tropical signs

[Guest guest]

> > 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. It was the people who used tropical

zodiacs who had to come up with a definition to differentiate what they were

doing.

 

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? 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.