Jyotisha's contributions to knowledge system

[Guest guest]

Dear List,I am trying to prepare a brief writeup on the contribution of Jyotisha to the overall Indic knowledge system, including subjects like consciousness studies, karma siddhanta, theology. This will be very helpful in establishing the place of Jyotisha in the integral system of knowledge, rather than a reactionary support or the defense of the credentials of the subject itself. Any information/help on this is appreciated. Thank you,Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

 

* My article titled "Base of astrology" might help you in

understanding the theoretical/philosophical foundation of astrology.

* Astrology is termed an "Agama" branch of knowledge - i.e. a

knowledge branch well in tune with temple idol worship, Tantra etc (rather than

the homa/yaga centric Vedic cult that does not support idol worship). Narapati

Jayacharya lists around 40+ Agama Tantric texts that speaks about

astrology. Ofcourse the Vedic cult has its own astrology (we may term it

Nigama astrology or Vedic astrology). There must have happened a great deal of

intermixing between these systems in the whole of Asia (and especially while in

Iran-Afghanistan-India region) after the origin and spread of fire cult (Vedic

fire cult) in Siberia and Agama temple worship cult (Tantric cult) in Central Asia

(Tajikistan, Armenia, Bactia, Uzbekistan etc). During the Mahabharata

period (what ever that be) there was much interaction happening all the regions

in Asia (Including India) and there was much mix-up of both Agama and Nigama

cult happening. It is cute to note that both of them used the word

"Veda" to refer to their scriptures. Central Asian Kamboja becoming

Kamoja kingdom of Andhra pradesh and Cambodia, Bactian Chedi becoming the Orissa

Chedi (kalinga), Central asian Cythians becoming Indian Sakas of

Andhra-Karnataka-Maharashtra region, Iranians settling in Gujarat and making it

Sourashtra all could be example of this mix and spread up. Kaikeyi of

Armenia, Kunti of Bactia, Madri Iran (Media), Gandhari of Afghanistan

(Gandhara), Seeta of Nepal (Janaka's kingdom) are all our heroes. In this sense

the word Indic will then mean Asian from a global perspective. Avastan

(Atharvan) Asuras (Assyrians) and Aryan (Iranian, Indian) Devas are both part

of the Vedic cult, and Parasurama tantra, Buddhist Vajrayana Tantra, Jain

Tantra are all example of Agama influence on Vedic hindu region, Buddhist

religion and Jain religion respectively during the intermixing period. In short

we may have to change the perspective about the history and cultural and

philosophical development - and will have to brig to light the culture,

philosophy, religion and language of the forgotten central asian Agama people

(known by various names Nagas, Kambojas, Balhikas, Abheeras, Mlecchas, Andhras,

Pancha Janas etc) and will have give them proper place in non-vedic

development of knowledge, culture and philosophy.

* As per my understanding the vedic (?) Karma Siddhanta theory got introduced

to astrology by around 6th century AD only and not before that.

* It is sad that proper efforts to present the religious, philosophical,

theoretical, logical foundation of astrology never ever properly took place

(undertaken) till date. Everyone looked at astrology as if it supports every

existing popular religious notions without trying to have an insider view of astrology’s

own premises and foundations. But recently works in this direction has

started appearing at least in regional languages. The truth is that even though

astrology assimilates and adjusts with every religion and philosophy that

floats around (Agama, Vedic, Buddhist, Jain or what ever) - it has its own

philosophical, theoretical (and to an extend religious) foundation of its

own. Astrology is nearly a religion itself - that adjusts to everything

and changing social conditions. We may have approach astrology as independent

body of knowledge with its own independent philosophy that adjusts to every

adjoining philosophy. The true gods of astrology is Kala purusha (Time

personified) and Kala (Time). Similar approach is true for Ayurveda as

well when it treats Swabhava (Nature) itself as the ultimate.

* A detailed in-depth study of origin, development and spread of

astrology can became a true study of the basic Agama cult that spread

throughout Asia itself. (spreading a vast area covering Central Asia,

Sindhu-Sarasvati, Crete, Ionia, Caspian sea region). It is mainly the Semitic

religions, Vedic religion, Macedonian Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese who fall

outside the initial picture, approach and philosophy of Agama cult and

astrology - but even in them the sign of influence is clearly

visible. I don't think it is easy to prepare such a write-up before we clear the dust related our current approach to history and philosophy as a whole is corrected. Otherwise the words such as Indic, Vedic, Karmic, Advitic etc will itself became the stumbling blocks that hinders and currupts the sincere study.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:>> Dear List,> > I am trying to prepare a brief writeup on the contribution of Jyotisha to the overall Indic knowledge system, including subjects like consciousness studies, karma siddhanta, theology. This will be very helpful in establishing the place of Jyotisha in the integral system of knowledge, rather than a reactionary support or the defense of the credentials of the subject itself. > > Any information/help on this is appreciated. > > Thank you,> Shankar>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankar     This appears to be a very good idea and move. Please let us know what Kind of information you would like to have.AH UdupaOn Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear List,I am trying to prepare a brief writeup on the contribution of Jyotisha to the overall Indic knowledge system, including subjects like consciousness studies, karma siddhanta, theology. This will be very helpful in establishing the place of Jyotisha in the integral system of knowledge, rather than a reactionary support or the defense of the credentials of the subject itself.

Any information/help on this is appreciated. Thank you,Shankar

 

 

 

-- Please visit my website http://www.astrocare.in

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,Thank you, I will go through the material. I wanted to clarify a few points nevertheless. First, a long digression on your last point - " I don't think it is easy

to prepare such a write-up before we clear the dust related our current

approach to history and philosophy as a whole is corrected. Otherwise

the words such as Indic, Vedic, Karmic, Advitic etc will itself became

the stumbling blocks that hinders and currupts the sincere study."These are fairly well defined in the traditional system, though there are enough confusions both to practitioners (as opposed to traditional scholars) and "neutral" observers. Clarity is needed in approaching the three different things that are typically clubbed as traditional knowledge - 1. The subjects or Sastras - there are contributions from various schools in the development of sastras, but it is essential to understand that sastras themselves remain beyond the schools. For instance, there is just one mantra sastra, one yoga sastra, one jyotisha. Lets just take the Karma siddhanta for instance. There are contributions to it from Sramana, Srauta and Saiva. There are elements from it taken by the same. However there is just one Karma siddhanta. Sastras themselves should be understood as the subjects used by and contributed to by various schools and traditions, but

there cannot be a compartmental view to the Sastras. This is known to any fairly trained traditional scholar (who is trained in the Sastras themselves not merely a practitioner of some tradition). To put it in simple terms, there is just one science - there is no my science or your science. There is only my contribution to science or your contribution, and my application of science or your application. In still farther cases, there can be my approach or your approach to science. Nevertheless, science is just one. 2. Schools of literature - The famous classification of Vaidika, Pauranika, Smarta, Sutra, Agama, Tantrika, Sramana, Bauddha comes here. This classification is literary. Some of this is classification, some are phases of compilation. 3. Traditions or Sampradayas - these are the practiced traditions, having paramparas. Srauta, Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava, Bauddha, Sramana, Carvaka etc. They use both the above, and great men

from the paramparas have contributed to both. Each tradition has elements from Agamic-Tantric literature as well as beyond it. There is no Agama tradition - there are traditions based on Agamas. By an Agamic or a Vedic tradition one only means that the tradition has predominantly Agamic elements or Vedic elements. That in no way means that other literature is not used. This is the subtle difference that many ignore. Traditions like Bauddha and Sramana have elements both Agamic-Tantric and otherwise, same is the case with Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava and Smarta. There is no exclusive Tantra or Veda tradition. Much less is there a Vedic and Tantric people!! Of course, there are people who call themselves "pure Vedic" and what not, but that shows no more than their understanding of what they think their tradition is. If we look at great men from the traditions, they have mastered the Sastras that form basis of the traditions - not necessarily those

elements or parts of literature followed by their tradition. This digression was needed to make the subsequent points clear - "Astrology is termed an "Agama" branch of knowledge - i.e. a

knowledge branch well in tune with temple idol worship, Tantra etc (rather than

the homa/yaga centric Vedic cult that does not support idol worship)."For now I shall not go into the contrast of traditions, because that is a topic in its own right. But the fallout my above rant, is that there is one Jyotisha - there are only Saiva, Sakta, Srauta-smarta, Jaina approaches and contributions to it. This formulation is essential, because the "contribution of Jyotisha to other Sastras" deals essentially with the Sastra itself and not the traditions that contributed to it (of course this should be to the extent necessary, but that is not central to the theme). "As per my understanding the vedic (?) Karma Siddhanta theory got introduced

to astrology by around 6th century AD only and not before that."Karma again, has contributions from Srauta as well as Saiva (there is

also a Srauta Saiva tradition though it is much less popular!). But that is an aside. While Jyotisha has both phalita and observational astronomy aspects, karma and jyotisha are related in a unique way - the phalita part. Jyotisha and Karma are two ways of predicting future. One can, with no understanding of karma siddhanta, do good predictions with jyotisha. Similarly one who mastered the karma siddhanta can make equally good predictions with no understanding of jyotisha. I have seen people with both kinds of mastery. So it is quite likely that these two are used complementarily in many cases. Which is the reason I started the thread with the question put in the opposite direction - the contribution of Jyotisha to these various subjects rather than how they have contributed to the development of Jyotisha. Karma siddhanta, theology, consciousness studies all have benefited from Jyotisha. So if that is brought out, that would establish the place

of Jyotissastra in the grand scheme of literature, as part of the matrix that cannot be wished away on the basis of text-reading. "The truth is that even though

astrology assimilates and adjusts with every religion and philosophy that

floats around (Agama, Vedic, Buddhist, Jain or what ever) - it has its own

philosophical, theoretical (and to an extend religious) foundation of its

own. "Consider if this is because of the premise I explained above... it is a Sastra, and any school of literature or practicing tradition uses it, and contributes to it! Warm Regards,Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji, First of all, thanks for the beautiful informative mail. It is a pleasure to witness the working of a systematic mind (or better a mind with systematic approach, if I reflect on your words - 'There is no Agama tradition - there are traditions based on Agamas'). Yes, I was using words in many places in a loose manner just intending to convey the meaning and intention rather than to be specific and accurate in the use of terminology. I agree with our approach here (but still may continue to use it the otherwayround where such exactness is not required, and a passing phrase may suffice). //Traditions like Bauddha and Sramana have elements both Agamic-Tantric and otherwise, same is the case with Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava and Smarta. There is no exclusive Tantra or Veda tradition. Much less is there a Vedic and Tantric people!!// Agreed - that use was just part of the use of loose terminology as mentioned above. //there is one Jyotisha - there are only Saiva, Sakta, Srauta-smarta, Jaina approaches and contributions to it. This formulation is essential, because the "contribution of Jyotisha to other Sastras" deals essentially with the Sastra itself and not the traditions that contributed to it// Agreed. //To put it in simple terms, there is just one science - there is no my science or your science. There is only my contribution to science or your contribution, and my application of science or your application. In still farther cases, there can be my approach or your approach to science. Nevertheless, science is just one. // Yes - agreed. And these approaches is what I used to term schools or 'astrological schools of thought'. Terminology differs here but we mean the same - it seems. //While Jyotisha has both phalita and observational astronomy aspects, karma and jyotisha are related in a unique way - the phalita part. Jyotisha and Karma are two ways of predicting future. One can, with no understanding of karma siddhanta, do good predictions with jyotisha. Similarly one who mastered the karma siddhanta can make equally good predictions with no understanding of jyotisha. I have seen people with both kinds of mastery. So it is quite likely that these two are used complementarily in many cases.// That is a unique point and approach! Do you want to say that the Karma siddhanta is (part of) the predictive part of Vedic (Nigama) astrology; while Phalita part is the predictive part of Agama astrology? May be quite possible considering the fact that it is Sayana acharya (one who wrote commentry for Vedas) is the one who wrote the text named "karma Vipaka"; and for those who speak about Karma siddhanta this text usually becomes a reference text. //Which is the reason I started the thread with the question put in the opposite direction - the contribution of Jyotisha to these various subjects rather than how they have contributed to the development of Jyotisha.// That is a very good approach! Instead of asking how Karmasiddhanta contributed to astrology, asking how Jyotisha contributed to Karma siddhanta is defenitly a good way of integrating it within the Vedic scheme of studies. But still that will provide a partial understanding about Jyotisha only; and the full understanding of Jyotish will still remain outsidethis limitted appraoch and understanding. //Karma siddhanta, theology, consciousness studies all have benefited from Jyotisha. So if that is brought out, that would establish the place of Jyotissastra in the grand scheme of literature, as part of the matrix that cannot be wished away on the basis of text-reading.// Ageed. //Consider if this is because of the premise I explained above... it is a Sastra, and any school of literature or practicing tradition uses it, and contributes to it!// Yes, you are absolutly right - Jyotish is a sastra and any school of literature or practicing tradition uses it, and contributes to it! Love and regards, Sreenadh -ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli09/25/09 01:20 am Subject: Re: Jyotisha's contributions to knowledge system Dear Sreenadh ji, Thank you, I will go through the material. I wanted to clarify a few points nevertheless. First, a long digression on your last point - " I don't think it is easy to prepare such a write-up before we clear the dust related our current approach to history and philosophy as a whole is corrected. Otherwise the words such as Indic, Vedic, Karmic, Advitic etc will itself became the stumbling blocks that hinders and currupts the sincere study." These are fairly well defined in the traditional system, though there are enough confusions both to practitioners (as opposed to traditional scholars) and "neutral" observers. Clarity is needed in approaching the three different things that are typically clubbed as traditional knowledge - 1. The subjects or Sastras - there are contributions from various schools in the development of sastras, but it is essential to understand that sastras themselves remain beyond the schools. For instance, there is just one mantra sastra, one yoga sastra, one jyotisha. Lets just take the Karma siddhanta for instance. There are contributions to it from Sramana, Srauta and Saiva. There are elements from it taken by the same. However there is just one Karma siddhanta. Sastras themselves should be understood as the subjects used by and contributed to by various schools and traditions, but there cannot be a compartmental view to the Sastras. This is known to any fairly trained traditional scholar (who is trained in the Sastras themselves not merely a practitioner of some tradition). To put it in simple terms, there is just one science - there is no my science or your science. There is only my contribution to science or your contribution, and my application of science or your application. In still farther cases, there can be my approach or your approach to science. Nevertheless, science is just one. 2. Schools of literature - The famous classification of Vaidika, Pauranika, Smarta, Sutra, Agama, Tantrika, Sramana, Bauddha comes here. This classification is literary. Some of this is classification, some are phases of compilation. 3. Traditions or Sampradayas - these are the practiced traditions, having paramparas. Srauta, Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava, Bauddha, Sramana, Carvaka etc. They use both the above, and great men from the paramparas have contributed to both. Each tradition has elements from Agamic-Tantric literature as well as beyond it. There is no Agama tradition - there are traditions based on Agamas. By an Agamic or a Vedic tradition one only means that the tradition has predominantly Agamic elements or Vedic elements. That in no way means that other literature is not used. This is the subtle difference that many ignore. Traditions like Bauddha and Sramana have elements both Agamic-Tantric and otherwise, same is the case with Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava and Smarta. There is no exclusive Tantra or Veda tradition. Much less is there a Vedic and Tantric people!! Of course, there are people who call themselves "pure Vedic" and what not, but that shows no more than their understanding of what they think their tradition is. If we look at great men from the traditions, they have mastered the Sastras that form basis of the traditions - not necessarily those elements or parts of literature followed by their tradition. This digression was needed to make the subsequent points clear - "Astrology is termed an "Agama" branch of knowledge - i.e. a knowledge branch well in tune with temple idol worship, Tantra etc (rather than the homa/yaga centric Vedic cult that does not support idol worship)." For now I shall not go into the contrast of traditions, because that is a topic in its own right. But the fallout my above rant, is that there is one Jyotisha - there are only Saiva, Sakta, Srauta-smarta, Jaina approaches and contributions to it. This formulation is essential, because the "contribution of Jyotisha to other Sastras" deals essentially with the Sastra itself and not the traditions that contributed to it (of course this should be to the extent necessary, but that is not central to the theme). "As per my understanding the vedic (?) Karma Siddhanta theory got introduced to astrology by around 6th century AD only and not before that." Karma again, has contributions from Srauta as well as Saiva (there is also a Srauta Saiva tradition though it is much less popular!). But that is an aside. While Jyotisha has both phalita and observational astronomy aspects, karma and jyotisha are related in a unique way - the phalita part. Jyotisha and Karma are two ways of predicting future. One can, with no understanding of karma siddhanta, do good predictions with jyotisha. Similarly one who mastered the karma siddhanta can make equally good predictions with no understanding of jyotisha. I have seen people with both kinds of mastery. So it is quite likely that these two are used complementarily in many cases. Which is the reason I started the thread with the question put in the opposite direction - the contribution of Jyotisha to these various subjects rather than how they have contributed to the development of Jyotisha. Karma siddhanta, theology, consciousness studies all have benefited from Jyotisha. So if that is brought out, that would establish the place of Jyotissastra in the grand scheme of literature, as part of the matrix that cannot be wished away on the basis of text-reading. "The truth is that even though astrology assimilates and adjusts with every religion and philosophy that floats around (Agama, Vedic, Buddhist, Jain or what ever) - it has its own philosophical, theoretical (and to an extend religious) foundation of its own. " Consider if this is because of the premise I explained above... it is a Sastra, and any school of literature or practicing tradition uses it, and contributes to it! Warm Regards, Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,

 

No the intention is not to hair-split. Anyway we are on the same page and

that is what matters, let us go forward...

 

" That is a unique point

and approach! Do you want to say that the Karma siddhanta is (part of)

the predictive part of Vedic (Nigama) astrology; while Phalita part is

the predictive part of Agama astrology? May be quite possible

considering the fact that it is Sayana acharya (one who wrote commentry

for Vedas) is the one who wrote the text named " karma Vipaka " ; and for

those who speak about Karma siddhanta this text usually becomes a

reference text. "

 

Partly. More than that, my proposition is that karma and jyotisha are two ways

of prediction. After all, a great deal of explaining the fruits of different

actions and rites, right from minor ones to worldly as well as otherworldly

experiences, explaining future based on current actions and explaining previous

actions based on present experiences (all this is done in karma siddhanta) is in

fact prediction if seen properly! The other approach of course, is prediction of

events and experiences based on star positions. This has the advantage that one

does not need to be evolved enough to see through the subtle body mechanisms of

a person, and of course one can do predictions by knowing a few details of

someone's birth. Typically, karma and astrological calculations are used to

complement each other. Lets say we do not know enough of someone's karma

samskaras. We cannot predict much about him, but we can take the help of his

horoscope. On the other hand, we

know of a horoscope, and want to validate it. We take the help of some karma

driven events in his life to verify if the horoscope refers to such events.

 

This kind of complementariness of the subjects establishes their place in the

bigger picture, by itself. Someone might keep you in endless loops about the

presence of rasi or graha or this or that in this or that text, but the fact

that such sastras have evolved hand-in-hand is a direct and irrefutable evidence

of the legacy and antiquity of the sastra on the face of anyone.

 

" But still that will provide

a partial understanding about Jyotisha only; and the full understanding

of Jyotish will still remain outsidethis limitted appraoch and

understanding. "

 

Understanding of Jyotisha is not the purpose of this exercise - the scope is to

identify the relation of Jyotisha with various Sastras and how the latter have

benefited from Jyotisha

 

Shankar

 

 

 

 

________________________________

" sreesog " <sreesog

 

Friday, September 25, 2009 12:04:49 PM

Re: Re: Jyotisha's contributions to

knowledge system

 

 

 

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

First of all, thanks for the beautiful informative mail. It is a pleasure to

witness the working of a systematic mind (or better a mind with systematic

approach, if I reflect on your words - 'There is no Agama tradition - there are

traditions based on Agamas').

Yes, I was using words in many places in a loose manner just intending to convey

the meaning and intention rather than to be specific and accurate in the use of

terminology. I agree with our approach here (but still may continue to use it

the otherwayround where such exactness is not required, and a passing phrase may

suffice).

//Traditions like Bauddha and Sramana have elements both Agamic-Tantric and

otherwise, same is the case with Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava and Smarta. There is no

exclusive Tantra or Veda tradition. Much less is there a Vedic and Tantric

people!!//

Agreed - that use was just part of the use of loose terminology as mentioned

above.

//there is one Jyotisha - there are only Saiva, Sakta, Srauta-smarta, Jaina

approaches and contributions to it. This formulation is essential, because the

" contribution of Jyotisha to other Sastras " deals essentially with the Sastra

itself and not the traditions that contributed to it//

Agreed.

//To put it in simple terms, there is just one science - there is no my science

or your science. There is only my contribution to science or your contribution,

and my application of science or your application. In still farther cases, there

can be my approach or your approach to science. Nevertheless, science is just

one. //

Yes - agreed. And these approaches is what I used to term schools or

'astrological schools of thought'. Terminology differs here but we mean the

same - it seems.

//While Jyotisha has both phalita and observational astronomy aspects, karma and

jyotisha are related in a unique way - the phalita part. Jyotisha and Karma are

two ways of predicting future. One can, with no understanding of karma

siddhanta, do good predictions with jyotisha. Similarly one who mastered the

karma siddhanta can make equally good predictions with no understanding of

jyotisha. I have seen people with both kinds of mastery. So it is quite likely

that these two are used complementarily in many cases.//

That is a unique point and approach! Do you want to say that the Karma

siddhanta is (part of) the predictive part of Vedic (Nigama) astrology; while

Phalita part is the predictive part of Agama astrology? May be quite possible

considering the fact that it is Sayana acharya (one who wrote commentry for

Vedas) is the one who wrote the text named " karma Vipaka " ; and for those who

speak about Karma siddhanta this text usually becomes a reference text.

//Which is the reason I started the thread with the question put in the opposite

direction - the contribution of Jyotisha to these various subjects rather than

how they have contributed to the development of Jyotisha.//

That is a very good approach! Instead of asking how Karmasiddhanta contributed

to astrology, asking how Jyotisha contributed to Karma siddhanta is defenitly a

good way of integrating it within the Vedic scheme of studies. But still that

will provide a partial understanding about Jyotisha only; and the full

understanding of Jyotish will still remain outsidethis limitted appraoch and

understanding.

//Karma siddhanta, theology, consciousness studies all have benefited from

Jyotisha. So if that is brought out, that would establish the place of

Jyotissastra in the grand scheme of literature, as part of the matrix that

cannot be wished away on the basis of text-reading. //

Ageed.

//Consider if this is because of the premise I explained above... it is a

Sastra, and any school of literature or practicing tradition uses it, and

contributes to it!//

Yes, you are absolutly right - Jyotish is a sastra and any school of literature

or practicing tradition uses it, and contributes to it!

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

 

 

-

>ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli

>09/25/09 01:20 am

>ancient_indian_ astrology

>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Jyotisha's contributions to knowledge

system

>

>

>

>

>Dear Sreenadh ji,

>

>Thank you, I will go through the material.

>

>I wanted to clarify a few points nevertheless. First, a long digression on your

last point -

>

>

> " I don't think it is easy to prepare such a write-up before we clear the dust

related our current approach to history and philosophy as a whole is corrected.

Otherwise the words such as Indic, Vedic, Karmic, Advitic etc will itself became

the stumbling blocks that hinders and currupts the sincere study. "

>

>These are fairly well defined in the traditional system, though there are

enough confusions both to practitioners (as opposed to traditional scholars) and

" neutral " observers. Clarity is needed in approaching the three different things

that are typically clubbed as traditional knowledge -

>

>1. The subjects or Sastras - there are contributions from various schools in

the development of sastras, but it is essential to understand that sastras

themselves remain beyond the schools. For instance, there is just one mantra

sastra, one yoga sastra, one jyotisha. Lets just take the Karma siddhanta for

instance. There are contributions to it from Sramana, Srauta and Saiva. There

are elements from it taken by the same. However there is just one Karma

siddhanta. Sastras themselves should be understood as the subjects used by and

contributed to by various schools and traditions, but there cannot be a

compartmental view to the Sastras. This is known to any fairly trained

traditional scholar (who is trained in the Sastras themselves not merely a

practitioner of some tradition).

>

>To put it in simple terms, there is just one science - there is no my science

or your science. There is only my contribution to science or your contribution,

and my application of science or your application. In still farther cases, there

can be my approach or your approach to science. Nevertheless, science is just

one.

>

>2. Schools of literature - The famous classification of Vaidika, Pauranika,

Smarta, Sutra, Agama, Tantrika, Sramana, Bauddha comes here. This classification

is literary. Some of this is classification, some are phases of compilation.

>

>3. Traditions or Sampradayas - these are the practiced traditions, having

paramparas. Srauta, Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava, Bauddha, Sramana, Carvaka etc. They

use both the above, and great men from the paramparas have contributed to both.

Each tradition has elements from Agamic-Tantric literature as well as beyond it.

There is no Agama tradition - there are traditions based on Agamas. By an Agamic

or a Vedic tradition one only means that the tradition has predominantly Agamic

elements or Vedic elements. That in no way means that other literature is not

used. This is the subtle difference that many ignore. Traditions like Bauddha

and Sramana have elements both Agamic-Tantric and otherwise, same is the case

with Sakta, Saiva, Vaishnava and Smarta. There is no exclusive Tantra or Veda

tradition. Much less is there a Vedic and Tantric people!! Of course, there are

people who call themselves " pure Vedic " and what not, but that shows no more

than their

understanding of what they think their tradition is.

>

>If we look at great men from the traditions, they have mastered the Sastras

that form basis of the traditions - not necessarily those elements or parts of

literature followed by their tradition.

>

>This digression was needed to make the subsequent points clear -

>

> " Astrology is termed an " Agama " branch of knowledge - i.e. a knowledge branch

well in tune with temple idol worship, Tantra etc (rather than the homa/yaga

centric Vedic cult that does not support idol worship). "

>

>For now I shall not go into the contrast of traditions, because that is a topic

in its own right. But the fallout my above rant, is that there is one Jyotisha -

there are only Saiva, Sakta, Srauta-smarta, Jaina approaches and contributions

to it. This formulation is essential, because the " contribution of Jyotisha to

other Sastras " deals essentially with the Sastra itself and not the traditions

that contributed to it (of course this should be to the extent necessary, but

that is not central to the theme).

>

> " As per my understanding the vedic (?) Karma Siddhanta theory got introduced to

astrology by around 6th century AD only and not before that. "

>

>Karma again, has contributions from Srauta as well as Saiva (there is also a

Srauta Saiva tradition though it is much less popular!). But that is an aside.

While Jyotisha has both phalita and observational astronomy aspects, karma and

jyotisha are related in a unique way - the phalita part. Jyotisha and Karma are

two ways of predicting future. One can, with no understanding of karma

siddhanta, do good predictions with jyotisha. Similarly one who mastered the

karma siddhanta can make equally good predictions with no understanding of

jyotisha. I have seen people with both kinds of mastery. So it is quite likely

that these two are used complementarily in many cases.

>

>Which is the reason I started the thread with the question put in the opposite

direction - the contribution of Jyotisha to these various subjects rather than

how they have contributed to the development of Jyotisha. Karma siddhanta,

theology, consciousness studies all have benefited from Jyotisha. So if that is

brought out, that would establish the place of Jyotissastra in the grand scheme

of literature, as part of the matrix that cannot be wished away on the basis of

text-reading.

>

> " The truth is that even though astrology assimilates and adjusts with every

religion and philosophy that floats around (Agama, Vedic, Buddhist, Jain or what

ever) - it has its own philosophical, theoretical (and to an extend religious)

foundation of its own. "

>

>Consider if this is because of the premise I explained above... it is a Sastra,

and any school of literature or practicing tradition uses it, and contributes to

it!

>

>Warm Regards,

>Shankar