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

[Guest guest]

Abhinavagupta , Koenraad Elst wrote:

 

Abhinavagupta , [sunthar V] quoted BG Tilak:

 

>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 need not refer to the constellation's position in the year cycle, whether

equinoctial or other. " The Orion among the constellations " need not mean " the

one at the head of the year cycle " , but seems to mean " the most visible " " the

one that strikes the eye right away " , " the one that doesn't require searching

and decipherment because it is so obvious " . Orion happens to have this honour

(shared somewhat with Ursa Maior) for millions of years, regardless of

precession phase.

 

I am all for the judicious use of precessional data in the determination of the

chronology of the scriptures. But we should not walk into the trap of

attributing precessional meanings where these are unnecessary and not indicated.

 

Likewise, we should not fall for easy astronomical readings of innocent words

like " bull " , " lion, " fish " or " water-pot " . By that criterion, the Sumerians,

Chinese, Egyptians, Mycenaeans, et al. all knew the Zodiac, for their texts

include these words too. Before jumping to the conclusion of a zodiacal meaning,

it must first be established beyond doubt that the context is meant as

astronomical. Thus, when rereading RV 6:49(:7), I am no longer convinced that

the mention of " kanyaa citraayuh " must mean " Virgo/Kanya, having Spica/Citra as

her life " . Grammatically it refers to " Saraswati, the hero's wife " . The wider

context repeatedly mentions the day cycle, but not evidently the year cycle. It

would be cute, but that's not good enough as evidence.

 

>

> * 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.) [sunthar]

>

 

On this, Tilak is right. But I don't think Avtar meant to say that everything

non-Vedic or post-Vedic is invalid per se, merely that " Vedic astrology " with

the Babylon-Hellenistic Rashicakra is non-Vedic. Even if someone proves

astrology valid, in the sense of effective and verifiable, it would still remain

non-Vedic.

 

 

> 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.<

[sunil]

 

In the Puranic age (1st mill CE), the tropical and the sidereal Zodiac

practically coincided. In most Puranic statements using zociacal terminology, no

choice between the two conceptions of the Zodiac can be determined. In early

Babylonian and Greek astrology, the distinction was not yet understood, and

there the obvious sidereal reading appears, on close reading of the context, to

be intended as season-related, i.e. tropical. I suspect some Puranic writers

weren't yet clear about the distinction either. And if they did consciously

choose the sidereal Zodiac already, well, they only did what Hindu astrologers

and calendar-makers have been doing ever since. *Someone* must have started the

confusion.

 

 

> Had the scholars like Dixit read the  Upanishads they would have

fdefinitely ound that in the Chandogya Upanishad (7. 1 - 3)

Narada told Sanatkumara that he knew the Nakshatra Vidya (Astronomy) and

the Rashi Vidya (Astrology). < [sunil]

 

In 7.1.2, 7.1.4 and 7.2.1, he claims to know naksatra-vidya, astronomy. Only in

the latter does he also claim to know " rashi " , which is not juxtaposed to

nakshatra-vidya, and which is normally understood in its basic meaning of " heap,

accumulation, number, quantity >> mathematics " . The text has no indication

whatsoever that the Siddhantic/Puranic meaning of " twelfth part of the ecliptic "

is meant. Just as the Vedas don't indicate that their occasional use of " bull "

or virgin " refers to a constellation.

 

I am preparing a detailed analysis of the claims of the Rashicakra in the Vedas,

and won't return to the topic here until I can present the finished text. So

long,

 

Koenraad Elst

 

 

[Reply to Sunil's post (14 June) and Sunthar's comments (17 June 2009) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5159

 

Rest of this thread at Sunil's post (18 June) with Sunthar's comments (19 June

2009) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5177]

 

--- End forwarded message ---