Guest guest Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 >> It's obvious that Bhagavatam is not an astrology schoolbook, but we still >> expect the little information Bhagavatam gives about astrology to be >> correct, right? > > Unless it is superceded by a higher Vedic authority on that particular > mundane subject. There is a system of levels of pramana according to > mimamsa. For example if a smriti texts contradicts a sruti text then the > sruti texts gets preference. Sort of like CSS if you know about webpage > design. So, is it superceded by a higher Vedic authority? That's what I am looking for. >> That's intriguing because I don't know any instances where the sidereal >> zodiac is clearly defined in the Vedas. > > Which texts have you studied on this matter? I have downloaded many text from the following links, but I haven't of course been able yet to go trough all of them. But it doesn't matter, because even greatest authorities, who have studied the most, haven't been able to answer this. btw, which texts would you reccomend the most? http://www.brihaspati.net/classics.htm http://www.astrocamp.com/Vedic Astrology/2004/05/free-astrology-books-downloa d.html http://jroller.com/page/Vedic Astrology/20040827 I have also "Mysteries of the Sacred Universe" and "Vedic astronomy and cosmology" by Richard Thompson. > And again, just like the > Bhagavatam the Vedas are not about astronomy or astrology so why should the > Vedas be giving definitions on the topic of Astrology? That is the province > of specialized science in this case jyotish. Well, I thought that vedic astrology has its origins in the Vedas. Am I wrong? This may also be a miscommunication about terminology. If I say Bhagavatam or Vedas or whatever, I mean revealed scriptures. I believe that astrology is coming from the Vedas or revealed scriptures and therefore I would like to figure out DEFINITELY what is the vedic version about the astrology and definition of the zodiac is one of the fundamental things as far as I can see. >> If there would be clear sastric >> definition, there wouldn't be so many competing ayanamsas and disagreement >> between vedic astrologers, right? > > You do not know why there is disagreement on ayanamasa. One thing is that > you will not get anyone to agree on anything for any subject. You will > always get some one who disgrees. For example in the Vedas the subject > matter is the Absolute truth but is there agrreement on this? No. Otherwise > Advaitists would not exist. Well, that's one thing. But we don't see tropical astrologers using multiple tropical zodiacs and the reason for this is, that tropical zodiac is clearly defined. It's defined even in the Bhagavatam as we have seen. I understand that every jnani has a tendency to have his personal opinion about everything, based on his own logic but the only thing that is higher than that is scriptural evidence. Therefore I am interested if there is also a clear definition of sidereal zodiac in the Bhagavatam, or in the Vedas or in revealed scriptures or whatever you call them? Or the only definition of the zodiac that we can find from sastras, is a tropical one? > Specifically regarding astronomy has to do with the yogataras that make up > the principle stars of each Nakshatra. The stars in Revati at the end of the > sidereal zodiac are very faint to the naked eye. So it is hard to use them. > The ayanamsa is found out by the fact that Siddhantas like Surya Siddhanta > give the positions of various prominent yoga taras. The most important being > that of Citra whose yogatara was marked as being exactly 180 from the first > point of Aries. Yes, I know that. I didn't know however, that this definition comes from Surya Siddhanta. But again, someone else says that we should take Rohini and put it exactly to 45 degrees from the first point of Aries. That's why I am asking if there is one clear definition in the sastras that Citra and only Citra should be used as anchor and that it should be 180 degrees from 0 Aries? >And regarding your original enquiry about the > >> When the sun passes through Mesa [Aries] and Tula [Libra], the durations >> of day and night are equal. When it passes through the five signs headed >> by Vrsabha [Taurus], the duration of the days increases [until Cancer], >> and then it gradually decreases by half an hour each month, until day and >> night again become equal [in Libra]. >> >> >>>>>> Ref. VedaBase =>> SB 5.21.5 >> >> >> This verse speaks clearly about the Tropical (western) Zodiac and not >> about the sidereal (based on stars) Zodiac. The durations of day and night >> are equal when Sun enters Tropical Aries or Libra. >> >> But when Sun enters sidereal or Vedic Aries, then day is already longer >> than night. >> >> 5000 years ago when Bhagavatam was written, things were even more shifted. >> When Sun entered sidereal or Vedic Aries back then, day was just on the >> half way from its shortest duration to equal duration with night. But >> according to Tropical Zodiac this verse works in every century or age. >> >> I am wondering if Bhagavatam speaks always about Tropical signs and not >> about the Sidereal sign? If not, then how to discriminate when it speaks >> about the Tropical signs and when about the Sidereal Signs? >> >> >> Your servant, >> Abhirama das We mentioned about how the Surya Siddhanta describes the phenomena known as "Trepidation of the Equinoxes" and that this explains your question above did you get that text? Yes, I got this text. Let me see if I got this right. (my english is not perfect) Are you saying that Surya Siddhantha defines the one and only sidereal zodiac, or it gives various definitions of that based on different stars? Are the purposes of different zodiacs defined somewhere? Which one should be used in astrology? Or all of them could be used? If so, in which cases should one be used and when another one? >>> Another point to remember is that while the Bhagavatam does make mention >>> of astronomy, astrology, ayurveda and numerous other subjects it is not >>> a text devoted to these subjects. Rather its specialty is the science of >>> Godhead. Other Vedic texts on jyotish, ayurveda etc may mention Bhagavan >>> in passing but one could hardly become expert in the science of Krsna by >>> studing those texts because that is not their aim or subject. Similarly >>> since the stated aim of Bhagavatam is not anything other than Lord Krsna >>> we should not expect that it will give detailed or expert knowledge in >>> other subjects which is not its focus. >> >> It's obvious that Bhagavatam is not an astrology schoolbook, but we still >> expect the little information Bhagavatam gives about astrology to be >> correct, right? >> >> That's intriguing because I don't know any instances where the sidereal >> zodiac is clearly defined in the Vedas. If there would be clear sastric >> definition, there wouldn't be so many competing ayanamsas and disagreement >> between vedic astrologers, right? >> >> Does anyone know a clear definition of the sidereal zodiac given in the >> Vedas? >> >> Your servant, >> Abhirama das > > Did you read all of the text that you quote from above? If so you will > remember that I pointed out that ALL ancient cultures until the early part > of the Christian era used a sidereal zodiac so there was no need to define > it differently from the tropical zodiac. People have done also all kinds of nonsence since the time immemorial. The fact that something has been done since the time immemorial doesn't mean that it's right or sastric. Like people often argue that people have *always* eaten meat. Actually it's logical fallacy called 'Argumentum ad antiquitatem'. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#antiquitatem I KNOW that sidereal zodiac was widely used, but what I am interested about, is their source of that knowledge. On what it is based? Can they quote someone? > It was the people who used tropical > zodiacs who had to come up with a definition to differentiate what they were > doing. Yet, SB gives that definition. > What you are asking is sort of like the current controversy about same-sex > marriage. No one in their right mind in antiquity ever thought that people > would be crazy enough to consider what to speak of advocate same sex > marriage; hence there is no definition that marriage is between a man and a > woman it was just assumed to be that way by everyone. Now they are having to > scamble and define marriage as between man and woman. Similarly there was no > need to define the sidereal zodiac. Define it as opposed to what? Some other > kind of zodiac? Like what? As opposed to SB 5.21.5 > Since sidereal zodiac appears to have been common > currency in ancient times there was no need to define it per se like you are > insisting. That in some Rig veda sukta you will find that the sidereal > zodiac is X while the tropical zodiac is Y. That you will not find. Then why there is need to define Tropical Zodiac in SB and even in Vishnu Purana while there is no need to define sidereal? And again, I know that it was 'common currency', but I am interested why it was. Your servant, Abhirama das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.