What is the significance of vedic in vedic astrology?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Shri Bharatji,

 

The Vedas have been there for the last at least 6000

years. The Vedanga Jyotisha has been there for the

last about 4000 years. However, it is said that the

Vedanga Jyotisha deals only with astronomy and not

predictive astrology. The question arises therefore

as to when the "Vedic astrology" in the sense of

predictive astrology came into vogue?

 

This term "Vedic astrology" does not appear to be more

than forty years old! None of the earlier panchangas

and maggazines referred to it at as Vedic astrology!

It was known as Indian system or nirayana system!

Muslims and Christians etc. might have referred to it

as "Hindu" system. Thus the question arises as to who

invented the term "Vedic astrology" and why?

 

What is the harm if we try to find an answer to

these questions?

 

Secondly, I have just asked a simple question. If the

Vedas are supposed to be using a tropical year for all

the riturals and yagas etc., how and why is the

nirayana astrology, which must use a sidereal year as

a measure, known as Vedic astrology.

 

The qeustion of Ayanamsha matters very much. JHora

calculates planetary longitudes and all the bhavas and

divisional charts according to at least half a dozen

ayanamshas! It means that "Vedic astrologers" use all

those ayanamshas as otherwise there would have been no

fun in including all of them in JHora.

 

If I find predictions correct as per Ramana Ayanamsha,

you find them correct as per Lahiri Ayanamsha, Mr. X

finds them correct as per Fagan Ayanamsha and Mr. Z as

per zero ayanamsha, it definitely means that something

is definitely wrong with these ayanamshas since all of

them can never be correct for one and the same

purpose. If we presume that Lahiri Ayanamsha works

fine for A's chart but Ramana Ayanamsha for B's chart

and Fagan Ayanmsha for C's chart, it will go to the

point of no return!

 

We should not, therefore, fight shy of arriving at a

definite view as to what type of year the Vedas used.

And if it was definitely a tropical year, we should

call only zero ayanamsha longitudes as "Vedic

longitudes". If, on the other hand, it was a sidereal

year, how do we calculate it these days and how was it

calculated by the Vedic Seers? Why are we trying to

evade this issue by talking of grahas and their

meanings and qualities? A graha cannot give me

accurate results if it is in 15 degrees of Tula

according to you but in 6 degrees of Scorpio as per

some other "Vedic astrologer". On the other hand, it

will confuse me further!

 

I am neither trying to find the definition of "Hindu"

nor "Veda" but all I am trying is to find an answer to

the question raised by Mr. Narayan Prasad.

 

Mr. Chandra Sekhar has even said in one of his letters

on this forum that there is no astrology in the Vedas

so there cannot be any "Vedic astrology". Why do we

not challenge his views?

 

Thanks and regards,

Mohan Jyotishi

 

> vedic astrology, Bharat Hindu

> Astrology

> <hinduastrology@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaskaar Sri Mohan

>

> The crux of Astrology is not Ayanamsha and it isn't

> the deciding factor in

> Astrology being called Vedic or Hindu. The main fact

> is that grahas -

> seize

> the individual into a maya and keep one there. Born

> of time, space and

> causation the grahas make sure that the individual

> does not escape the

> same.

>

>

> In other words, grahas represent our attachments,

> beliefs, etc.

> Knowing this

> through Astrology (an external help in this case),

> we can then break such

> attachments and wrong beliefs. What is not Vedic

> about it?

>

> Can you define Hindu without any reference to the

> Veda?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

>

>

>

> On 10/9/05, Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231> wrote:

> >

> > Respected Astrologers,

> > As a recent entrant, I have been going through all

> the

> > postings on this forum with keen interest.

> >

> > I am puzzled regarding the above topic because:

> > 1. It is said that the Vedas contain a seasonal

> solar

> > year. And since a seasonal year means a tropical

> > year, how can there be any "nirayana astrology" in

> the

> > Vedas?

> >

> > 2. If the Vedic Seers practised any nirayana

> > astrology, it must have been based on a nirayana

> i.e.

> > a sidereal solar year. How is it derived :

> > a) As per the modern astronomy; and

> > b) What could have been the paractical method and

> > calculations for derving a sidereal year in the

> Vedic

> > period.

> >

> > Only after solving this puzzle it will be possible

> to

> > arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the

> meaning

> > of "Vedic" in "Vedic-astrology"

> > Thanks and regards,

> > Mohan Jyotishi

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Again in very simple words,

We call astrology as Hindu as we are hindus, but hindu is a given name.

As following the Vedas, we are vedics or vedikas. Therefore, Astrology

can be called Vedic Astrology. By calling it Vedic, we are not saying

that it is given in the Vedas but we are saying that it is practised by

those who have adopted the Vedas.

By going into History and making things complex noone is benefitted. I

have not read or seen a history of Ayanamsha and had asked Sri Avtar

Kaul some questions which he has not answered. Whether the ancient

Vedics used precession of equinoxes or not, I gave a complete

text of Sri Abhayankar's Jaimini Sutra where in he had discussed the

same. The ayanamsha is only determinant of the way astrology is

practised and in no way decides whether or not it is Hindu or Vedic.

If Astrology is used for predictive purposes, why should it not be

Vedic? That is its secondary use and no where is it mentioned that with

secondary usage, its main purpose is lost.

Privately, another person has emailed me some text, which calls

Astrology Tantrik in nature. The Tantricks when explained to by Sri Adi

Sankara, had complete faith in the Vedas. In his time, they thought

Purusha and Prakriti were two different forces. It was Sri Sankara who

established the sameness. The person also mentions that Hindus should

not be called followers of Veda as they perform Linga worship instead

of Fire.

To him I would like to say, The Vedas allow worship of any form, any

non-form as "All is verily Brahman". This is the 1st sentence of Isha

Upanishad. In your view, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa would become a

Tantrik and a non Vedic, which is absurd.

I will continue to call Astrology both Vedic and Hindu, contrary to

your beliefs of Sri Chandrashekhar or Sri K. N. Rao, for the above

given reasons.

For me there is no Hindu without the Veda.

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

On 10/10/05, Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231 > wrote:

Namaskar Shri Bharatji,

The Vedas have been there for the last at least 6000

years. The Vedanga Jyotisha has been there for the

last about 4000 years. However, it is said that the

Vedanga Jyotisha deals only with astronomy and not

predictive astrology. The question arises therefore

as to when the "Vedic astrology" in the sense of

predictive astrology came into vogue?

This term "Vedic astrology" does not appear to be more

than forty years old! None of the earlier panchangas

and maggazines referred to it at as Vedic astrology!

It was known as Indian system or nirayana system!

Muslims and Christians etc. might have referred to it

as "Hindu" system. Thus the question arises as to who

invented the term "Vedic astrology" and why?

What is the harm if we try to find an answer to

these questions?

Secondly, I have just asked a simple question. If the

Vedas are supposed to be using a tropical year for all

the riturals and yagas etc., how and why is the

nirayana astrology, which must use a sidereal year as

a measure, known as Vedic astrology.

The qeustion of Ayanamsha matters very much. JHora

calculates planetary longitudes and all the bhavas and

divisional charts according to at least half a dozen

ayanamshas! It means that "Vedic astrologers" use all

those ayanamshas as otherwise there would have been no

fun in including all of them in JHora.

If I find predictions correct as per Ramana Ayanamsha,

you find them correct as per Lahiri Ayanamsha, Mr. X

finds them correct as per Fagan Ayanamsha and Mr. Z as

per zero ayanamsha, it definitely means that something

is definitely wrong with these ayanamshas since all of

them can never be correct for one and the same

purpose. If we presume that Lahiri Ayanamsha works

fine for A's chart but Ramana Ayanamsha for B's chart

and Fagan Ayanmsha for C's chart, it will go to the

point of no return!

We should not, therefore, fight shy of arriving at a

definite view as to what type of year the Vedas used.

And if it was definitely a tropical year, we should

call only zero ayanamsha longitudes as "Vedic

longitudes". If, on the other hand, it was a sidereal

year, how do we calculate it these days and how was it

calculated by the Vedic Seers? Why are we trying to

evade this issue by talking of grahas and their

meanings and qualities? A graha cannot give me

accurate results if it is in 15 degrees of Tula

according to you but in 6 degrees of Scorpio as per

some other "Vedic astrologer". On the other hand, it

will confuse me further!

I am neither trying to find the definition of "Hindu"

nor "Veda" but all I am trying is to find an answer to

the question raised by Mr. Narayan Prasad.

Mr. Chandra Sekhar has even said in one of his letters

on this forum that there is no astrology in the Vedas

so there cannot be any "Vedic astrology". Why do we

not challenge his views?

Thanks and regards,

Mohan Jyotishi

> vedic astrology, Bharat Hindu

> Astrology

> <hinduastrology@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaskaar Sri Mohan

>

> The crux of Astrology is not Ayanamsha and it isn't

> the deciding factor in

> Astrology being called Vedic or Hindu. The main fact

> is that grahas -

> seize

> the individual into a maya and keep one there. Born

> of time, space and

> causation the grahas make sure that the individual

> does not escape the

> same.

>

>

> In other words, grahas represent our attachments,

> beliefs, etc.

> Knowing this

> through Astrology (an external help in this case),

> we can then break such

> attachments and wrong beliefs. What is not Vedic

> about it?

>

> Can you define Hindu without any reference to the

> Veda?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

>

>

>

> On 10/9/05, Mohan Jyotishi <jyotishi231> wrote:

> >

> > Respected Astrologers,

> > As a recent entrant, I have been going through all

> the

> > postings on this forum with keen interest.

> >

> > I am puzzled regarding the above topic because:

> > 1. It is said that the Vedas contain a seasonal

> solar

> > year. And since a seasonal year means a tropical

> > year, how can there be any "nirayana astrology" in

> the

> > Vedas?

> >

> > 2. If the Vedic Seers practised any nirayana

> > astrology, it must have been based on a nirayana

> i.e.

> > a sidereal solar year. How is it derived :

> > a) As per the modern astronomy; and

> > b) What could have been the paractical method and

> > calculations for derving a sidereal year in the

> Vedic

> > period.

> >

> > Only after solving this puzzle it will be possible

> to

> > arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the

> meaning

> > of "Vedic" in "Vedic-astrology"

> > Thanks and regards,

> > Mohan Jyotishi

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

vedic astrology

 

[Guest guest]

If you care about the Srimad Bhagavatam's vision then the zodiac is defined in the verses 5.21.4-5

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/21/5/en

When the sun passes through MesÌ£a [Aries] and TulÄ [Libra], the durations of

day and night are equal. When it passes through the five signs headed by

Vṛṣabha [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].

When the sun passes through the five signs beginning with Vṛścika [scorpio],

the duration of the days decreases [until Capricorn], and then gradually it

increases month after month, until day and night become equal [in Aries].

 

The durations of day and night are equal in TROPICAL Tula [Libra] and not in

sidereal Libra with any ayanamsa. So, the TROPICAL zodiac is clearly defined in

the Bhagavatam.

 

I would be happy to see any definitions of sidereal zodiac in the vedas.

 

 

Abhi

[Guest guest]

Please stand corrected day and night is not equal on Tropical Equinoxes. This is a scientific fact.

Thanks and Regards

BharatOn 10/11/05, Abhi <aak (AT) megadelfi (DOT) com> wrote:

If you care about the Srimad Bhagavatam's vision then the zodiac is defined in the verses 5.21.4-5

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/21/5/en

When the sun passes through Meṣa [Aries] and

TulÄ [Libra], the durations of day and night are equal. When it passes through

the five signs headed by Vṛṣabha [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].

When the sun passes through the five signs beginning with Vṛścika [scorpio],

the duration of the days decreases [until Capricorn], and then gradually it

increases month after month, until day and night become equal [in Aries].

 

The durations of day and night are equal in TROPICAL Tula [Libra] and not in

sidereal Libra with any ayanamsa. So, the TROPICAL zodiac is clearly defined in

the Bhagavatam.

 

I would be happy to see any definitions of sidereal zodiac in the vedas.

 

 

Abhi

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

vedic astrology

 

[Guest guest]

constellations behind the visible planets. The use of Ayanamsha will

become clear.

But Again I repeat, Ayanamsha is not the deciding factor for Astrology to be called Vedic or Hindu.

Thanks and Regards

BharatOn 10/11/05, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology > wrote:

Namaskaar Sri Abhi

Please stand corrected day and night is not equal on Tropical Equinoxes. This is a scientific fact.

Thanks and Regards

BharatOn 10/11/05, Abhi <

aak (AT) megadelfi (DOT) com> wrote:

If you care about the Srimad Bhagavatam's vision then the zodiac is defined in the verses 5.21.4-5

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/21/5/en

When the sun passes through Meṣa [Aries] and

TulÄ [Libra], the durations of day and night are equal. When it passes through

the five signs headed by Vṛṣabha [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].

When the sun passes through the five signs beginning with Vṛścika [scorpio],

the duration of the days decreases [until Capricorn], and then gradually it

increases month after month, until day and night become equal [in Aries].

 

The durations of day and night are equal in TROPICAL Tula [Libra] and not in

sidereal Libra with any ayanamsa. So, the TROPICAL zodiac is clearly defined in

the Bhagavatam.

 

I would be happy to see any definitions of sidereal zodiac in the vedas.

 

 

Abhi

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

vedic astrology

 

[Guest guest]

The use of Ayanamsha is clear already. You can't see Vernal Equinox point in the

sky, can you? But you can see the stars. Then you just take the relevant star

and add the Ayanamsha to get the planets position in Tropical Zodiac. Easy.

 

Abhi

 

P.S. When are day and night equal?

 

 

-

Bharat Hindu Astrology

vedic astrology

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:31 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: What is the significance of "vedic" in "vedic astrology"?

Further to what I have said, please go outside at night and see the

constellations behind the visible planets. The use of Ayanamsha will become

clear. But Again I repeat, Ayanamsha is not the deciding factor for Astrology

to be called Vedic or Hindu.Thanks and RegardsBharat

On 10/11/05, Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology > wrote:

Namaskaar Sri AbhiPlease stand corrected day and night is not equal on Tropical

Equinoxes. This is a scientific fact.Thanks and RegardsBharat

On 10/11/05, Abhi < aak (AT) megadelfi (DOT) com> wrote:

If you care about the Srimad Bhagavatam's vision then the zodiac is defined in the verses 5.21.4-5

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/5/21/5/en

When the sun passes through MesÌ£a [Aries] and TulÄ [Libra], the durations of

day and night are equal. When it passes through the five signs headed by

Vṛṣabha [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].

When the sun passes through the five signs beginning with Vṛścika [scorpio],

the duration of the days decreases [until Capricorn], and then gradually it

increases month after month, until day and night become equal [in Aries].

 

The durations of day and night are equal in TROPICAL Tula [Libra] and not in

sidereal Libra with any ayanamsa. So, the TROPICAL zodiac is clearly defined in

the Bhagavatam.

 

I would be happy to see any definitions of sidereal zodiac in the vedas.

 

 

Abhi

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

vedic astrology

 

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology, "Abhi" <aak@m...> wrote:

>

> The durations of day and night are equal in TROPICAL Tula [Libra]

and not in sidereal Libra with any ayanamsa. So, the TROPICAL zodiac

is clearly defined in the Bhagavatam.

>

> I would be happy to see any definitions of sidereal zodiac in the

vedas.

 

 

You first. Please tell us the relevance to astrology of seasonal

descriptions. If you want to know why the two zodiacs exist and what

their specific uses are, there are more humble ways of asking.

 

If you want to humor us with risible applesauce like "The durations

of day and night are equal in TROPICAL Tula [Libra] and not in

sidereal Libra with any ayanamsa", it's your call

 

If you knew the first thing about the ayanamsha, you wouldn't have

mentioned it where you've done.

 

And no, I'm not one of those that insists on calling what we follow

here as 'vedic' astrology.

 

+++