History of Tajik Astrology as per Romaka-to fraud calendar man

[Guest guest]

History of Tajik Astrology as per Romaka

- Writte by Sreenadh OG

“Brihat Daivajna Ranjana†by Srimad Ramadeena Daivajna is an excellent book on astrology written in 19th century, that provides us with numerous quotes from ancient Rishi Horas some of them available and some many lost. Just like the excellent authentic texts of North Indian origin like Hora Ratna and Muhurta Chintamani I love this text as well. In our search of ancient and authentic sages quotes, this text is a treasure house. I found a quote by Sage Romaka that refers to Tajik system of astrology in this text. The quote attracts our attention due to various reasons. You may doubt what reasons? Let us explore and find out. The given quote is as follows â€"

Brahmana gaditam bbhanor, bhanuna yavanaya yat

Yavanena cha yat proktam Tajikam tat prakasitam

(RomakaH; Brihat Daivajna Ranjanam 1-9)

[sage Romaka tells us that â€" The knowledge of Tajik system of astrology was given by Brahma to Sun. Sun gave it to the Ionians. The system the Ionians explained (to the people of Tajikistan) is called Tajik system of astrology]

The following points should be noted â€"

1) Mihira of 6th century in his text Pancha Siddhantika, quotes the astronomical treatise ‘Romaka Sidhanta’ by sage Romaka. From this it is evident that Sage Romaka lived prior to AD 5th century. It is said that he wrote numerous texts in other branches of astrology as well such as Hora and Samhita as well. This reference to ‘Tajik system’ by sage Romaka indicate that prior to AD 5th century itself the system of Tajik astrology (derived from the word ‘Tajiki’, the language of Tajikistan, USSR) was popular. Thus it proves that Tajik astrology is much ancient than it is though of, (the popular opinion revolves around 9th century AD origin to this system) and it reached India NOT along with the Arabs, but prior to that itself.

2) As per the above quote, it is to Ionians this knowledge of Tajik astrology belongs to! But how and why Ionians? If so what has they to do with Tajikistan?

As per Mahabharata tradition and references, there was an Ionian kingdom in the north-west corner of India, in Tajikistan. (URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/EpicIndia.jpg). It is evident that it is to this Ionians sage Romaka is referring to. If the above statement can be dated back to the Mahabharata epic period (i.e. BC 24th century and not to the actual formation period of Mahabharata text, i.e. around BC 200 to AD 200) then the period of Romaka may date back to BC 24th century. Or if the text of Mahabhara and the date of Romaka is ancient only as long as the history of Sanskrit Devanagari script (i.e. BC 200 to AD 200) then the period of this Mahabharata-Ionian-Romaka-Tajik period is somewhere between BC 200 to AD 200.

 

Again the question may remain â€" whether Sage Romaka referred to here lived prior to the period of Alexander’s invasion to India or after? Ascertaining whether sage Romaka is (as some westerners puts it) is the sage of Rome (or the knowledge from Rome present in textual form) or not would be another major problem. Even though the absurdity of the argument is evident from the fact that we never had a sage Chainaka, Sage Greekaka, Sage Lankaka or Sage Tajika and so â€" the westerns may not agree since connecting Romaka with Rome satisfies their false ego regarding the Greeko-Roman-Christian tradition! The western scholars seems to be so un-scholarly and corrupted by western favoritism in their arguments that based on simple word similarity alone (without study) they argue that Sage Poulisa is Poul of Greek (Oh God! It is good that they spared the Poul of Rome!), Romake is some one from Rome, Yavana means only Greek, astrology came to India along with Alexander, God Skanda is none but Alaxander worshiped by the locals, Spujidhwaja and Meenaraja are Greeks and so on â€" all utter absurdities!

 

Even a kid learning Indian and Greek astrology could readily see based on variety of diverse astrological knowledge and methodologies present in India and absence of ancient astrological texts except that of Ptolemy of Egypt, that astrological knowledge flow was from India to Greek and not vice versa. But at times the corrupted minds of western favoritists are worse than that of kids! They will not see the presence of any possible fraud in only 3 works of Ptolemy of AD 2nd century ALONE surviving, where there is a total absence of availability of any ‘astrological’ (not astronomical) text from Greece prior Ptolemy or after Ptolemy till 13th century. They won’t see any absurdity in the story of Ptolemy’s Geographia Maps of AD 2nd century, getting ‘re-constructed’ in 13th century and getting ascribed to Ptolemy. They don’t question, why no other Greek astrological text between AD 2nd century to AD 13th century survived or why Ptolemy’s texts are available and not others? But they will certainly question the authority of Indian evidence! They will try to argue that any astrological or astronomical knowledge in India came after BC 300 Alexander’s invasion to India!

 

It seems to be inferiority complex about the lack of adorable history of knowledge to the Europeans and especially to the English people that prompts them to -

· Adopt Greek history as Englishman’s history

· Argue that every thing is Greek, Roman or Christian or that everything in India is much less older or came after BC 2000 Christian date of world creation or after BC 300 Greek king Alexander’s Invasion to India.

 

The whole setup is rather pathetic than respectable. It is very sad to see that even some true scholars become part of this nasty ignorant favoritism cult when it comes to the comparative study of Greek and Indian knowledge.

3) The sloka states that Ionians learned this astrological system (that later got named as Tajika) from Sun. This may point to the info that â€"

· Ionians were Sun worshipers

· Even Heliopolis based Sun worshiping tradition may have an Ionian connection or vice versa.

History may not be linear; or rather it is not linear at all! We do not progress from uncivilized to civilized. In truth, most of the ancient civilizations/cultures of the world got destroyed by uncivilized people who later became civilized. Greece was no exception.

· They destroyed the Crete culture

· They destroyed the culture that gave birth to great classics such as Iliad and Odyssey; they destroyed the a culture that was the store house of astrological and many other knowledge â€" but alas, some fools ascribe the Crete classics to Greeks the barbaric destroyers of that time, who destroyed the very literature and people!

· They destroyed the Ionian culture

 

Certainly the Create-Ionian culture was much advanced and civilized than Greek culture. The Greek destroyers of this ancient culture does not deserve to be called themselves as successors of the same culture â€" because what they destroyed was more than what they preserved.

4) The quote again tells us that Brahma taught Sun; or is it that the tradition and culture of Brahma worshipers (Indians?) taught the people of Sun worshipers and they in turn taught the Ionians? The quote may mean the following â€"

· Brahma â€" Culture and people who worship Brahma (Brahma worshipers)

· Bhanu (Sun) - Culture and people who worship Sun (Sun worshipers)

· Yavana (Ionian) - Culture and people of Ionia

· Tajika - Culture and people of Tajikistan, Russia.

 

Tajikistan and Ionia are readily identifiable; but who are the Sun worshipers and Brahma worshipers mentioned here? Could it be the Maya civilization (Sun worshipers) and Sindhu-Sarasvati Indian culture (Brahma worshipers)? Or is there any other cultural possibilities â€" such as possibly some hidden tradition associated with Heleopolice Sun worshipers or the Indian Sun worshipers? Who knows! Such doubts will remain unanswered for long.

5) Now coming to the last but not the least point that should be addressed â€" Could this be an interpolated quote in Brihad Daivajna Ranjana incorporated into it with an intention?

This does not seems to be possible due to the following reasons â€"

· Rama Deena Daivajna was just quoting various slokas that states the opinions of various schools and texts about the origin of astrology. He quotes from Tatva Viveka, Romaka, Surya Siddhanta and Narada Samhita. Except for agreeing upon the statement that ‘astrology originated from Brahma, the creator’, there is nothing much in common between these quotes.

· It is evident that quoting Romaka (an ancient scholar) was not intentional, ever very less the mention of Tajika system. Rama Deena Daivajna was not bothered much about whether the text he quotes was modern or ancient â€" it is the very reason for he quoting Tatva Viveka, a medieval text, first and not Romaka. The only point he wanted to stress is that astrology started from Brahma. The Romaka quote was included only because it was available and it too says that astrology started from Brahma. Rama Deena Daivajna neither want to discuss or discusses Tajik astrology in his book. The reference to Tajik system happened just because the same was present in the Romaka quote that says that ‘astrology started from Brahma’.

Thus it is evident that the quote provided is a true quote provided by ancient scholar Sage Romaka, and is presented in the book Brihat Daivajna Ranjana by Rama Deena Daivajna without any special intention of corruption or distortion of history. It is a natural and sincere reference available to us. Now what we learn based on the same is upto us.

 

Thinking about a simple but informative quote provided by Sage Romaka helped us a lot in understanding the history of Tajik astrology and astrology in general, I believe. The side tracking helped us to understand how much the cultural favoritism of the westerners corrupt the ancient Indian history and history of knowledge, I believe. Hope you enjoyed this article.

- 0-