Skyscript Astrology Forum

To continue from a thread in the Sidereal section.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 6&start=30

Mark wrote: For example, I understand the stars of the southern Cross (Crux) were once visible in Europe!

I wonder where this would place the saptarishis in latitude when the southern Cross was visible?

Mark wrote: I saw a recent You Tube video where Wilhelm stated that you only needed these two texts and could burn all the other texts as they dont work for practical astrology. I was totally appalled by this comment. I think what he was getting at was his strong personal conviction that he only found the techniques in these texts to be really effective. It doesn't seem to occur to him though that just because he cannot work with a text someone else could! I am afraid I lost respect for his comments after I heard that.

I will post what he wrote about it from http://www.vedic-astrology.net/

Willhelm Reich wrote: Vedic Astrology is undergoing a huge renaissance - from baseless memorization of endless planetary permutations to the development of scientific and systematic techniques. Just a little over 100 years ago the great Guru and Astrologer Sri Yuktesvar made statements to the fact that no astrologers practiced systematic astrology - that instead they just memorized endless planetary yogas with the hopes that some of the memorized yogas would be present in the horoscopes that they were called upon to examine. He stated that astrology was a great science which was meant to be practiced in a systematic and technique centered fashion. Fortunately, astrologers have come a long way since the dawn of the 20th century with several schools of systematic astrology techniques having emerged during the 1900's. Some well known examples of these are KP, Systems Approach and the Iyer system. The greatest development, however, was the resurgence of the two great ancient astrological texts: Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra and the Upadesa Sutras of Jaimini. These texts are unique amongst all other astrological texts in that they contain complete systems of scientific astrology. No other Jyotish texts available to us can boast of this - at best some texts have a few incomplete pages on systematic techniques.

This is one of the reasons I expressed frustration, perhaps uncalled for, about the Western Jyotish literature, in general, based on inference, awhile ago. I read various contemporary Jyotish texts in the hopes of finding the underlying principles and systematic techniques to enable me to understand complex planetary yogas found in various classical Jyotish texts, but this was not even addressed; it was like the problem did not exist. I did not know I was not the only one with this problem in trying to understand Jyotish.

Dinesh Mathur wrote: There has been excessive emphasis on Yogas (planetary placements and combinations) in predictive astrology, so much so that, generally, the basics [of the principles] are lost sight of. The importance of various yogas ought not to be belittled, but astrological prediction is not mere application of yogas to the birth chart. In the present day world, when astrology has assumed a place of common interest and even a lay man likes to study the subject, to expect a modern man to learn by heart the thousands and thousands of yogas with which the astrological literature of yore is replete, is to expect too much. He is also a little bewildered as such an approach does not appeal to his rational mind.

For a sound knowledge and understanding of the subject, we must know the fundamentals and the manner in which they can be analysed. In this book [Predictive Astrology: An Insight] the reader is taken through the subject in a scientific manner. He will realise that there is reason in predictive astrology, and that it is not merely the product of intuitive surmisings. My effort has been to emphasize this reason and system.

Mark wrote: Varahamihirah references the shifting location of the vernal equinox and that it had moved to Ashwini from Krittika. Otherwise why did Krittika not remain the lead Nakshatra?

Will you please cite the text by Varahamihira that the above information is from?

Cyril Fagan wrote: All historical evidence incontestably establishes that the Hindu zodiac of the constellations commenced with the nakshatra krittika, which was that of the Pleiades and ended with that of rohini, the yogatara of which is a small star in the constellation Aries. Now the Hindu zodiac commences with aswini in 0 Aries and ends with ravati (Zeta Piscium), a small star in the constellation Pisces. Why? Even the most learned Hindu pundits have failed to answer this vitally important question. In an article by Professor B.V. Raman entitled the Parantellonta of Aswini, it was demonstrated that the Hindu zodiac of the classical maharishis--wrote and taught tropical astrology! Also the Hindu astrologers of yore--the beloved maharishis--wrote and taught tropical astrology. At least two of the writers of the famous siddhantas, the standard text books of Hindu astrology, were of western nationality and origin!

When Hindu astrologers were questioned as to why their zodiac was altered from 0 Taurus to 0 Aries, they either evaded the question or remained silent. Like our western brethren, being occult but not historically-minded, and having no records, they simply do not know! But to the historically-minded student not infected with chauvinism, it is platently obvious what happened, although not generally admitted by modern denizens of aryavarta. When in 326 B.C. at the battle of Hydaspes, Alexander the Great conquered Punjab, Greece became the master of India and Greeks infiltrated the land. At some time between that date and the epoch of aryavata (A.D. 499), the Hindu zodiac was Hellenized, that is to say it was converted in a sayana or tropical zodiac, and made to commence with 0 Aries, the vernal equinox being fixed in 8 Aries according to System B,or in 0 Aries according to the system of Hipparchus.

PRIMER OF SIDEREAL ASTROLOGY by Cyril Fagan and Brigadier R.C. Firebrace , page 114 to 115

Are the bold faced portions of this quote emphasized by me, correctly copied from the text? Does Fagan cite his "all historical evidence" in that text?

Mark wrote: I think the ancient Indians worked very similarly to the Chinese and that the Nakshatras were originally intended to be projected from the poles. This explains odds and ends of Indian star lore that now seem stranded in modern Jyotish. For example, the important role of the Sapta Rishis (Ursa Major) , Canopus and the lost Nakshatra of Abhijit. However, when the Nakshatras got merged with horoscopic astrology they were rationalised into 27 equal sized sectors along the ecliptic. I think this bears little relationship to what the ancient Indian astrologers were doing.

Will you please cite the title of the best text that explains the technicalities of the Chinese pole system of nakshatras?

Mark wrote: "when the Nakshatras got merged with horoscopic astrology they were rationalised into 27 equal sized sectors along the ecliptic."

When do you believe the nakshatras were merged with horoscopic astrology? Do you agree with Fagan that it must have been between 326 b.c. and 499 a.d.?

When do you believe the nakshatras were merged with horoscopic astrology? Do you agree with Fagan that it must have been between 326 b.c. and 499 a.d.?

I think we can narrow it down somewhat from Fagan's estimate. The Sardulakarnavadana, c. 0 CE, names no zodiacal signs, begins its list of nakshatras with Krittika, and includes Abhijit. Setting aside the difficult question of the date of the Yavanajataka, Minaraja's Vrddhayavanajataka, c. 325 CE, is zodiacally based, begins the list with Asvini, and omits Abhijit. So the merger must have taken place between 0 and 300 CE.

I am very busy with commitments this month including events I am organising at my Astrological Association and a Conference talk I am giving. So my activity on Skyscript will be seriously curtailed over the next few weeks. I do owe Therese a reply but beyond that I will probably be off forum.

Varuna-I will get back to you on your points when I have time. Regarding the Nakshatras I take the view that our current way of working with them bears little relationship to the ancient system. This is a big topic and I would prefer to open a fresh thread on this to pull together all the information I have collated. It will look less disjointed than replying to your individual points. Plus I am kind of holding my cards close to my chest on this until I have time to properly set out my position in a more substantial thread devoted exclusively to this topic. In the meantime I have sent you a PM regarding your question on fixed stars.

Kenneth Johnson wrote:

When do you believe the nakshatras were merged with horoscopic astrology? Do you agree with Fagan that it must have been between 326 b.c. and 499 a.d.?

I think we can narrow it down somewhat from Fagan's estimate. The Sardulakarnavadana, c. 0 CE, names no zodiacal signs, begins its list of nakshatras with Krittika, and includes Abhijit. Setting aside the difficult question of the date of the Yavanajataka, Minaraja's Vrddhayavanajataka, c. 325 CE, is zodiacally based, begins the list with Asvini, and omits Abhijit. So the merger must have taken place between 0 and 300 CE.

I think we are looking at several developments in this process. The timing of each development may be slightly different. I susIn short:

1 The move from an unequal 28 Nakshatra system to an equal 27 Nakshatra system. This better reflected the sidereal/zodiacal month and daily motion of the Moon. This required the removal of Abhijit from the general Nakshatra list.

2 The replacement of Kriitika or Bharani as the lead Nakshatra by Ashwini to align with the newly adopted hellenistic zodiac and the position of the vernal equinox.

3 Working with both systems together astrologically.

4 The attribution of 7 Grahas and Rahu/Ketu rulerships to all the 27 Nakshatras.

Although I haven't seen Minaraja's Vrddhayavanajataka it sounds like it had already got through the first 2 steps. Are the zodiac and the Nakshatras linked together? Any reference to dasas for example? What about Nakshatra rulers?

I dont think either the Sardulakarnavadana, Vrddhayavanajataka or Yavanaj?taka of Sphujidhvaja mention Rahu or Ketu do they?

I am working on memory here but the earliest text I recall seeing any mention of the nodes astrologically is in the Brihat Jataka of Varahamihira. I dont recall seeing a system assigning rulership to the Nakshatras there though but I need to double check.

If I am correct the first fully formulated system of 27 equal nakshatras with the 7 grahas and Rahu Ketu as rulers of individual Nakshatras must come after the time of Varahamihirah. That makes me think an early version of the BPHS may be the first text to fully set out the new system.

As I indicated I think this was probably a process rather than a single event. However, your comments on the Vrddhayavanajataka are very interesting. I haven't even seen a translation of this text.

Although after all the questions raised regarding the dating of the Yavanaj?taka I wonder how confident we can about the dating of Minaraja's Vrddhayavanajataka to precisely , c. 325 CE? How did Pingree arrive at that date?

Bill Mak's research of Jyotish texts preserved in China suggests the shift over to a 27 Nakshatra system based on Aswini is only clear cut in the texts from the 6th Century CE onwards. At least we can be completely confident on the dating on the Chinese Jyotisha texts. Still that is a signifcant difference from the date you suggest. I suppose the material could have taken a while to get to China along the Silk Road. Plus there is a question of how integrated these Buddhists were to developments within the Hindu community. Mak seems to believe the texts are a good mirror of Jyotisa developments in India generally.

Mark

Kenneth Johnson wrote: I think we can narrow it down somewhat from Fagan's estimate. The Sardulakarnavadana, c. 0 CE, names no zodiacal signs, begins its list of nakshatras with Krittika, and includes Abhijit. Setting aside the difficult question of the date of the Yavanajataka, Minaraja's Vrddhayavanajataka, c. 325 CE, is zodiacally based, begins the list with Asvini, and omits Abhijit. So the merger must have taken place between 0 and 300 CE.

Thank you, Ken. Have you looked at the original script yet, of the following link (TS 4.4.10)? We can notice there are 27 nakshatras listed and not 28.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/yv04.htm

Standard rate of precession equals 1 degree per 72 years. Approximate standard ayanamsha equal to sayana chakra 285 CE. An equal 27 nakshatra division equals 13 and 1/3 degrees. Precessional rate equals around 960 or so years per standard nakshatra. Therefore, the end of bharani on the vernal equinox occurred 675 BCE. The end of krittika on the vernal equinox occurred 1635 BCE. The start of krittika on the vernal equinox occurred 2595 BCE.

Krittika era coinciding with vernal equinox: 2595 - 1635 BCE.

The following link suggests two time periods, one earlier and one later (TS 7.4.8 ). The beginning of the traditional year starts at the winter solstice and not at the vernal equinox. However, if we took an untraditional stance and said the vernal equinox is the beginning of the year, then this would place a mid-range point (3:20 Virgo) of the full moon in uttaraphalguni at the vernal equinox, i.e. the Sun at 3:20 Pisces on vernal equinox, which would be in the future and would mean the TS has not been composed yet, and the Chitra reference would be dated to around 285 CE.

If we follow the dating of the traditional year we end up with time periods well before krittika being on the vernal equinox: 3300 - 4300 BCE or midpoint of 3800 BCE, and 5700 - 6700 BCE or midpoint of 6200 BCE. The reason this is important is because the list of nakshatras (from the previously cited link) in this text starts with Krittika. These dates are prior to krittika having any relationship with the vernal equinox.

Therefore, the association of krittika being the first in a list of nakshatras has no association whatsoever with the vernal equinox.

Therefore, the mythologized teaching of the 28 nakshatras coming later than the 27 division, is also false.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/yv07.htm

I am not implying that you believe this, since I do not know what you believe. I am assuming, that you, like many, believe the change to ashwini from krittika as the first nakshatra in a list of nakshatras occurred when the historical mythology of the modification of a hellenized astrology occurred. This could very well be true as to when the change in ordering of nakshatras occurred, however, it does not necessarily follow that the premise of the previous nakshatra list with krittika at its head, had anything to do with the vernal equinox. I do not recall you ever mentioning this but plenty of other people have, and I am presenting this to those who believe this, and I am addressing you, since I have a question for you if you do not mind my asking, since it seems implied in your response to me.

Do you likewise believe the reason krittika is listed as the first nakshatra in the TS is because it was on the vernal equinox when that text was composed? If you do not wish to respond to this or be involved in this conversation, then nevermind. This is not to much a zodiac argument, as it is a real concern with the reason for krittika being listed first.

Mark wrote: Varahamihirah references the shifting location of the vernal equinox and that it had moved to Ashwini from Krittika. Otherwise why did Krittika not remain the lead Nakshatra?

Will someone please cite the title of the original text authored under Varahamihira's name that contains this idea Mark wrote? This is of primary importance in these matters. If the people who changed the nakshatra order from krittika to ashwini did so under the belief that the krittika order had anything whatsoever to do with the vernal equinox, then it would follow that they would change the order of calculation of the vimshottari dasha sequence also, but this did not happen. The vimshottari dasha calculation still to this day, long after ashwini became the first nakshatra, is calculated from Krittika nakshatra and its planetary ruler: the Sun.

See sentence (2) at the end of this link:

http://www.vedicastrologer.org/jh/update_7.51.htm

I am not suggesting that I am *right* in the way I understand astrology, and all others wrong. This is strictly an inquiry into the truth of the matter.

Mark wrote: Varuna-I will get back to you on your points when I have time.

Mark, my only real concern is the name of the text by Varahamihira where he writes that idea. I want to read it myself. If he actually wrote that it could potentially be revolutionary, or it could be that he was not unlike the pompous Fagan who sounds even more pompous than myself, and who wrote truth-statements about things he did not know.

Mark wrote: Bill Mak's research of Jyotish texts preserved in China suggests the shift over to a 27 Nakshatra system based on Aswini is only clear cut in the texts from the 6th Century CE onwards. At least we can be completely confident on the dating on the Chinese Jyotisha texts. Still that is a signifcant difference from the date you suggest. I suppose the material could have taken a while to get to China along the Silk Road. Plus there is a question of how integrated these Buddhists were to developments within the Hindu community. Mak seems to believe the texts are a good mirror of Jyotisa developments in India generally.

Perhaps Mak overthrew the usual mythology historical narrative of Mahayana Buddhism transmission(?)

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

From the above link:
"Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th/6th century CE. He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Ch'an (Sanskrit: Dhy?na, Japanese: Zen) to China, and regarded as its first Chinese patriarch."

Mark, what Ken wrote, contrary to what "Mak seems to believe," is consistent in this regards. How could the jyotish texts be a mirror of developments in India when Buddhism had not arrived in China until the 6th century common era (assuming that historical mythology narrative is true)? Or there was some continuous stream of knowledge entering China from India for centuries prior(?) - not unlikely either at various times in history. (Siddhartha Gautama era being around 1800 BCE in Indian version of their own history and not Westernized/mythologies of the historical narratives of India - based on the immature notion of the earth being created around 4000 b.c.)

Since this thread is titled: Random conversations, I will add more about the Adityas.

I usually assume ideas without noting where they came from or that they came from anywhere, and since we have been having these conversations about nakshatras, I looked into a text and found that the idea of Adityas being astronomical was not my own, nor do the sources checked prove the zodiac issue either way, but they may be of interest to those here.

Insofar as these ideas go, it is best to remember the caution of Rumi:

"Many people travel to Syria and Iraq
and meet only hypocrites.

Others go all the way to India
and see just merchants buying and selling.

Others go to Turkestan and China
and find those countries filled
with sneak-thieves and cheats.

We always see the qualities
that are living in us.

A cow may walk from one side of the amazing city
of Baghdad to the other and notice only
a watermelon rind and a tuft of hay
that fell off a wagon."

See 8:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44036.htm

See 9:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe12/sbe1246.htm

So, we an association of the Adityas as a division of the year and the day and the sky.

Also, see 4.5.1-3:

http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/O ... miniya.pdf

Also, see 4.10.10:

http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/O ... miniya.pdf

Further original source parallels can be found in a text titled: Studies on Rigvedic Deities: Astronomical and Meteorological by Ekendranath Ghosh.

Varuna wrote:

Will someone please cite the title of the original text authored under Varahamihira's name that contains this idea Mark wrote? This is of primary importance in these matters. If the people who changed the nakshatra order from krittika to ashwini did so under the belief that the krittika order had anything whatsoever to do with the vernal equinox, then it would follow that they would change the order of calculation of the vimshottari dasha sequence also, but this did not happen. The vimshottari dasha calculation still to this day, long after ashwini became the first nakshatra, is calculated from Krittika nakshatra and its planetary ruler: the Sun.

As I indicated here already I am really short of time this month. However, as you seem to be getting a bit vexed on this issue I will get back to say I cannot find a reference stating exactly this from Varahamihira. So my statement was (unintentionally) misleading.

Varahamihira is quoted in this article by David Pingree.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 7.000.html

He certainly notes the changes in the solstices in terms of Nakshatras from the more ancient statements. Pingree also he suggests the beginning of Aries was identified with Ashwini around this time. Also the equinox was identified as having moved to Ashwini. However, Varahamihira doesn't explicitly state that Ashwini replaced Krittika (or Bharani) as the lead Nakshatra. So I apologise if I gave a misleading impression. Although, it seems that ultimately, since Ashwini was identified with the rasi cakra of Aries it eventually did became identified as the first nakshatra.

Regarding the vimshottari dasha calculation I hate to sound totally obtuse but what difference does it make what Nakshatra is first? I thought the procedure was to check the position of the Moon by Nakshatra and relevant planetary/nodal ruler. We also calculate the proportion of the Nakshatra the Moon has travelled through. The order of dasas is then calculated from the initial and following Nakshatras. I clearly must be missing something in my understanding. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this point for me.

More fundamentally, from the previous comments of Ken and Martin here it appears likely the nakshatra based dasas developed after the rasi dasas. Its been commented before that Varahamihira only mentions the rasi based mula dasa. Martin has sugggested this was the most popular dasa in the early period. The rasi dasas seem very reminiscient to the time lord or planetary period systems of hellenistic astrology. So the calculation of the vimshottari dasa probably wasn't even a consideration for astrologers before 600CE or later.

Varuna 2 wrote:

Mark, what Ken wrote, contrary to what "Mak seems to believe," is consistent in this regards. How could the jyotish texts be a mirror of developments in India when Buddhism had not arrived in China until the 6th century common era (assuming that historical mythology narrative is true)?

Or there was some continuous stream of knowledge entering China from India for centuries prior(?) - not unlikely either at various times in history. (Siddhartha Gautama era being around 1800 BCE in Indian version of their own history and not Westernized/mythologies of the historical narratives of India - based on the immature notion of the earth being created around 4000 b.c.)

I spent a lot of time on another thread explaining why your chronology of the Buddha to 1800 BCE was way out. I dont have the time to set out all the evidence again here. The timing does vary between the Buddhist tradition and western scholarship somewhat but not dramatically. We are in the time slot of the late 7th to 5th century BCE. Jain texts and King lists support this general idea idea too.

Here is the old thread I set out a summary for you:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 45147a1488

Buddhism didn't arrive in China from the 6th century CE. Your mixing up the Zen sect transmission myth (known as Chan meaning meditation school in China) with Buddhism as a whole. Although accounts differ slightly the consensus is that it was first transmitted to China in the 1st century BCE. So just before the Christian era.

Bill Mak states that the Jyotisa texts preserved in China date from 230 CE. However, these could have been somewhat older in origin as they would have taken time to get along the Silk Road to China.

Mark

Just a few notes:

I won't try to draw any conclusions as to the starting point of the Hindu calendar in remote antiquity. Surveyor Holger Wanzke noted that some of the earliest large public buildings in the Indus appear to be oriented to the rising and setting points of Aldebaran (Rohini) and Antares (Jyeshta) at the equinoxes c. 3200 BC.

28 nakshatras are listed in Atharva Veda 19.7, all under the same names they have now. The hymn called the "Marriage of Surya" appears in both the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda. In the latter work, two nakshatras are mentioned by their conventional names, whereas the same passage in the RV gives unfamiliar names that appear nowhere else. Scholars of previous generations believed that the RV was compiled c. 1000 BCE and the AV much later, perhaps as late as 700 BCE, but during my MA studies I was taught that more recent scholars have begun to agree with Asko Parpola that both texts are of the same age, c. 1000 BCE, but represent different spiritual traditions (which explains why the AV was not included among the canonical Vedas until much later).

A passage in the Mahabharata states that Abhijit wished to be queen of the nakshatras, but became jealous of her erotic sister Rohini and left the sky to seek out the life of a forest ascetic on earth. While the MB was obviously compiled over many centuries, the final rescension is usually dated c. 325 CE, about the same time as Minaraja, so we can assume that Abhijit was out of the game by that time, though Varuna is correct in stating that the Brahmanas are inconsistent on this point.

I don't know how secure the dating of Minaraja is. Mak's objection to Pingree's date for the YJ is based on the premise that Pingree misread one of the systems (of which there are several in Sanskrit) that substitute letters for numbers. Since his date for Minaraja was an estimate rather than an exact date, it would seem that he was not making reference to any such system of numeration.

There is no translation of Minaraja's enormous text (more than 1000 pages in Devanagari). The second volume of Pingree's edition is in an acceptable Devanagari font, but the first volume is just a photocopy of his hand-written transcript, as with the YJ. Since Pingree wrote a very eccentric version of Devanagari, it is almost unreadable at certain points. Fortunately there is now a complete I-trans version on jyotiwiki.

An English translation of Minaraja is one of our greatest needs re: the transmission of astrological knowledge.

I am not sure if Minaraja mentions Rahu. I seem to remember hearing that he does. He certainly does not mention Ketu.

The text in which VM gives what appears to be a reference to the tropical zodiac is the Panchasiddhanta. This is his compilation of five (pancha) ancient astronomical (siddhanta) texts -- note that this is astronomical rather than astrological. At least two of his sources were, as he remarks, of Greek origin. It is not at all clear as to whether he is stating his own belief or simply explaining his sources.

That's it for now. Sorry I did not have time for exact cites or links, but I can look them up for anyone who is interested in a particular passage.

P.S. to the above. One of the most problematical points in the history of the nakshatras is this:

We have a list beginning with Krittika. Then we have a list beginning with Ashvini.

There is no such thing as a list beginning with Bharani, even though important works like the Garga Samhita and Sardulakarnavadana were composed when the equinox was in that nakshatra.

This is difficult to explain. In his magnum opus, "Deciphering the Indus Script," Asko Parpola of the University of Helsinki hypothesizes an equinoctial calendar in Indus times, c. 2300 BCE, which began with Krittika, and was preserved in its ancient form, somewhat atavistically, even when the astronomical situation had changed, being altered to Ashvini only after the introduction of the Hellenistic zodiac.

It is only fair to note that many of Parpola's academic colleagues vehemently disagree with him, and the problem remains a topic of lively debate.

Kenneth Johnson wrote:

28 nakshatras are listed in Atharva Veda 19.7, all under the same names they have now. The hymn called the "Marriage of Surya" appears in both the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda. In the latter work, two nakshatras are mentioned by their conventional names, whereas the same passage in the RV gives unfamiliar names that appear nowhere else. Scholars of previous generations believed that the RV was compiled c. 1000 BCE and the AV much later, perhaps as late as 700 BCE, but during my MA studies I was taught that more recent scholars have begun to agree with Asko Parpola that both texts are of the same age, c. 1000 BCE, but represent different spiritual traditions (which explains why the AV was not included among the canonical Vedas until much later).

I noticed you mentioned the Atharva Veda 19.7.1 in your interview with Chris Brennan. This issue is confusing for the less knowledgeable amongst us.

I take it you have seen this article by David Frawley citing the Vedic basis of the Nakshatras.

http://www.vedanet.com/2012/06/nakshatr ... akshatras/

David Frawley writes:

The Nakshatras are a twenty-seven or twenty-eight division of the zodiac based upon the Moon, which takes 27-28 days to go around the zodiac (to be more accurate 27.3 days). The Nakshatras are listed in their entirety in late Vedic texts like the Atharva Veda (XIX.7) and Yajur Veda (Taittiriya Samhita IV.4.10). They are presented in great detail in the Taittiriya Brahmana (III.1), which gives special verses to the deities governing each Nakshatra. They are also a topic of Satapatha Brahmana (II.1.2) and the Atharva Veda Parisisthani. They are an integral part of all Vedic symbolism and the basis for the timing of all Vedic rituals down to the present day.

I get lost in all this which are discussing 27 and which 28 Nakshatras.

I wasn't aware the names of the 27 Nakshatras listed in the Rig Veda didn't conform to the ones used by astrologers today. Thanks for the clarification!

David Frawley often cites the Rig Veda reference no doubt because it appears to bolster the idea that the 27 Nakshatras used in modern Jyotish are directly linked to the Vedas.

However, as you have pointed out the names of the 28 Nakshatras, according to the Atharvaveda, does seem much better connected to the ones actually used in the astrological tradition. Hence all our early examples of astrological references to Nakshatras cite 28 not 27 mansions.

An additional support for the idea of 28 over 27 mansions is provided by the idiosyncratic but fascinating Jain astronomical tradition where there are also 28 Nakshatras. The Jain approach is interesting as it seems like an alternative early attempt at rationalisation of the Nakshatras with unequal but proportional sized nakshatras rather than fully equal ones.

http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upl ... 16d_31.pdf

I actually, found the website of Indian calendar reformer Sri Mohan Krity Aarsh Tithi Patak last week before hearing your interview with Chris.

He claims to cite the original sequence of Nakshatra junction stars mentioned in the Atharva Veda. It certainly leads to interesting consequences as my Moon changes Nakshatra!

Here is the list of nakshatras he gives on his site:

http://www.reformedsanathancalendar.in/natchatras.html

Do you think he has correctly identified the correct junction for each Nakshatra?

One question that still troubles me though is that there is apparently a list of 27 Nakshatras in the Vedanga Jyotisa. I haven't studied the text but I understand it removes Abhjit from the list of Nakshatras.
Is this another textual support for the 27 Nakshatras in the the Rigveda and/or Yajurveda? Or was this what you were referring to above?

I think I may need to go through all the relevant Veda texts to get my head around this.

Were the authors of the Vedanga Jyotisa following the same tradition as that found in the Rig Veda? Or do you think this reference in the text was a later interpolation to make the text fit the tradition of 27 equal nakshatras later adopted?

More fundamentally, were these ancient Indians thinking ecliptically or equatorially? We know the 28 Chinese Lunar mansions were calculated on an equatorial basis. Could the the ancient nakshatras have been the same and derived from Dhruva or the pole star?

I think this interpretation helps explain a lot of anomalous star lore and mythology that otherwise sits high and dry with an ecliptical based system. Possibly the sidelining of this star lore across the entire night sky was the price to be paid for adopting the ecliptically based hellenistic zodiac.

Mark

Mark wrote: As I indicated here already I am really short of time this month. However, as you seem to be getting a bit vexed on this issue I will get back to say I cannot find a reference stating exactly this from Varahamihira. So my statement was (unintentionally) misleading.

Thank you for verifying; it seemed intuitively wrong.

Mark wrote: Regarding the vimshottari dasha calculation I hate to sound totally obtuse but what difference does it make what Nakshatra is first?

It doesn't necessarily make a difference, but the way you had previously presented the Varahamihira information made it sound like it could make a difference. For example, if it was so that there was a basis for krittika being the first and ruled by the Sun (which is usually always listed as the first graha), then it could follow, depending on the reasons, that Uttarabhadrapada would now be ruled by the Sun and the contemporary Krittika would now be ruled by Jupiter.