.
It seems likely then that the astrological use a 27 Nakshatra system was a later development sometime between the 2nd-6th century CE when the Nakshatras became fused with the 12 sign zodiac. At some point then Ashwini became linked to the 12 sign zodiac. This also coincided with the vernal equinox in Ashwini. Before this time the size of the Nakshshatras also seems to have been unequal rather than 13'20 degrees in size. .
Intriguingly, some ultra traditional Hindus have argued the Nakshatras don't belong with the sidereal zodiac at all since they are historically unequal in size with the first Nakshatra determined where the equinox was. The consequence it is argued is that Indian religious festivals have gradually fallen out of sequence with the seasons. A noted figure in this campaign for Indian calendar reform has been Sri Mohan Krity Aarsh Tithi Patak who has advocated a system of unequal Nakshatra junction stars as described in the Atharva Veda.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130317222 ... atras.html
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sa ... &FORM=VIRE
The move to a 27 mansion system had some definite astrological advantages. Firstly, the 27 equal mansions fits more closely with the sidereal or zodiacal monthly cycle of the Moon than the 28 mansion system did.
Secondly, it more closely approximates to the daily motion of the Moon through the zodiac and the length of the equal mansions is an approximation of that. So in the equal , 27 nakshatra system the Moon travels through approximately a nakshatra each day.
Thirdly, we have a more organised rulership system with each planet /node assigned three Nakshatra each. Again this fits into the numerology of 9.
When you take it all together its actually a beautiful piece of astrological synthesis to bring together these two completely different systems.
However, the contrary position is that the original Indian system of star lore was completely transformed to fit into a fixed symmetrical, ecliptic based system. Many of the ancient Indian myths are directly linked to fixed stars. Their rearrangement into the equal nakshatras has actually created an astrological dislocation in the placement of some stars by modern nakshatra. I personally, think there is evidence the original Indian system of nakshatras was equatorial (like the 28 Chinese Lunar Mansions) not ecliptical at all. This explains why stars way outside the ecliptic -Sirius, Canopus, Crux, Vega, Ursa Major (the Plough/Big Dipper) form such an important role in Indian mythology.
In one of his articles on the Indus Valley script the Finnish academic Asko Parpolo makes the following fascinating comment:
The Purana texts contain an interesting conception about the pole star... In reply to a question why the stars and planets do not not fall down from the sky, these heavenly bodies are said to be bound to the pole star with invisible 'ropes of wind'. These 'ropes' seem to refer to the air roots of the cosmic banyan tree, which god Varuna is said to hold up in the sky in the earliest Indian text dating from c1000 BCE'. Study of The Indus Script, Special Lecture, Asko Parpolo, 19.05.2005, Tokyo
'
Parpola uses these references as part of a wider argument that one of the seals in the ancient Harappan culture actually represents the pole star/cosmic tree of later Vedic texts. Whether, Parpola is right or not regarding that point the cosmology represented in the Puranas sounds far more like an equatorial view of the cosmos centred on the pole star rather than one based around the ecliptic. It would therefore seem more logical to assume that the ancient Nakshatras fitted into that kind of cosmology and astrological world view.
The Nakshatra based dasa (time lord) systems like Vimsottari were clearly actually designed for the 27 Nakshatras. The Bṛhat Par??śara Hor??ś??stra (BPHS) was quite possibly the first text to pull all this together into a fully integrated system.
Mark