Vedic-astrology is a misnomer (was Jyotish v. Western astrology)

[Guest guest]

Addendum to this thread:

 

The following paragraphs are extracted from a

conversation in a egroup "Re: Cosmology in Rigveda,

THE HINDU, marxist indian daily by Patrizia", where

Patrizia confused about zodiac.

 

One gentleman wrote:

 

"I also agree with her that Vedic astrology is a

misnomer, abused now by the neo-Hindus in West. For

most, it is becoming a means for livelyhood, not

pursuit of scholarship. We should not translate many

key words, such as jyOtiSa, Atman, Dharma, Karma, Apa,

salila, samudra, etc."

 

David Frawley wrote the following regarding the above

paragraph:

 

"As for the zodiac, it must be originally sidereal,

with the tropical zodiac a distortion over time. As

for the term Vedic astrology, this is in fact a

translation of the term Vedanga Jyotish. Great Indian

astrologers like Dr. B.V. Raman, who I personally

worked with for years, did not object to the term"

 

Again that gentleman respoded to the above paragraph

thus:

 

"Vedic Astrology (including respected BV Raman) has

come quite far away from vEdAnga jyOtiSa and such

equivalency must be discarded to keep the distinctive

place of vEdAnga jyOtiSa. vEdAnga jyOtiSa requires

full mastery of the vEda-s and other vEdAnga-s, as

well as yOga samADhi, but Vedic Astrology as practised

 

these days does not even require grasp of Samskr`tam!

It is a way for livelyhood - "udara nimittam bahukr`ta

vEsham" as Adi Shankara had said.

 

While correcting historical distortions, we may

introduce new ones. One has to check oneself through

samADhi to minimize this trap of the intellect. I

think the entire matter needs freshly examined by

totally discarding "composition" theories of Indology

and such "history" in anukramaNikA. The works on

brAhmaNa-s may be a starting point"

 

This conversation ended in that egroup thus.

 

 

Truth seekers may note the key point.

 

 

 

 

> gjlist, "Gee Sunn" <siva1008@e...>

> wrote:

> Dear List,

>

> As per discussion on East West astrology,

> Let's make this absolutely, perfectly honest

> and clear.

>

> I do not consider western astrology an astrology

> no longer.

>

> It is actually a misnomer and maybe called a study

> of personality traits and psychological make-up

> according to the time of the year they are born.

>

> I am not being biased and am stating facts plainly.

>

> Astrology means connection with stars and

> constellations.

>

> Does western astrlogy have anything to do with

> the stars and constellations any more?

>

> No!

>

> It can be called seasonalogy or monthology but

> has nothing to do with the stars.

>

> Instead of calling Aries, Taurus, etc. they should

> call

> them something like March, April so on or some other

> name.

>

> It was valid back then when the ayanamsa coincided

> from approx. 2000 BC to 185 AD but no longer is the

> case.

>

> Now it is just an arbitrary division of a year by

> twelve.

>

> When the vernal equinox happens, is the Sun in

> Aries?

>

> No, it is in Pisces.

>

> So then why should they call it Aries?

>

> And Asc, Moon sign and the signs of the planets are

> in

> are wrong 80% of the time(divididing ayanamsa 24

> degrees

> by 30 degrees).

>

> And the sign are the background of the planets are

> lodged

> against.

>

> What kind of effect it'll have if you suddenly

> changed

> the back drop in a play?

> The whole play will be skrewed up.

>

> It may have bearings on the person's temperment

> such as if the person is born in spring time he/she

> is youthful, energetic, likes to take initiative and

> so on, but that's about the size of it.

>

> If it has nothing to do with the stars then why

> should

> they call it astrology?

>

> It may be something else but not astrology.

>

> Hari Om

> Haridas

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.