Vedic poof of Sayana-Nirayana Systems (a mail in VA group by Nomadeva)

[Guest guest]

Namaskaar,

 

I thought since this mail in Vedic astrology was relevant to the

topic on hand, being discussed in this forum, am forwarding this. As

this mail was in reply to another poster in VA, pls ignore the names

used.

 

regards

sriram nayak

------------------------

Nomadeva wrote:

I have followed the thread to some extent. It appears that the question

of whether astrology as we know it can be found in Vedas or not is a

difficult one to answer either way.

 

There are enough verses in the Vedic literature (i.e., Vedas, Brahmanas,

Aranyakas and Upanishads) that talk of 'nakShatra-vidyA' or

'jyotirvidyA'. Take, for instance, the chhAndogya Upanishad (7.1.2),

where Sage Narada speaks of his having learnt the nakShatravidya. There

is no basis, save prejudice, in saying that this refers to astronomy

only and not to astrology (or vice-versa). The same sage speaks of

'rAshi' as another branch of study. Since 'rAshi' and 'naxatravidyA' are

enumerated separately, would one of them refer to astrology? I can't

say. Rajeev also can't.

 

Rajeev's rejection of

astrology as non-vedic is based on frivolous

grounds. What exactly is the non-vedic in astrology? That the Vedas did

not have a notion of praying to a deity to get succor? That is wrong.

The atharva-veda is full of such mantras that are meant to alleviate the

problems of a suffering soul. The nakShatra-sUkta in taittarIya araNyaka

is another proof. Or is the problem that astrology encourages one to

pray to non-God to obtain succor? Why doesn't he apply his approach of

'Indra, Varuna are only names of the same God' here as well?

 

If it be objected on the ground that there never is an instance in the

Vedas where planets or heavenly bodies are treated as 'benefic' or

'malefic', that too is wrong. The Kaushitaki Brahmana speaks of

sacrificing when the 'auspicious star' is on: 'yasmin kalyANe nakSatre

kAmayeta tasmin yajeta'. Note that the 'auspiciousness' is related to

the yajamAna (sacrificer) and is not applicable to everybody. Had

it

been universally applicable, the text would have specifically named the

star (the way these brAhmaNAs do in such instances). The Rgveda-khila

(non-compiled or lost portions of RgVeda) has a prayer for Goddess

Durga, seeking protection from 'malefic grahas': duShTa graha nivAraNe

duShTa graha nivAraNI OM namaH.

 

This acutally brings up another point. How does Rajeev or anybody know

that astrology is absent in Vedic shAkhAs that are lost to us? It cannot

be contended that there is no such loss recorded anywhere. The

commentaries on the Kalpasutras quote many vedic passages that are lost

to us. Our Sri Madhvacharya quotes shAkhAs such as, bhAllaveya, barka,

paingI, indradyumna, bhAShkala, AyAsya, chaturvedashikhA that are not

available. Shankara quotes bhAShkala, bhAllaveya paingIrahasya and

others that are not available to us. Without seeing or knowing them, how

can any sane person decide that there is no astrology in Vedas?

A

skeptical person would understand the limitation of non-verification,

instead of proffering profane opinions.

 

And Puranas are rejected for no reason at all. Actually, that problem is

with the school mentioned in the site. The Vedas themselves speak of

Puranas and itihAsa as the fifth veda. Dayanand Saraswati's school

interprets that this refers to the Brahmanas and araNyakas and not to

the purANAs that we know. His school holds that these purANAs are

'naviina purANAs'. There is really no basis for that theory. I have seen

an English translation of his 'Rgveda bhashya'. They curiously hold on

to the apaurusheyatva (non-authoredness) of samhitA portion, but not

that of brAhmaNas and araNyakas. Yaskacharya (who actually showed no

such difference in his nirukta) is quoted as proof. There are more

points that are, but, irrelevant.

 

So why should there be a problem in accepting purANas, more so if

'AptavAkya' is considered a

pramana and test of truth? Sri Vedavyasa is

an Apta, but not his purANAs? Or is it that these purANAs have been

corrupted (because they don't suit your thesis)? In fact, this line of

reasoning is ubiquitous on that website. Any text that supports

astrology (or the idea of chanting names of Lord or being devoted to

Lord) is corrupted.

 

Regards

Nomadeva

[Guest guest]

Dear sriram nayak ji,

Thanks for the very good mail forwarded by you.

Many valid points.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, Sriram Nayak

<sriram.nayak wrote:

>

> Namaskaar,

>

> I thought since this mail in Vedic astrology was relevant to the

topic

> on hand, being discussed in this forum, am forwarding this. As this

mail

> was in reply to another poster in VA, pls ignore the names used.

>

> regards

> sriram nayak

> --

-

>

>

> Nomadeva wrote:

>

> I have followed the thread to some extent. It appears that the

question

> of whether astrology as we know it can be found in Vedas or not is a

> difficult one to answer either way.

>

> There are enough verses in the Vedic literature (i.e., Vedas,

Brahmanas,

> Aranyakas and Upanishads) that talk of 'nakShatra-vidyA' or

> 'jyotirvidyA'. Take, for instance, the chhAndogya Upanishad (7.1.2),

> where Sage Narada speaks of his having learnt the nakShatravidya.

There

> is no basis, save prejudice, in saying that this refers to astronomy

> only and not to astrology (or vice-versa). The same sage speaks of

> 'rAshi' as another branch of study. Since 'rAshi'

and 'naxatravidyA' are

> enumerated separately, would one of them refer to astrology? I can't

> say. Rajeev also can't.

>

> Rajeev's rejection of

> astrology as non-vedic is based on frivolous

> grounds. What exactly is the non-vedic in astrology? That the Vedas

did

> not have a notion of praying to a deity to get succor? That is

wrong.

> The atharva-veda is full of such mantras that are meant to

alleviate the

> problems of a suffering soul. The nakShatra-sUkta in taittarIya

araNyaka

> is another proof. Or is the problem that astrology encourages one to

> pray to non-God to obtain succor? Why doesn't he apply his approach

of

> 'Indra, Varuna are only names of the same God' here as well?

>

> If it be objected on the ground that there never is an instance in

the

> Vedas where planets or heavenly bodies are treated as 'benefic' or

> 'malefic', that too is wrong. The Kaushitaki Brahmana speaks of

> sacrificing when the 'auspicious star' is on: 'yasmin kalyANe

nakSatre

> kAmayeta tasmin yajeta'. Note that the 'auspiciousness' is related

to

> the yajamAna (sacrificer) and is not applicable to everybody. Had

> it

> been universally applicable, the text would have specifically named

the

> star (the way these brAhmaNAs do in such instances). The Rgveda-

khila

> (non-compiled or lost portions of RgVeda) has a prayer for Goddess

> Durga, seeking protection from 'malefic grahas': duShTa graha

nivAraNe

> duShTa graha nivAraNI OM namaH.

>

> This acutally brings up another point. How does Rajeev or anybody

know

> that astrology is absent in Vedic shAkhAs that are lost to us? It

cannot

> be contended that there is no such loss recorded anywhere. The

> commentaries on the Kalpasutras quote many vedic passages that are

lost

> to us. Our Sri Madhvacharya quotes shAkhAs such as, bhAllaveya,

barka,

> paingI, indradyumna, bhAShkala, AyAsya, chaturvedashikhA that are

not

> available. Shankara quotes bhAShkala, bhAllaveya paingIrahasya and

> others that are not available to us. Without seeing or knowing

them, how

> can any sane person decide that there is no astrology in Vedas?

> A

> skeptical person would understand the limitation of non-

verification,

> instead of proffering profane opinions.

>

> And Puranas are rejected for no reason at all. Actually, that

problem is

> with the school mentioned in the site. The Vedas themselves speak of

> Puranas and itihAsa as the fifth veda. Dayanand Saraswati's school

> interprets that this refers to the Brahmanas and araNyakas and not

to

> the purANAs that we know. His school holds that these purANAs are

> 'naviina purANAs'. There is really no basis for that theory. I have

seen

> an English translation of his 'Rgveda bhashya'. They curiously hold

on

> to the apaurusheyatva (non-authoredness) of samhitA portion, but not

> that of brAhmaNas and araNyakas. Yaskacharya (who actually showed no

> such difference in his nirukta) is quoted as proof. There are more

> points that are, but, irrelevant.

>

> So why should there be a problem in accepting purANas, more so if

> 'AptavAkya' is considered a

> pramana and test of truth? Sri Vedavyasa is

> an Apta, but not his purANAs? Or is it that these purANAs have been

> corrupted (because they don't suit your thesis)? In fact, this line

of

> reasoning is ubiquitous on that website. Any text that supports

> astrology (or the idea of chanting names of Lord or being devoted to

> Lord) is corrupted.

>

> Regards

> Nomadeva

>