Historical question on Vedic Astrology (to Satya)

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya,

 

> The Greek-derived sanskrit names have probably little or nothing to

> do with Parasara. If my memory is right most of them were introduced

> by VARAHAMIHIRA who admired the yavanas and referred frequently to

> them.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. I hope you agree that Parasara existed way

before Varahamihira did, in which case India astrology existed way before

the Greek influence.

 

According to the Robert Hand article quoted by Sundeep, Hindus learnt

astrology from Greeks and did not know it until Greeks brought it to them. I

was talking about Parasara's texts in that context.

 

Some of these guys say that Parasara came long after Varahamihira (which is

what you are hinting at below).

 

> It remains a different matter though whether BPHS was really authored

> 5000 years back or was compiled by some inspired writer much later.

>

> I don't know about terms like Kendra. Some suggest that even this

> word has no root word in Sanskrit. Then Parasara too will be dragged

> into this. Perhaps Narasimha ji can research on this (since you are

> much better than others wrt Sanskrit on this list) and tell us more.

 

Yes, I will do some research. But Kendra could easily have been derived from

indra or some other word (the indra - greatest and middle point - of a

circle). We can only speculate either way.

 

> > Overall, I think this particular article is manufacturing a lot of

> > evidence. If one talks about panaphara, apoklima etc, the point is

> > reasonable.

>

> Yes some parts are reasonable. But it is unreasonable to suggest that

> Indian astrology is derived fully or even largely from the Greeks,

> though there is no denial that some MUTUAL influence was there.

 

The issue is - did this mutual influence come after Parasara taught the

great science and people almost forgot it or did this mutual influence come

at the inception of Hindu astrology. Robert Hand suggests the latter and I

firmly believe in the former.

 

> > The sophistication and the complexity of the teachings of Parasara

> > is perhaps 1000 times more developed than Greek astrology of 400

> BCE

> > (or even Indian astrology of the same time).

>

> 1000 TIMES IS AN EXAGGERATION to say the least. Of course Parasara is

> the probably the greatest among many. One just has to be awe struck

> within the *Indian context.

>

> But your above statement only suggests that you have NOT studied

> Greek astrology at all. Ancient Greek astrology is as sophisticated

> and as complex as Indian.

>

> The dashas? The shadbalas? The fixed stars? The divisional charts?

> They too had all that, with a few variations! While they don't have

> Ashtakavarga we too don't have a lot that they had. Their fixed stars

> are much more complex than our *current texts on nakshatras.

 

Yes, I can "1000 times" is an exaggeration.

 

I can return your compliment by saying "but your above statement only

suggests that you have NOT studied Parasara's teachings at all". But I will

not get personal like you and will keep the focus on the subject.

 

Please note that I am not just saying that Parasara's teachings are superior

to the Greek astrology of the last two millennia. I am also saying that they

are also superior to the Hindu astrology of the last two millennia (as

taught by authors from Varahamihira to Mantreswara).

 

Parasara's teachings are not just about dasas, shadbalas, fixed stars and

divisions. If one reads BPHS fully, one can see how complete and

brilliant-beyond-words it is compared to ANY OTHER astrological text

available today, Greek and Sanskrit.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments on the similarity between ancient Hindu

astrology and ancient Greek astrology:

 

My guess is that civilization existed for a long long time before what we

currently know. My guess is that astrological knowledge originated from the

same source (which is not babylon of 2000 BC or Greece of 50 BC, but much

earlier) and there was collaboration again around 100 BC-500 AD as several

cultures came together again. The similarities in cultures, astrologies and

even languages cannot be coincidences. Clearly, there are missing links in

the evolution of civilization.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

 

Dear Narasimha,

 

I will not address the contents of your mail that I could agree in

principle to. I will address those that I either don't agree to, or

have something more to add upon.

 

>

> Yes, you are absolutely right. I hope you agree that Parasara

existed way

> before Varahamihira did, in which case India astrology existed way

before

> the Greek influence.

>

> According to the Robert Hand article quoted by Sundeep, Hindus

learnt

> astrology from Greeks and did not know it until Greeks brought it

to them. I

> was talking about Parasara's texts in that context.

>

> Some of these guys say that Parasara came long after Varahamihira

(which is

> what you are hinting at below).

 

 

One need not even go till Parasara's time to argue that predictive

astrology existed in India much before Varahamihira or even the 2-5

AD when astrology (Jataka) re-entered India under Greek influences in

whatever form. The Greek influences according to all the western

scholars who support that view entered India between 2-5 AD. But even

as far back as the 6th century BC one could show the existence of

Jataka in India. Asita the court astrologer of Suddhodhana cast the

little Siddhartha (would be Buddha)'s chart and predicted two things.

So even if someone proves any Greek influences on Jataka or re-entry

around 2-5 th AD, they still have a lot more to address about this

PRIOR EXISTENCE of Jataka in India.

 

 

Oh no you have misunderstood me. When I talk of an inspired writer

compiling Parasara's teachings much later around 5th AD or whatever,

it is about the TEXT itself. I have no doubts about Rishi Parasara

(father of Vyasa) having existed much earlier. Infact I have

diligently gone through the Puranas and collected references to him,

while writing the story of Vyasa. Moreover Parasara is one of the

rishis in the parampara that I belong to. How can I question his

existence or the traditionally accepted date for rishi Parasara?

 

 

But regarding the *text itself I cannot say if the rishi's teachings

were compiled much later or whatever. But then the authoritativeness

of the text stands questioned because if a later author could have

inserted any words of Greek origin (if at all- this has to be proved

after a multi-disciplinary research only; yet no finding can perhaps

be conclusive). If words like Kendra or Trikona too stand questioned

in addition to Apoklima, Panaphara etc, then it *could be that a

later author has either inserted or re-written or compiled the

earlier teachings of Parasara. If that be so, how could anyone be

sure that this compiler did not add some techniques too?

 

 

My main point here is that just because a text says something one

cannot be sure of anything definitely as rishi vakya. So except the

Veda Samhita (that too only the Samhita), I am not willing to accept

anything as definitely unalterable rishi vakyas.

 

 

Let me cite one instance. Some research the Puranas for astrological

truths because Vyasa being the great seer that he is, they believe

that what the puranas reveal must be unquestionable. But this is

wrong. Most puranas that we read today have been expanded from their

originl form. So is the case with the itihasas. The skanda purana

that 95% Indians read today is no more considered as the original or

older version by Vyasa. A much older and shorter version is in

existence. The version found in Nepal and certain other places is the

older one. During the golden period of Guptas etc, most puranas were

written again. So I cannot accept most texts in their current form as

full-fledged rishi vakyas. The case with the Veda Samhita is

different. I will write more elaborately on this another day reg the

Veda Samhita's origin being undeniably rishi vakyas.

 

 

 

>

> Yes, I will do some research. But Kendra could easily have been

derived from

> indra or some other word (the indra - greatest and middle point -

of a

> circle). We can only speculate either way.

 

 

Please do share your findings/opinions.

 

 

> > Yes some parts are reasonable. But it is unreasonable to suggest

that

> > Indian astrology is derived fully or even largely from the Greeks,

> > though there is no denial that some MUTUAL influence was there.

>

> The issue is - did this mutual influence come after Parasara taught

the

> great science and people almost forgot it or did this mutual

influence come

> at the inception of Hindu astrology. Robert Hand suggests the

latter and I

> firmly believe in the former.

 

 

Again I have to bring in Asita as an example. As for Robert Hand, he

is an authority on western astrology to a certain extent. Though he

seems to be acquainted with Vedic astrology, he is not really deep

into it to be able to make a judgement. While I admire him for his

technical brilliance and intellect wrt western astrology, his

statements only show that his knowledge of Indian astrology is not of

an acceptable level. Undoubtedly he has researched into Arabic, Latin

and Greek works and should not "form definite opinions " about Hindu

astrology which is not his domain.

 

 

Another point I wish to submit is that Robert Hand is an

intellectually honest astrologer to a reasonable extent. The article

could reflect an earlier opinion. Since I have followed most of his

works, I know for sure that he always keeps his mind open and changes

his opinion without being biased when the situation demands. If I am

not mistaken, of late he seems to be more neutral about the origins

of Hindu astrology. He was definitely biased a few years back just as

most vedic astrologers are biased against greek or arabic astrologies

due to less knowledge.

 

 

I hope to be able to meet him this year later through a common friend

(a western astrologer). If this happens I will be able to ascertain

as well as put forward my contentions. But I respect him for his work

just as I respect any professional scientist.

 

 

 

>

> Yes, I can "1000 times" is an exaggeration.

>

> I can return your compliment by saying "but your above statement

only

> suggests that you have NOT studied Parasara's teachings at all".

But I will

> not get personal like you and will keep the focus on the subject.

>

> Please note that I am not just saying that Parasara's teachings are

superior

> to the Greek astrology of the last two millennia. I am also saying

that they

> are also superior to the Hindu astrology of the last two millennia

(as

> taught by authors from Varahamihira to Mantreswara).

>

> Parasara's teachings are not just about dasas, shadbalas, fixed

stars and

> divisions. If one reads BPHS fully, one can see how complete and

> brilliant-beyond-words it is compared to ANY OTHER astrological text

> available today, Greek and Sanskrit.

 

 

I am sorry if my expression hurt you. But it was not meant to be

personal at all! And on the other hand I should say that you are

getting personal now! Calmly let us consider this. PLease tell me if

you have studied Greek astrology and if so which authors? Ancient or

modern? If you haven't studied atleast 30% of their practices, my

statement stands true. So there is nothing to feel bad about my

observation. If you have studied let us discuss some points to see

whether they are even 10 or 50 times less sophisticated than us.

 

 

But if you argue that a lot of the original teachings have been lost

and the current level of jyotish is very inferior to the original one

due to Kali yuga, then I have something to say. If it is Kali yuga

for us, it is Kali yuga for other races too. Even other ancient

cultures and races speak of a golden period or Satya yuga and the

current Kali yuga in their teachings. They too had their sages.

What's more? Some of our saints have been mentioned by them and like

wise. To me the word rishi does not have just an Indian or Aryan or

Dravidian or Jain or Parsi connotation. Some of our Puranas speak

highly of the Sun-worshippers of Mitraic or Zorastrian practices. The

Tamil siddha tradition speaks of a great Chinese siddha.

 

And I firmly adhere to the Hindu teaching that we are born with three

runas or debts. The debt towards the sages (rsi rna) is an important

one that I deeply feel often. That is the reason why I tried to write

Vyasa and Parsara's story inspite of the difficultness of the task.

Sharing the wisdom of the sages with others is one way we repay the

debt. If not for them, none of us would be discussing all this today.

I feel the same way about the sages of other traditions and cultures

too because I am firmly convinced of the commonness of humanity, its

legacy, its heritage.

 

Other races and cultures too have had their rishis. They too had

great knowledge in the ancient times. And there seems to have been

even some connections between all. And logically too, life on this

planet (forget human beings alone) cannot have had different origins.

We have a common ancestry. Just as all the different states of India

are diverse in their own way, but yet united at one level, different

ancient races too have a unity. So when you said that Parasara's

teachings are 1000 times more complex and sophisticated than Greek

astrology, I would defend our Greek cousins, as much as I would

defend the Indian contention if I were to meet Robert Hand. But if

you say that you are comparing Greek knowledge of 200AD and

the original teachings of Parasara, in fairness to the ancient

Greeks, I will say that you are putting oranges and apples in the

same basket and should not forget that they too believe in their

ancient sages and Satya yuga.

 

 

Finally Vasishta, Sakti, Parasara, Vyasa and Suka are part of my

rishi Parampara. My daily prayers start with chanting the Advaita

guru parampara verses. So I worship and love them as much as you may

love or defend Parasara. While I love my Guru parampara more, I

respect all paramparas and rishis (be they Greek or Zorastrian or

Jaina) equally. I will not prolong the discussion.

 

 

 

"Brahmaiva Satyam" - The Absolute alone is the Truth

 

Regards,

Satya

 

 

 

 

 

>