Fwd: Fw: References of Rashis in the Vedaas and the Vedanga Jyotisha.

[Guest guest]

Abhinavagupta , Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

 

[iii>] Some explanation may be necessary for the publication of an essay

on the antiquity of the Vedas by one whose professional work lies in a

different direction. About four years ago, as I was reading the Bhagavad

Gita, it occurred to me that we might derive important conclusions from

the statement of Krishna that " he was Márgashirsha of the months. "

This led me to inquire into the primitive Vedic calendar, and the result

of four years' labour is now placed before the public. The essay was

originally written for the Ninth Oriental Congress held in London last

year. But it was found too large to be inserted in the proceedings

wherein its summary alone is now included. I have had therefore to

publish it separately, and in doing so I have taken the opportunity of

incorporating into it such additions, alterations and modifications, as

were suggested by further thought and discussion.

 

The chief result of my inquiry would be evident from the title of the

essay. The high antiquity of the Egyptian civilization is now generally

admitted. But scholars still hesitate to place the commencement of the

Vedic civilization earlier than 2400 B. C. I have endeavoured to show in

the following pages that the traditions recorded in the Rigveda

unmistakably point to a period not later than 4000 B. C., when the

vernal equinox was in Orion, or, in other words, when the Dog-star (or

the Dog as we have it in the Rigveda) commenced the equinoctial year.

Many of the Vedic texts and legends, quoted in support of this

conclusion, have been cited in this connection and also rationally and

intelligently explained for the first time, thus throwing [<iii-iv>] a

considerable light on the legends. and rites in later Sanskrit works. I

have further tried to show how these legends are strikingly corroborated

by the legends and traditions of Iran and Greece. Perhaps some of this

corroborative evidence may not be regarded as sufficiently conclusive by

itself, but in that case I hope it will be borne in mind that my

conclusions are not based merely upon mythological or philological

coincidences, and if some of these are disputable, they do not in any

way shake the validity of the conclusions based on the express texts and

references scattered over the whole Vedic literature. I wanted to

collect together all the facts that could possibly throw any light upon,

or be shown to be connected with the question in issue, and if in so

doing I have mentioned some, that are not as convincing as the others, I

am sure that they will at least be found interesting, and that even

after omitting them there will be ample evidence to establish the main

point. I have, therefore, to request my critics not to be prejudiced by

such facts, and to examine and weigh the whole evidence I have adduced

in support of my theory before they give their judgment upon it.

 

I have tried to make the book as little technical as possible; but I am

afraid that those who are not acquainted with the Hindu method of

computing time may still find it somewhat difficult to follow the

argument in a few places. If my conclusions come to be accepted and the

second edition of the book be called for, these defects may be removed

by adding further explanations in such cases. At present I have only

attempted to give the main argument on the assumption that the reader is

already familiar with the method. I may further remark that though I

have [<iv-v>] used the astronomical method, yet a comparison with

Bentley's work will show that the present essay is more literary than

astronomical in its character. In other words, it is the Sanskrit

scholars who have first of all to decide if my interpretations of

certain texts are correct, and when this judgment is once given it is

not at all difficult to astronomically calculate the exact period of the

traditions in the Rigveda. I do not mean to say that no knowledge of

astronomy is necessary to discuss the subject, but on the whole it would

be readily seen that the question is one more for Sanskrit scholars than

for astronomers to decide.

Some scholars may doubt the possibility of deriving so important and

far-reaching conclusions from the data furnished by the hymns of the

Rigveda, and some may think that I am taking the antiquity of the Vedas

too far back. But fears like these are out of place in a historical or

scientific inquiry, the sole object of which should be to search for and

find out the truth. The method of investigation followed by me is the

same as that adopted by Bentley, Colebrooke and other well-known writers

on the subject, and, in my opinion, the only question that Sanskrit

scholars have now to decide, is whether I am or am not justified in

carrying it a step further than my predecessors, independently of any

modifications that may be thereby made necessary in the existing

hypothesis on the subject.

 

I have omitted to mention in the essay that a few native scholars have

tried to ascertain the date of the Mahábhárata, and the

Rámáyana from certain positions of the sun, the moon and the

planets given in those works. For instance, the horoscope of Rama and

the positions of the planets at the time of the great civil war, as

found in the Mahábhárata, [<v-vi>]are said to point to a period

of 6000 or 8000 B.C., and it is contended that the Vedas which preceded

these works must be older still. Bentley relying on the same data has

calculated 961 B.C. as the exact date of Rama's birth. This will show

how unsafe it is to act upon calculations based upon such loose

statements. Sometimes the accounts in the Puránas are themselves

conflicting, but even where they are or can be made definite any

conclusions based on them are not only doubtful, but well nigh useless

for chronological purposes, for in the first instance they are open to

the objection that these works may not have been written by

eye-witnesses (the mention Râshis in the Râmâyana directly

supporting such an assumption), and secondly, because it is still more

difficult to prove that we now possess these books in the form in which

they were originally written. With regard to the positions of the

planets at the time of the war given in the Mahâbhârata, the

statements are undoubtedly confused; but apart from it, I think that it

is almost a gratuitous assumption to hold that all of them really give

us the positions of the planets in the ecliptic and that such positions

again refer to the fixed and the moveable zodiacal portions of the

Nakshatras. Perhaps the writers simply intend to mention all auspicious

or inauspicious positions of the planets in such cases. I have therefore

avoided all such debatable and doubtful points by confining myself

solely to the Vedic works, about the genuineness of which there can be

no doubt, and using the Purânic accounts only to corroborate the

results deduced from the Vedic texts. According to this view the

MahAbh8rata war must be placed in the Krittikâ period, inasmuch as

we are told that Bhîshma was waiting for the turning of the sun from

the winter solstice in the month [<vi-v>ii] of Mâgha. The poem, as

we now have it, is evidently written a long time after this event. [...]

" The fineness or the darkness of gold is best tested in fire. " It is not

likely that my other engagements will permit me to devote much time to

this subject in future ; and I shall consider myself well rewarded if

the present essay does in any way contribute to a fuller and

unprejudiced discussion of the high antiquity of the Aryan civilization,

of which our sacred books are the oldest records in the world. B.G.

Tilak. Poona, October, 1899.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=3S3CBNUD4ggC & dq=Tilak+orion & printsec=fr\

ontcover & source=bl & ots=k9LC3VyC-T & sig=EwlV8YlV-VsmzAk5Tg8Bda-2ylM & hl=en & \

ei=S2s1SuWvFqPYMYydufoJ & sa=X & oi=book_result & ct=result & resnum=4#PPA51,M1

 

[bG Tilak, The Orion, Preface, pp. iii-vii]

 

------

 

 

 

As I have stated earlier, I do not want this controversy on presence /

absence of zodiacal signs (râshi) in the Vedas to be continued on

this forum. By now we already know the key arguments on either side, and

most members can decide for themselves based on their own research and

the plausibility the conflicting presuppositions:

 

* Sunil believes that the mere mention of common words (pot, fish, lion,

virgin, etc., often in obscure contexts) in the Vedic corpus suffices to

extrapolate the existence of the zodiac backwards from the Purânas'

endorsement of the râshi system. Note that Tilak, who argues from

archeoastronomy for the antiquity of the Rigveda, holds the zodiacal

system to be a later addition to the Hindu calendar.

 

* Avtar holds that, the zodiacal system being a late foreign

importation, any calendrical determination based on it must be invalid

and a betrayal of the Vedic tradition. Such an argument would invalidate

not only the Purânas but also several other Fifth Vedas and much of

Hinduism (including temple / murthi worship, etc., which are absent in

the Veda). Moreover, Tilak has demonstrated how new calendars were

introduced within the internal Vedic chronology itself, and multiple

conflicting systems existed side-by-side (for different purposes:

sacrificial, civil, etc.)

 

Since Tilak has, likewise, drawn his original inspiration from Lord

Krishna's identifying himself in the Bhagavad Gita with the Deer's Head

constellation (which also happens to mark the month of Bhairava's birth

in the much later Tantric period...), let's return to this Râshi

controversy only after having thoroughly read (and discussed) Tilak's 2

volumes.

 

Sunthar

 

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's comments (17 June) on Shivji's post

(15 June 2009) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5158

 

" Reconciling astronomy and philology with BG Tilak " ]

 

 

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

sunil_bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya

References of Rashis in the Vedaas and the Vedanga Jyotisha.

uswassan

Cc: ,

, vedic astrology ,

vedic_research_institute , USBrahmins ,

indiaarchaeology , ,

WAVES-Vedic

Sunday, June 14, 2009, 5:06 PM

 

 

Dear Shri Ujjagar Singhji and the learned Vedic scholars

Â

Kindly look at the following:

Â

 Quotehis

Â

To impute ignorance of knowledge of puranas to all these scholars shows

the intentions of “Vedic astrologersâ€---they are none too

honest!

Â

Unquote

Â

I think the scholars like S.B.Dixit, T.S.Kupunna Sastry, Meghnad Saha,

S.K.Chatterjee and .K.Bag  are honest persons and not

hypocrites. If they would have read the Puranas they would have

definitely found the Rashis mentioned there and would not have said that

the Rashis are not there in the Vedic loiterature. Chandogya and

Brhadaranyaka Upanishads call the Puranas as the Fifth Veda. The

Mahabharata tells us that there is an injunction that one must read the

Puranas before reading the Vedas. Now in the light of this kindly also

judge for yourself whether these scholars have read the Vedas or not. I

am not casting any aspersions on these scholars. I am telling what the

logical conclusion anybody can draw with an objective frame of mind.

If there is any fault in the logic kindly do not hesitate to point that

out and I shall be grateful to you for that.

Â

Previously I submitted several references from the Veda and Vedanga

jyotisha on the presence of Rashi in these texts. In addition, now I

wish to to submit additional references from the Vamana purana (5. 29 -

43), where Pulastya told Narada about the fixed Nakshatras

included in each of the Rashis such as Mesha thereby proclaiming

that the Rashis are Sidereal and not Tropical. Had the scholars like

Dixit read the Upanishads they would have fdefinitely ound that

in the Chandogya Upanishad (7. 1 - 3) Narada toldÂ

Sanatkumara that he knew the Nakshatra Vidya (Astronomy) and

the Rashi Vidya (Astrology).Â

Â

In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna told Arjuna that among the month He is

the Margashirsha. In the Vamana Purana  the sageÂ

Sanatkumara tells about the Lunar months corresponding to the Sun's

position in different Rashis thereby showing that sidereal Soli-Lunar

calendar is the real Vedic calendar. He says how the lunar month

Margashirsha is related to the Sun's position in the Vrscika Rashi.

Â

vÄkÄraṃ nÄbhisaṃyuktaṃ sthitastatra tu

vṛścikaḥ |

mÄso mÄrgaÅ›iro nÄma tvaṣṭamaṃ

patrakaṃ smṛtam || 35.61 ||

Â

In the Vedic time the seasons were also recognised as Lord Krishna

tells Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita that among the Ritus he is the

Kusumakara, ie. the Vasanta Ritu. Vasanta Ritu includes the seasonal

months of Madhu and Madhava.  These seasonal months were

required for the purpose of agriculture as well as for the seasonal

festivals and they go on changing their occurrences in the

Nakashatras due to precession of the Earth.Â

Â

I have submitted to you in this as well as in the earlier mails

that the Rashis are there in the ancient Vedic literature and that

these have not been imported from the Babylonia as David Pingree and

subsequently the many other ill-informed persons would like you

to believe. Secondly the Vedic calendar is Sidereal and not Tropical and

the Tropical months are recognised but their positions with respect to

the fixed Nakshatras will go on changing due to the Precession of the

earth.

Â

Regards,

Â

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

 

[Response to Avtar's post (14 June 2009) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5147]

 

--- End forwarded message ---