Vedic Astronmical Knowledge vs Proof of Pluto

[Guest guest]

Hi, I would very much appreciate any advice from those of you who are more knowledgable than me in this area.

 

The existance of Pluto is not accepted by Vedic astronomy. Why? It does seem to be actually there.

 

Doesn't this make the Vedic version wrong, or at least incomplete? Why is Pluto not mentioned?

 

Thank you in advance for your advice.

[Avinash]

Pluto is not considered in Vedic astrology. From this one can infer that the existence of Pluto is not accepted in Vedic astrology. But there is another possibility. The other possibility is that Pluto has no or negligible effect so far astrology is concerned and, that is why, it is ignored.

[Guest guest]

Is there anywhere in Vedic scripture where it says: here are the planets that are in the earthly universe, there are no more than what are listed? Does Vedic literature accept that there are lots more planets, stars or other entities but that they just don't list or give details of?

 

Also, are the Vedas of this planet the same as those of other planets? Because the planatery info seems to be what is relevant to earth. Surely if Pluto exists, as it seems to, it would be of effect to some other planets in this universe if not ours.

 

Thank you for helping me clarify my comprehension of this.

[Avinash]

Scriptures, e.g., Bhagavatam talk of many planets. But there is a differece between planets as used in scriptures and as used in modern science. As per modern science, a planet is a naturla body that revolves round the Sun in elliptical orbits (well, it is a very approximate definition). But, planets, as per Bhagavatam, are different. As per Bgavatam, planets are various planes of existence. So, we cannot have one-to-one correspondence between planets in Vedic astrology and those in modern science. There is one more difference. Vedic astrology is geocentric while in modern science, when we study the movement of planets, then we use heliocentric theory.

[Guest guest]

That reply was helpful.

 

It seems that we are clasifying these differently.

 

What about whether the Vedas are specific to each planet or not?

[Avinash]

Our scriptures talk of "grahas" and "nakshatras". In some English translations, often both of these are translated as "planets" even though they are different. Some confusion arises because of this. In some English translations, "grahas" are translated as "planets" and "nakshatras" as "constellations". Even this may lead to misunderstanding because the constellations that are used in scriptures are not the same as those used in modern science. The problem is not with the translators. The problem is, as you have noticed, because of different classification schemes.

 

What about whether the Vedas are specific to each planet or not?

 

You are asking if for other planets there are different Vedas. I am not sure, I have to look into.

[Avinash]

As per what you have pointed out, Astrology should be dependent on planets (if there is astrology for beings on other planets). But there is no reason Vedas themselves should be different. Vedas are collection of various kinds of knowledge.

[Avinash]

I am not sure if it is helpful, but I felt like pointing this out. I have heard many people say that Vedic astrology is unscientific because it assumed Sun to revolve round the Earth though the reality (as per modern Science) is just the opposite.

 

Well, even as per modern Science, there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying that Sun revolves round the Earth. You can say "the Earth revolves round the Sun" or you can say "the Sun revolves round the Earth". Both are correct.

[Guest guest]

Hes a dog, a good dog who gets in trouble now and then, but hes very humble. Imagine, a dog so humble hes the servant of a mouse, a duck, another dog who talks. Now thats humble.

 

Sorry, but when I think pluto, I think of this humble dog, not a comet posing erroneously as a planet.

 

mudmon of floyd