dating of Rg Veda

[Guest guest]

Dear Barbara

 

Namaste

 

I accept what you say is reporting accurately certain matters. In addition I

have myself read widely in this area of study for many years. Your argument is

carefully put, but you have ignored certain things.

 

Unfortunately the practice of academia, evidenced thousands of times over, is to

set criteria to satisfy themselves about certain matters and within this limited

framework constructed to then draw conclusions, which they apply far beyond the

limited framework, where the said conclusions have no actual validity.

Linguistic analysis is a modern invention where increasingly tenous arguments

are used to create increasing bolder sweeping statements drawing a pircture of

history that at best is highly speculative. How can you possibly say that

because the Rg Veda does not speak about iron and the Atharva Veda does that it

points to it being of a later date? What an assumption! the Rg Veda is not

some ancient Encyclopaedia Indica, whose writers were ignorant of what they

have not mentioned. If you take the trouble to understand the proper function

of these two texts then their relationship might become clearer.

 

Archaeology uses the same device. The more minute the evidence the greater the

sweeping generalizations made about a past they know very little about - a

single peice of pottery here, a skull there, etc. The history of archaeology

and of linguistic analysis is one of each present fashionable theory

demolishing the previous one, which is enough to say that whatever the present

theory is today it is not giving an accurate picture of the subject matter.

 

Academia ignores the most important source of information - the knowledge and

wisdom contained in the traditions of the indigenous peoples they make all of

their ignorant pronouncements about. What they would say is not evidence is in

fact the evidence worthwhile studying. If you want to learn about the tradition

of India - first learn to speak and write Sanskrit - not linguistically analyse

it - then go further and learn Vedic Sanskrit as far as it is known and study

its literary works incuding the Vedas and understand how the tradition it

embodies has come down today. You might find out that the quality of the minds

of the people from whom this language came is far in advance of people today

generally. Develop respect for that tradition. In order to avoid making

stupid pronouncements about Indian Astronomy, such as the fatuous '(NB: all

other claims, such as 'astronomical data', do not apply.) by the 'eminent'

indologist Michael Witzel you referred to in your email, study the Indian

science of Jyotisha in its original until you understand what it is and how it

fits into the whole scheme of ancient knowledge of the universe and then it

might be possible to say something of value.

 

Why should a date of 10,000 years ago be so improbable? What about the previous 100,000 years?

I am a bit surprised that a Jyotishi has fallen for all this 'scientific'

misinformation largely predicated upon the idea of the superiority of today's

culture over all previous ones.

 

Kind regards

Gordon Brennan

[Guest guest]

Very well written Gordon. Kudos to you.

 

With best regards

 

Vaidun Vidyadhar

Tamworth, NSW

Australia

Email: vvidya (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au

valist [valist] On Behalf Of

GWBrennan (AT) aol (DOT) comSent: Saturday, 13 August 2005 19:39To:

valistSubject: Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Barbara

 

Namaste

 

I accept what you say is reporting accurately certain matters. In addition I

have myself read widely in this area of study for many years. Your argument is

carefully put, but you have ignored certain things.

 

Unfortunately the practice of academia, evidenced thousands of times over, is to

set criteria to satisfy themselves about certain matters and within this limited

framework constructed to then draw conclusions, which they apply far beyond the

limited framework, where the said conclusions have no actual validity.

Linguistic analysis is a modern invention where increasingly tenous arguments

are used to create increasing bolder sweeping statements drawing a pircture of

history that at best is highly speculative. How can you possibly say that

because the Rg Veda does not speak about iron and the Atharva Veda does that it

points to it being of a later date? What an assumption! the Rg Veda is not

some ancient Encyclopaedia Indica, whose writers were ignorant of what they

have not mentioned. If you take the trouble to understand the proper function

of these two texts then their relationship might become clearer.

 

Archaeology uses the same device. The more minute the evidence the greater the

sweeping generalizations made about a past they know very little about - a

single peice of pottery here, a skull there, etc. The history of archaeology

and of linguistic analysis is one of each present fashionable theory

demolishing the previous one, which is enough to say that whatever the present

theory is today it is not giving an accurate picture of the subject matter.

 

Academia ignores the most important source of information - the knowledge and

wisdom contained in the traditions of the indigenous peoples they make all of

their ignorant pronouncements about. What they would say is not evidence is in

fact the evidence worthwhile studying. If you want to learn about the tradition

of India - first learn to speak and write Sanskrit - not linguistically analyse

it - then go further and learn Vedic Sanskrit as far as it is known and study

its literary works incuding the Vedas and understand how the tradition it

embodies has come down today. You might find out that the quality of the minds

of the people from whom this language came is far in advance of people today

generally. Develop respect for that tradition. In order to avoid making

stupid pronouncements about Indian Astronomy, such as the fatuous '(NB: all

other claims, such as 'astronomical data', do not apply.) by the 'eminent'

indologist Michael Witzel you referred to in your email, study the Indian

science of Jyotisha in its original until you understand what it is and how it

fits into the whole scheme of ancient knowledge of the universe and then it

might be possible to say something of value.

 

Why should a date of 10,000 years ago be so improbable? What about the previous 100,000 years?

I am a bit surprised that a Jyotishi has fallen for all this 'scientific'

misinformation largely predicated upon the idea of the superiority of today's

culture over all previous ones.

 

Kind regards

Gordon Brennan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Gordon Brennan

 

You have made your points well. People who claim to be so called “eminent

Indologist” – it is doubtful to what extent they know about India and its great

tradition . Seating in a distant land and having scant knowledge of the great

scriptures and traditions of India which even people who are immersed in this

very techniques and philosophy for generations admit to have understood very

little, these self-styled so- called eminent indologists have distorted Indian

history because of their prejudice and more often than not set the way and

means of research to fit their pre-conceived assumptions.

 

The statement that,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.”

 

IS NOTHING BUT A HALF-TRUTH. And as you know half-truths are dangerous than lies.

 

While the theories and determinations of modern science like physics and

medicine that uses sophisticated instruments and methods change every day, what

to speak of the determination of the age of ancient scriptures by half-educated

, prejudiced people alien to the land and culture they are dealing with their

flawed methods .

 

How many of them understand the true meaning of Vedic Sanskrit which even

scholars well versed in Sanskrit by generations and even Paaniny -the first

person who encoded the Sanskrit grammar in written language express their

inability to comprehend!

 

To these people the following verse from Mundaka Upanishad apply:

 

ABIDYAYAA MANTARE BARTAMAANAA

SWAYAM DIHIRAAH PANDITAM MUHYAMAANAAH

JANGHANYAMANAAH PARIYANTY MUDHAA

ANDHENAIBA NIYAMAANA JYTHANDHAA.

 

 

(They who dwell shut within the ignorance and they hold themselves for learned

men thinking, “We, even we are the wise and the sages” - fools are they and

they wander around beaten and stumbling like blind men led by the blind.)

 

In this context let me quote Sri Aurobindo , who was both an adept in YOGA like

the ancient Rishis and well versed in the language of Sanskrit and English, a

scholar par excellence:

 

 

I propose...that the Rig-Veda is itself the one considerable document that

remains to us from the early period of human thought of which the historic

Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries were the failing remnants, when the spiritual

and psychological knowledge of the race was concealed, for reasons now

difficult to determine, in a veil of concrete and material figures and symbols

which protected the sense from the profane and revealed it to the initiated.

One of the leading principles of the mystics was the sacredness and secrecy of

self-knowledge and the true knowledge of the Gods.

The Veda...is an inspired knowledge as yet insufficiently equipped with

intellectual and philosophical terms. We find a language of poets and

illuminates to whom all experience is real, vivid, sensible, even concrete, not

yet of thinkers and sytematisers to whom the realities of the mind and soul have

become abstractions.

The Vedic Rishis believed that their Mantras were inspired from higher planes of

consciousness and contained this secret knowledge. The words of the Veda could

only be known in their true meaning by one who was himself a seer or mystic;

from others the verses withheld their hidden knowledge.

Many of the lines, many whole hymns even of the Veda bear on their face a mystic

meaning; they are evidently an occult form of speech, have an inner meaning.

Under pressure of the necessity to mask their meaning with symbols and symbolic

words...the Rishis resorted to fix double meanings, a device easily manageable

in the Sanskrit language where one word often bears several different meanings,

but not easy to render in an English translation and very often

impossible....The Rishis, it must be remembered, were seers as well as sages,

they were men of vision who saw things in their meditation in images, often

symbolic images which might precede or accompany an experience and put it in a

concrete form, might predict or give an occult body to it. ...The mystics were

and normally are symbolists, they can even see all physical things and

happenings as symbols of inner truths and realities, even their outer selves,

the outer happenings of their life and all around them."

Sri Aurobindo, The Secret of the Veda, SABCL Vol. 10 .

 

 

with regards

 

Gurudatta Dash

 

l Message -----

GWBrennan (AT) aol (DOT) com

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 3:09 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Barbara

 

Namaste

 

I accept what you say is reporting accurately certain matters. In addition I

have myself read widely in this area of study for many years. Your argument is

carefully put, but you have ignored certain things.

 

Unfortunately the practice of academia, evidenced thousands of times over, is to

set criteria to satisfy themselves about certain matters and within this limited

framework constructed to then draw conclusions, which they apply far beyond the

limited framework, where the said conclusions have no actual validity.

Linguistic analysis is a modern invention where increasingly tenous arguments

are used to create increasing bolder sweeping statements drawing a pircture of

history that at best is highly speculative. How can you possibly say that

because the Rg Veda does not speak about iron and the Atharva Veda does that it

points to it being of a later date? What an assumption! the Rg Veda is not

some ancient Encyclopaedia Indica, whose writers were ignorant of what they

have not mentioned. If you take the trouble to understand the proper function

of these two texts then their relationship might become clearer.

 

Archaeology uses the same device. The more minute the evidence the greater the

sweeping generalizations made about a past they know very little about - a

single peice of pottery here, a skull there, etc. The history of archaeology

and of linguistic analysis is one of each present fashionable theory

demolishing the previous one, which is enough to say that whatever the present

theory is today it is not giving an accurate picture of the subject matter.

 

Academia ignores the most important source of information - the knowledge and

wisdom contained in the traditions of the indigenous peoples they make all of

their ignorant pronouncements about. What they would say is not evidence is in

fact the evidence worthwhile studying. If you want to learn about the tradition

of India - first learn to speak and write Sanskrit - not linguistically analyse

it - then go further and learn Vedic Sanskrit as far as it is known and study

its literary works incuding the Vedas and understand how the tradition it

embodies has come down today. You might find out that the quality of the minds

of the people from whom this language came is far in advance of people today

generally. Develop respect for that tradition. In order to avoid making

stupid pronouncements about Indian Astronomy, such as the fatuous '(NB: all

other claims, such as 'astronomical data', do not apply.) by the 'eminent'

indologist Michael Witzel you referred to in your email, study the Indian

science of Jyotisha in its original until you understand what it is and how it

fits into the whole scheme of ancient knowledge of the universe and then it

might be possible to say something of value.

 

Why should a date of 10,000 years ago be so improbable? What about the previous 100,000 years?

I am a bit surprised that a Jyotishi has fallen for all this 'scientific'

misinformation largely predicated upon the idea of the superiority of today's

culture over all previous ones.

 

Kind regards

Gordon Brennan

[Guest guest]

Hi Barbara,

 

Thanks for your synopsis and nice to see you on this list. It's very helpful

and more or less confirms what I have found in my reading.

 

The dating of texts is a fascinating topic and as we can see by the discussion

here, not without some amount of contention. Certainly, all parties involved

have different perspectives and interests when it comes to this question.

 

One interesting element for me concerns the sense of the historical development

of Hinduism, and by extension as per our previous discussion, the development

of Jyotish to incorporate new features such as Ketu. As we know from studying

all religions, beliefs and practices have evolved and changed over time. I

have read, for example, that the doctrine of reincarnation did not exist yet at

the time of the writing of the Rg Veda. Man is born and dies only once and then

goes to a heaven-like afterlife. In the Brahmanas (dated by academics as

written between 1000 - 500 BCE), we are introduced to the notion of a second

death. I would welcome comments on this topic by those who may know more on

the subject. Recommendations for further reading would also be welcome.

 

best wishes,

Chris

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 AM

dating of Rg Veda

Namaste,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.

 

For those not familiar with "linguistic dating" of texts, it's a process of

determining the age of texts by noting important linguistic change markers.

Even when texts describe "eternal" things like cosmology, morality and ritual,

it is still possible to identify when they were written. Older texts show

thicker "strata" of words & grammatical structures from "parent" languages;

whilst "newer" texts show change markers like words for new things, new

grammar, and perhaps influence of the languages of incoming conquerors. (And

many other change markers.)

 

This method is used to date scriptures of all the great religions. For example

Hebrew Bible, interpreted in received tradition as an ageless single book, is

linguistically understood to be a patchwork quilt of many scrolls, composed by

tribal authors over at least a millennium, which was finally "sewn together" as

late as 400 CE. (A major portion, Torah, was complete by 500 BCE.) Similarly,

the canonical NT gospels, known in received tradition as eyewitness reports,

were actually written from 50 CE until 100 CE in three different languages

(Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

 

One item used in dating the Rg Veda is that 1200 BCE is the (approx) earliest

evidence of iron in India. There are references to earlier metals in RV but

not to iron. Combine this observation with dozens of other "dating clues"

referring to agricultural methods, domesticated animals, types of plows etc.,

and scholars start to form a picture of the "time zone". Note there is a ref

to iron in Atharva Veda, which - along with dozens of others clues - points to

AV being a later text.

 

Linguistic analysis requires a lot of sleuthing, using all available clues to

place a text historically while remaining honest and open-minded about the

possibility of new data. There is certainly new thinking going on all the time,

but overall the last few decades of intensive Indological research, coordinating

textual and archeological analysis, have yielded pretty consistent findings.

 

Linguistically inclined Jyotishi (like me) might be interested to read this link

re: RV dating, given by eminent Indologist Michael Witzel, head of the dept of

Sanskrit & Indian Studies at Harvard University.

 

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

 

 

Hope this viewpoint is useful for framing a discussion about texts held in

received traditions, or being "10,000 years old".

 

With best wishes,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

 

 

-

Steven Stuckey

valist

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:44 PM

Re: More on Ketu.....

Christopher Kevill wrote:

Dear Steve,

 

Thanks for bringing this fascinating historical question to our attention. It's

not an area I think about often but given the unanswered questions you raise

here, perhaps it's time I should.

 

If it's true that Ketu was a later post-6th century C.E. add-on to the whole

system, then one is forced to think of the Vimshottari system and indeed all of

Jyotish in a somewhat different light. Rather than a complete system in place,

it seems to have been arrived at more gradually, as perhaps Hellenistic or

Western astrology was. And if that's true, then the idea of it being

"received" knowledge seems more unlikely. How did the great astrologers of

Parashara's time then go about the task of plugging Ketu into their

pre-existing system? Hi Chris,The great Parashara Muni was supposed to have

lived a long time ago--thousands of years. He is the father of Vyasadeva, also

known as Veda-Vyas who is accepted as the author of all the Vedas, Puranas,

Mahabharata etc. Some date the oldest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, as going back

10,000 years or more, to others there is no such thing as time constraints on

the great Vedas, as they are considered an eternal embodiment of the divine.In

light of the above, and some historians dating the Brihat Parashara Hora very

late in time (Professor David Pinagree dates it to the 7th century CE), one can

become very confused when trying to sort things out.Since I am not a sanskrit

scholar, and don't live in India, I'll probably never get an answer--and there

may be no answer anyway. My guess is that even amongst scholars on he subject

there will be many conflicting opinions. It seems we should be able to at least

date the text in some way, since we are not just dealing with an abstract

concept. One might assume there is a long history of oral tradition behind the

Parashara Hora, but at some point it was set down in writing.But I would be

interested in others opinions on this who are more knowledgeable.Best,Steve

[Guest guest]

What a ridiculous notion that the concept of rebirth was not there at the time Rig-veda.

 

Why you people draw your conclusion reading books on a subject which written my

people having no idea about it.

Any way this site is not a place for discussion on Vedas.

If you want a partial glimpse of what the Vedas are I refer to a site

http://www.mountainman.com.au/rghmf__a.htm which contains not much but just one

hymn of this scared text.- the hymn to the mystic fire.

 

But that would give u an idea at least .

 

Gurudatta Dash

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:09 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Hi Barbara,

 

Thanks for your synopsis and nice to see you on this list. It's very helpful

and more or less confirms what I have found in my reading.

 

The dating of texts is a fascinating topic and as we can see by the discussion

here, not without some amount of contention. Certainly, all parties involved

have different perspectives and interests when it comes to this question.

 

One interesting element for me concerns the sense of the historical development

of Hinduism, and by extension as per our previous discussion, the development

of Jyotish to incorporate new features such as Ketu. As we know from studying

all religions, beliefs and practices have evolved and changed over time. I

have read, for example, that the doctrine of reincarnation did not exist yet at

the time of the writing of the Rg Veda. Man is born and dies only once and then

goes to a heaven-like afterlife. In the Brahmanas (dated by academics as

written between 1000 - 500 BCE), we are introduced to the notion of a second

death. I would welcome comments on this topic by those who may know more on

the subject. Recommendations for further reading would also be welcome.

 

best wishes,

Chris

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 AM

dating of Rg Veda

Namaste,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.

 

For those not familiar with "linguistic dating" of texts, it's a process of

determining the age of texts by noting important linguistic change markers.

Even when texts describe "eternal" things like cosmology, morality and ritual,

it is still possible to identify when they were written. Older texts show

thicker "strata" of words & grammatical structures from "parent" languages;

whilst "newer" texts show change markers like words for new things, new

grammar, and perhaps influence of the languages of incoming conquerors. (And

many other change markers.)

 

This method is used to date scriptures of all the great religions. For example

Hebrew Bible, interpreted in received tradition as an ageless single book, is

linguistically understood to be a patchwork quilt of many scrolls, composed by

tribal authors over at least a millennium, which was finally "sewn together" as

late as 400 CE. (A major portion, Torah, was complete by 500 BCE.) Similarly,

the canonical NT gospels, known in received tradition as eyewitness reports,

were actually written from 50 CE until 100 CE in three different languages

(Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

 

One item used in dating the Rg Veda is that 1200 BCE is the (approx) earliest

evidence of iron in India. There are references to earlier metals in RV but

not to iron. Combine this observation with dozens of other "dating clues"

referring to agricultural methods, domesticated animals, types of plows etc.,

and scholars start to form a picture of the "time zone". Note there is a ref

to iron in Atharva Veda, which - along with dozens of others clues - points to

AV being a later text.

 

Linguistic analysis requires a lot of sleuthing, using all available clues to

place a text historically while remaining honest and open-minded about the

possibility of new data. There is certainly new thinking going on all the time,

but overall the last few decades of intensive Indological research, coordinating

textual and archeological analysis, have yielded pretty consistent findings.

 

Linguistically inclined Jyotishi (like me) might be interested to read this link

re: RV dating, given by eminent Indologist Michael Witzel, head of the dept of

Sanskrit & Indian Studies at Harvard University.

 

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

 

 

Hope this viewpoint is useful for framing a discussion about texts held in

received traditions, or being "10,000 years old".

 

With best wishes,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

 

 

-

Steven Stuckey

valist

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:44 PM

Re: More on Ketu.....

Christopher Kevill wrote:

Dear Steve,

 

Thanks for bringing this fascinating historical question to our attention. It's

not an area I think about often but given the unanswered questions you raise

here, perhaps it's time I should.

 

If it's true that Ketu was a later post-6th century C.E. add-on to the whole

system, then one is forced to think of the Vimshottari system and indeed all of

Jyotish in a somewhat different light. Rather than a complete system in place,

it seems to have been arrived at more gradually, as perhaps Hellenistic or

Western astrology was. And if that's true, then the idea of it being

"received" knowledge seems more unlikely. How did the great astrologers of

Parashara's time then go about the task of plugging Ketu into their

pre-existing system? Hi Chris,The great Parashara Muni was supposed to have

lived a long time ago--thousands of years. He is the father of Vyasadeva, also

known as Veda-Vyas who is accepted as the author of all the Vedas, Puranas,

Mahabharata etc. Some date the oldest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, as going back

10,000 years or more, to others there is no such thing as time constraints on

the great Vedas, as they are considered an eternal embodiment of the divine.In

light of the above, and some historians dating the Brihat Parashara Hora very

late in time (Professor David Pinagree dates it to the 7th century CE), one can

become very confused when trying to sort things out.Since I am not a sanskrit

scholar, and don't live in India, I'll probably never get an answer--and there

may be no answer anyway. My guess is that even amongst scholars on he subject

there will be many conflicting opinions. It seems we should be able to at least

date the text in some way, since we are not just dealing with an abstract

concept. One might assume there is a long history of oral tradition behind the

Parashara Hora, but at some point it was set down in writing.But I would be

interested in others opinions on this who are more knowledgeable.Best,Steve

[Guest guest]

What a ridiculous notion that the concept of rebirth was not there at the time

Rig-veda or the Brahmanas.

 

Why you people draw your conclusion reading books on a subject which is written

by people having no idea about it.

Any way this site is not a place for discussion on Vedas.

If you want a partial glimpse of what the Vedas are I refer to a site

http://www.mountainman.com.au/rghmf__a.htm which contains not much but just one

hymn of this scared text.- the hymn to the mystic fire.

 

But that would give u an idea at least .

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:09 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Hi Barbara,

 

Thanks for your synopsis and nice to see you on this list. It's very helpful

and more or less confirms what I have found in my reading.

 

The dating of texts is a fascinating topic and as we can see by the discussion

here, not without some amount of contention. Certainly, all parties involved

have different perspectives and interests when it comes to this question.

 

One interesting element for me concerns the sense of the historical development

of Hinduism, and by extension as per our previous discussion, the development

of Jyotish to incorporate new features such as Ketu. As we know from studying

all religions, beliefs and practices have evolved and changed over time. I

have read, for example, that the doctrine of reincarnation did not exist yet at

the time of the writing of the Rg Veda. Man is born and dies only once and then

goes to a heaven-like afterlife. In the Brahmanas (dated by academics as

written between 1000 - 500 BCE), we are introduced to the notion of a second

death. I would welcome comments on this topic by those who may know more on

the subject. Recommendations for further reading would also be welcome.

 

best wishes,

Chris

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 AM

dating of Rg Veda

Namaste,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.

 

For those not familiar with "linguistic dating" of texts, it's a process of

determining the age of texts by noting important linguistic change markers.

Even when texts describe "eternal" things like cosmology, morality and ritual,

it is still possible to identify when they were written. Older texts show

thicker "strata" of words & grammatical structures from "parent" languages;

whilst "newer" texts show change markers like words for new things, new

grammar, and perhaps influence of the languages of incoming conquerors. (And

many other change markers.)

 

This method is used to date scriptures of all the great religions. For example

Hebrew Bible, interpreted in received tradition as an ageless single book, is

linguistically understood to be a patchwork quilt of many scrolls, composed by

tribal authors over at least a millennium, which was finally "sewn together" as

late as 400 CE. (A major portion, Torah, was complete by 500 BCE.) Similarly,

the canonical NT gospels, known in received tradition as eyewitness reports,

were actually written from 50 CE until 100 CE in three different languages

(Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

 

One item used in dating the Rg Veda is that 1200 BCE is the (approx) earliest

evidence of iron in India. There are references to earlier metals in RV but

not to iron. Combine this observation with dozens of other "dating clues"

referring to agricultural methods, domesticated animals, types of plows etc.,

and scholars start to form a picture of the "time zone". Note there is a ref

to iron in Atharva Veda, which - along with dozens of others clues - points to

AV being a later text.

 

Linguistic analysis requires a lot of sleuthing, using all available clues to

place a text historically while remaining honest and open-minded about the

possibility of new data. There is certainly new thinking going on all the time,

but overall the last few decades of intensive Indological research, coordinating

textual and archeological analysis, have yielded pretty consistent findings.

 

Linguistically inclined Jyotishi (like me) might be interested to read this link

re: RV dating, given by eminent Indologist Michael Witzel, head of the dept of

Sanskrit & Indian Studies at Harvard University.

 

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

 

 

Hope this viewpoint is useful for framing a discussion about texts held in

received traditions, or being "10,000 years old".

 

With best wishes,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

 

 

-

Steven Stuckey

valist

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:44 PM

Re: More on Ketu.....

Christopher Kevill wrote:

Dear Steve,

 

Thanks for bringing this fascinating historical question to our attention. It's

not an area I think about often but given the unanswered questions you raise

here, perhaps it's time I should.

 

If it's true that Ketu was a later post-6th century C.E. add-on to the whole

system, then one is forced to think of the Vimshottari system and indeed all of

Jyotish in a somewhat different light. Rather than a complete system in place,

it seems to have been arrived at more gradually, as perhaps Hellenistic or

Western astrology was. And if that's true, then the idea of it being

"received" knowledge seems more unlikely. How did the great astrologers of

Parashara's time then go about the task of plugging Ketu into their

pre-existing system? Hi Chris,The great Parashara Muni was supposed to have

lived a long time ago--thousands of years. He is the father of Vyasadeva, also

known as Veda-Vyas who is accepted as the author of all the Vedas, Puranas,

Mahabharata etc. Some date the oldest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, as going back

10,000 years or more, to others there is no such thing as time constraints on

the great Vedas, as they are considered an eternal embodiment of the divine.In

light of the above, and some historians dating the Brihat Parashara Hora very

late in time (Professor David Pinagree dates it to the 7th century CE), one can

become very confused when trying to sort things out.Since I am not a sanskrit

scholar, and don't live in India, I'll probably never get an answer--and there

may be no answer anyway. My guess is that even amongst scholars on he subject

there will be many conflicting opinions. It seems we should be able to at least

date the text in some way, since we are not just dealing with an abstract

concept. One might assume there is a long history of oral tradition behind the

Parashara Hora, but at some point it was set down in writing.But I would be

interested in others opinions on this who are more knowledgeable.Best,Steve

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Many thanks for that interesting link. Unfortunately, I could find any evidence

for the presence of reincarnation in the Rg Veda there.

 

I believe that the notion that reincarnation was only was introduced later in

the Brahmanas is standard opinion among academics, and I daresay mostly western

ones. Obviously, this source is problematic for you and for most devout Hindus.

Please understand I intend no disrespect to you or your beliefs in making this

assertion. I'm only attempting to share some information with other interested

parties on this list. If I have offended you, please accept my most sincere

apologies.

 

To avoid confusion, perhaps I should have worded my original post this way:

"most western academics have found no textual proof for the belief in

reincarnation at the time of the Rg Vedas."

 

In a larger sense, I think these sorts of debates may become more common within

the Western Jyotish community as time goes on. In the early years after Hindu

astrology was introduced to the West in the 70s and 80s, most of its adherents

had direct contact with Hinduism so that they themselves were either converts

to Hinduism, or at least very sympathetic to it. As this cohort ages however,

we may wonder what their legacy will be. Younger astrologers (such as myself

although I'm not really young at all) from the West are now discovering the

brilliance of Jyotish. But they are doing so without the influence of the

wider religious context enjoyed by the seekers from the 1960s who travelled to

India in search for fresh answers to their spiritual questions. Separated from

this embeddedness in Hindu spiritual practices, Jyotish will be studied by

astrologers who will take a more secular, academic view of its postulates and

textual resources. While this may annoy or frustrate some followers, it seems

the inevitable result of globalization and our increasingly interdependent

world.

 

all the best to you,

Chris

 

 

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:47 AM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

What a ridiculous notion that the concept of rebirth was not there at the time

Rig-veda or the Brahmanas.

 

Why you people draw your conclusion reading books on a subject which is written

by people having no idea about it.

Any way this site is not a place for discussion on Vedas.

If you want a partial glimpse of what the Vedas are I refer to a site

http://www.mountainman.com.au/rghmf__a.htm which contains not much but just one

hymn of this scared text.- the hymn to the mystic fire.

 

But that would give u an idea at least .

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:09 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Hi Barbara,

 

Thanks for your synopsis and nice to see you on this list. It's very helpful

and more or less confirms what I have found in my reading.

 

The dating of texts is a fascinating topic and as we can see by the discussion

here, not without some amount of contention. Certainly, all parties involved

have different perspectives and interests when it comes to this question.

 

One interesting element for me concerns the sense of the historical development

of Hinduism, and by extension as per our previous discussion, the development

of Jyotish to incorporate new features such as Ketu. As we know from studying

all religions, beliefs and practices have evolved and changed over time. I

have read, for example, that the doctrine of reincarnation did not exist yet at

the time of the writing of the Rg Veda. Man is born and dies only once and then

goes to a heaven-like afterlife. In the Brahmanas (dated by academics as

written between 1000 - 500 BCE), we are introduced to the notion of a second

death. I would welcome comments on this topic by those who may know more on

the subject. Recommendations for further reading would also be welcome.

 

best wishes,

Chris

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 AM

dating of Rg Veda

Namaste,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.

 

For those not familiar with "linguistic dating" of texts, it's a process of

determining the age of texts by noting important linguistic change markers.

Even when texts describe "eternal" things like cosmology, morality and ritual,

it is still possible to identify when they were written. Older texts show

thicker "strata" of words & grammatical structures from "parent" languages;

whilst "newer" texts show change markers like words for new things, new

grammar, and perhaps influence of the languages of incoming conquerors. (And

many other change markers.)

 

This method is used to date scriptures of all the great religions. For example

Hebrew Bible, interpreted in received tradition as an ageless single book, is

linguistically understood to be a patchwork quilt of many scrolls, composed by

tribal authors over at least a millennium, which was finally "sewn together" as

late as 400 CE. (A major portion, Torah, was complete by 500 BCE.) Similarly,

the canonical NT gospels, known in received tradition as eyewitness reports,

were actually written from 50 CE until 100 CE in three different languages

(Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

 

One item used in dating the Rg Veda is that 1200 BCE is the (approx) earliest

evidence of iron in India. There are references to earlier metals in RV but

not to iron. Combine this observation with dozens of other "dating clues"

referring to agricultural methods, domesticated animals, types of plows etc.,

and scholars start to form a picture of the "time zone". Note there is a ref

to iron in Atharva Veda, which - along with dozens of others clues - points to

AV being a later text.

 

Linguistic analysis requires a lot of sleuthing, using all available clues to

place a text historically while remaining honest and open-minded about the

possibility of new data. There is certainly new thinking going on all the time,

but overall the last few decades of intensive Indological research, coordinating

textual and archeological analysis, have yielded pretty consistent findings.

 

Linguistically inclined Jyotishi (like me) might be interested to read this link

re: RV dating, given by eminent Indologist Michael Witzel, head of the dept of

Sanskrit & Indian Studies at Harvard University.

 

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

 

 

Hope this viewpoint is useful for framing a discussion about texts held in

received traditions, or being "10,000 years old".

 

With best wishes,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

 

 

-

Steven Stuckey

valist

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:44 PM

Re: More on Ketu.....

Christopher Kevill wrote:

Dear Steve,

 

Thanks for bringing this fascinating historical question to our attention. It's

not an area I think about often but given the unanswered questions you raise

here, perhaps it's time I should.

 

If it's true that Ketu was a later post-6th century C.E. add-on to the whole

system, then one is forced to think of the Vimshottari system and indeed all of

Jyotish in a somewhat different light. Rather than a complete system in place,

it seems to have been arrived at more gradually, as perhaps Hellenistic or

Western astrology was. And if that's true, then the idea of it being

"received" knowledge seems more unlikely. How did the great astrologers of

Parashara's time then go about the task of plugging Ketu into their

pre-existing system? Hi Chris,The great Parashara Muni was supposed to have

lived a long time ago--thousands of years. He is the father of Vyasadeva, also

known as Veda-Vyas who is accepted as the author of all the Vedas, Puranas,

Mahabharata etc. Some date the oldest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, as going back

10,000 years or more, to others there is no such thing as time constraints on

the great Vedas, as they are considered an eternal embodiment of the divine.In

light of the above, and some historians dating the Brihat Parashara Hora very

late in time (Professor David Pinagree dates it to the 7th century CE), one can

become very confused when trying to sort things out.Since I am not a sanskrit

scholar, and don't live in India, I'll probably never get an answer--and there

may be no answer anyway. My guess is that even amongst scholars on he subject

there will be many conflicting opinions. It seems we should be able to at least

date the text in some way, since we are not just dealing with an abstract

concept. One might assume there is a long history of oral tradition behind the

Parashara Hora, but at some point it was set down in writing.But I would be

interested in others opinions on this who are more knowledgeable.Best,Steve

[Guest guest]

May I contribute my 2 cents worth.

 

Our present-day scientific knowledge is based on what is learnt through the

medium of our five senses. There is, however, another medium: intuitive

perception. This is direct perception of the truth. Spiritual Masters who

have reached the nirvikalpa samadhi stage have such direct intuitive perception

of the truth. One such Master was Gnanavatar Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri.

Attached please find extracts from a small booklet he had written called The

Holy Science. He explains that mankind goes through a cylic pattern of ups and

downs, each cycle lasting 24,000 years. In the presnt cycle, we are now close

to the bottom, but in the rising half. If that is the case, then 13,500 years

ago, we would have been at the top of the cycle where ALL knowledge (not just

scientific) would have been FAR FAR ahead of what exists today. That would

explain the miracle and wonder of the Egyptian pyramids. This is one just

concrete (pardon the expression) example. The ancient vedas is another.

Sanskrit is yet another. The Mayan civilization another. There are many many

others if one really looks around. And this is just the present cycle, there

have been many before that.

 

But today's scientific community doesn't accept the very existence of such a

yuga cycle. But then scientific communities have always suffered from such

short-sightedness. It wasn't too long ago that the scientific community of

that time strongly believed that the earth was flat and that we were the centre

of the universe. This belief, mind you, was not held by the common layman, but

by the leading scientific minds of that time. Anyone who dared to think

otherwise was burnt at the stake for practicing witchcraft.

 

With this background, what western academics now opine, needs to be taken with a

pinch of salt.

 

With regards.

 

Vaidun Vidyadhar

Tamworth, NSW

Australia

Email: vvidya (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au

valist [valist] On Behalf Of

Christopher KevillSunday, 14 August 2005 06:30To:

valistSubject: Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Many thanks for that interesting link. Unfortunately, I could find any evidence

for the presence of reincarnation in the Rg Veda there.

 

I believe that the notion that reincarnation was only was introduced later in

the Brahmanas is standard opinion among academics, and I daresay mostly western

ones. Obviously, this source is problematic for you and for most devout Hindus.

Please understand I intend no disrespect to you or your beliefs in making this

assertion. I'm only attempting to share some information with other interested

parties on this list. If I have offended you, please accept my most sincere

apologies.

 

To avoid confusion, perhaps I should have worded my original post this way:

"most western academics have found no textual proof for the belief in

reincarnation at the time of the Rg Vedas."

 

In a larger sense, I think these sorts of debates may become more common within

the Western Jyotish community as time goes on. In the early years after Hindu

astrology was introduced to the West in the 70s and 80s, most of its adherents

had direct contact with Hinduism so that they themselves were either converts

to Hinduism, or at least very sympathetic to it. As this cohort ages however,

we may wonder what their legacy will be. Younger astrologers (such as myself

although I'm not really young at all) from the West are now discovering the

brilliance of Jyotish. But they are doing so without the influence of the

wider religious context enjoyed by the seekers from the 1960s who travelled to

India in search for fresh answers to their spiritual questions. Separated from

this embeddedness in Hindu spiritual practices, Jyotish will be studied by

astrologers who will take a more secular, academic view of its postulates and

textual resources. While this may annoy or frustrate some followers, it seems

the inevitable result of globalization and our increasingly interdependent

world.

 

all the best to you,

Chris

 

 

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:47 AM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

What a ridiculous notion that the concept of rebirth was not there at the time

Rig-veda or the Brahmanas.

 

Why you people draw your conclusion reading books on a subject which is written

by people having no idea about it.

Any way this site is not a place for discussion on Vedas.

If you want a partial glimpse of what the Vedas are I refer to a site

http://www.mountainman.com.au/rghmf__a.htm which contains not much but just one

hymn of this scared text.- the hymn to the mystic fire.

 

But that would give u an idea at least .

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:09 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Hi Barbara,

 

Thanks for your synopsis and nice to see you on this list. It's very helpful

and more or less confirms what I have found in my reading.

 

The dating of texts is a fascinating topic and as we can see by the discussion

here, not without some amount of contention. Certainly, all parties involved

have different perspectives and interests when it comes to this question.

 

One interesting element for me concerns the sense of the historical development

of Hinduism, and by extension as per our previous discussion, the development

of Jyotish to incorporate new features such as Ketu. As we know from studying

all religions, beliefs and practices have evolved and changed over time. I

have read, for example, that the doctrine of reincarnation did not exist yet at

the time of the writing of the Rg Veda. Man is born and dies only once and then

goes to a heaven-like afterlife. In the Brahmanas (dated by academics as

written between 1000 - 500 BCE), we are introduced to the notion of a second

death. I would welcome comments on this topic by those who may know more on

the subject. Recommendations for further reading would also be welcome.

 

best wishes,

Chris

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 AM

dating of Rg Veda

Namaste,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.

 

For those not familiar with "linguistic dating" of texts, it's a process of

determining the age of texts by noting important linguistic change markers.

Even when texts describe "eternal" things like cosmology, morality and ritual,

it is still possible to identify when they were written. Older texts show

thicker "strata" of words & grammatical structures from "parent" languages;

whilst "newer" texts show change markers like words for new things, new

grammar, and perhaps influence of the languages of incoming conquerors. (And

many other change markers.)

 

This method is used to date scriptures of all the great religions. For example

Hebrew Bible, interpreted in received tradition as an ageless single book, is

linguistically understood to be a patchwork quilt of many scrolls, composed by

tribal authors over at least a millennium, which was finally "sewn together" as

late as 400 CE. (A major portion, Torah, was complete by 500 BCE.) Similarly,

the canonical NT gospels, known in received tradition as eyewitness reports,

were actually written from 50 CE until 100 CE in three different languages

(Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

 

One item used in dating the Rg Veda is that 1200 BCE is the (approx) earliest

evidence of iron in India. There are references to earlier metals in RV but

not to iron. Combine this observation with dozens of other "dating clues"

referring to agricultural methods, domesticated animals, types of plows etc.,

and scholars start to form a picture of the "time zone". Note there is a ref

to iron in Atharva Veda, which - along with dozens of others clues - points to

AV being a later text.

 

Linguistic analysis requires a lot of sleuthing, using all available clues to

place a text historically while remaining honest and open-minded about the

possibility of new data. There is certainly new thinking going on all the time,

but overall the last few decades of intensive Indological research, coordinating

textual and archeological analysis, have yielded pretty consistent findings.

 

Linguistically inclined Jyotishi (like me) might be interested to read this link

re: RV dating, given by eminent Indologist Michael Witzel, head of the dept of

Sanskrit & Indian Studies at Harvard University.

 

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

 

 

Hope this viewpoint is useful for framing a discussion about texts held in

received traditions, or being "10,000 years old".

 

With best wishes,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

 

 

-

Steven Stuckey

valist

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:44 PM

Re: More on Ketu.....

Christopher Kevill wrote:

Dear Steve,

 

Thanks for bringing this fascinating historical question to our attention. It's

not an area I think about often but given the unanswered questions you raise

here, perhaps it's time I should.

 

If it's true that Ketu was a later post-6th century C.E. add-on to the whole

system, then one is forced to think of the Vimshottari system and indeed all of

Jyotish in a somewhat different light. Rather than a complete system in place,

it seems to have been arrived at more gradually, as perhaps Hellenistic or

Western astrology was. And if that's true, then the idea of it being

"received" knowledge seems more unlikely. How did the great astrologers of

Parashara's time then go about the task of plugging Ketu into their

pre-existing system? Hi Chris,The great Parashara Muni was supposed to have

lived a long time ago--thousands of years. He is the father of Vyasadeva, also

known as Veda-Vyas who is accepted as the author of all the Vedas, Puranas,

Mahabharata etc. Some date the oldest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, as going back

10,000 years or more, to others there is no such thing as time constraints on

the great Vedas, as they are considered an eternal embodiment of the divine.In

light of the above, and some historians dating the Brihat Parashara Hora very

late in time (Professor David Pinagree dates it to the 7th century CE), one can

become very confused when trying to sort things out.Since I am not a sanskrit

scholar, and don't live in India, I'll probably never get an answer--and there

may be no answer anyway. My guess is that even amongst scholars on he subject

there will be many conflicting opinions. It seems we should be able to at least

date the text in some way, since we are not just dealing with an abstract

concept. One might assume there is a long history of oral tradition behind the

Parashara Hora, but at some point it was set down in writing.But I would be

interested in others opinions on this who are more knowledgeable.Best,Steve

Attachment: (application/msword) The Holy Science.doc [not stored]

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Chris,

Thank you for your kind letter addressed to me personally.

Please understand that the tradition in which we are brought is very catholic

and bear no disrespect for any one who ever it may be. Nor I am frustrated or

angered. Nor we discriminate between East or West when it comes to the search

for Truth. Nor we distinguish between religions and also we understand the

basic properties of limited mind and intellect. So if I have hurt you any way

by my previous letter I am really sorry.. For in every being resides He the

all pervading Atman. And I have all the respect for you and every one in this

group and all beings in this world. Let me be very clear that I just called the

‘ idea ‘ ridiculous. But not the person. And also I never said that the links I

gave gives evidence of reincarnation. I only said that it gives a glimpse of the

Vedas – only of a hymn. And wanted only to impress on the fact that what is

usually understood by Vedas by ordinary intelligentsia or intellectuals of

Vedas is never its true meaning. And basing on that no conclusion could be

drawn

 

However even though, I know you not personally, I do believe that you’re a

seeker of Truth. Whether you r from east or west matters little. In west there

are people who are more Indian than most Indians and in India there are people

who are more extroverted and after passion than most westerners. But I would

object to only one thing in your letter .” converts to Hinduism” . Let me be

very clear that there is no concept of conversion in Hinduism. The term Hindu

was a latter term for people who usually reside in the eastern side of River

Sindhu which was misspelled as Indus. The way of life the Aryas of India are

supposed to follow is embodied in one term DHARMA. Dharma – is derived from the

root ‘ DHRI’ meaning “to uphold’ . so the Laws that sustains ,uphold , and

nurtures the all-round, harmonious life and growth of individual with those of

environment is DHRMA in short. The originators of this ancient system ( I call

it system as I have no alternate word for it) have called it : SANATANA DHARMA

meaning Dharma that is eternal. And if you study the scriptures deeply with a

open mind you would find that there is no form of conversion or any thing

equivalent to that is there in Hinduism which some westerners have divided in

to former and latter Hinduism falsely.

 

So you would find that no form of conversion ( to some the other religion as is

understood today) ever existed or exixts in our way of life. There is no

method by which one can be ‘ converted’. One is free to accept any one as his

Ista or Ideal provided he is a God-realized person. And the formless God can

only be revealed to man through the formation of Man even though that Person is

something distinct and different from the ordinary human. HE is a human being

yet he is beyond that – all-fulfilling ness and nurturing of individual

distinctiveness being twin-hall marks of his genuineness.’ Christian idea of

‘Son of God’ may be similar to it. But even though he is the son ;he and his

Father are ONE. No distinction.

 

And this Dharma of that is natural to the people of India is such that every one

is allowed a free opinion and no one is suppressed even if his idea may be

radical to the extreme. Therefore CARVAK – a non believer in God and a

non-believer in reincarnation like the present day Marx or Lenin was also

considered with respect even though there doctrine was never accepted by most.

 

Now you have used a term “ SECULAR”, this world is increasingly used now a days

in INDIA also. I am not scholar is English language, so if I am incorrect

please correct me..

The meaning of the word as I find in dictionary as ‘not having any connection

with religion: ‘

IN our system we call it Dharma, but the real translation of Dharma is not

religion. There are many Sanskrit words whose correct translation is just

impossible. But even if we take the word religion what is its true meaning? the

world religion has originated from the Latin ‘religio’ ‘meaning reverence or

obligation. It is also considered to originate from the word ‘re-ligare’

meaning to tie or bind again ( I am not very proficient in these languages , so

I speak with all humility).

 

The correct meaning is then it is a way or sentiment in which one becomes

ligated to his superior-beloved or prophet or Guru – who gives him a clue or

shows him the path to ascend to Supreme for he has done so and knows the

pit-falls lies and what is the practical problems lies in treading this

difficult path of Dharma.

 

Even if you want to be jyotishi- a real one , you have to follow him- some one

who is a master of the subject and he must have learned it from some master and

in this way you go to the Maharshishis who are the originators of the system and

whether you admit or not can never become independent or dissociate from their

influence who are deeply immersed in spirituality. (derived from Latin

spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’)

 

So if it is so, if Dharma is that which uphold existence and religion is

following with respect some one superior to us nothing in human life can be

separated from this. Therefore in ancient India all things that are propitious

to Life and growth came under the word Dharma.

 

Now I do not want to give u a sermon.. since I thought you are some what hurt in

my previous sayings I tried to explain my position.

 

Also I may add that the samhita portion of the Vedas is not a research book on

reincarnation. The aim and meaning of these sacred mantras are different and we

can evaluate them in that context only. To conclude that since nothing is spoken

of reincarnation ( even if we assume that )in them so the idea is a latter one

is therefore erroneous.

However the evidences contained there in I would make you know . since I do not

remember the exact verses now.

 

But I conclude my letter and what I want to convey by an incident that happened

befoe my revered Gurudev: my spiritual guide who is also a great master of

JYOTISH

 

Once one of the westerners came to him and said:

 

O revered one I want to be converted to Hinuism.

My master asked : why

 

‘Christianity has no light , it is all vague and useless .. I have been a

Christian from my birth I have found no peace.’

 

‘’If Christianity is useless and vague for you so would be Hinduism.

If you have no peace there you would have no peace here either.” Said my master

 

 

The man remained silent for a moment and said ; “But is the concept of Christ correct?”

 

To this my master remained silent for a moment , his face become grave and stern,

 

Christ is no concept he is verily a fact..

 

How do u know he existed ? what is the evidence?

 

Asked the man with all seriousness for he had said earlier that recent evidence

doubts the existence of Christ.

 

I exist or not ? asked the Master.

 

YES.. definitely so … answered the man.

How do u know ? what is the evidence?

What.. I see you .. I see you clearly.. he fumbled

 

You exist or not ? asked the master

 

Obviously yes….

 

What is the evidence?

 

I feel it clearly… I realize it.. I verily realize it.

 

“So also dear I see and feel and realize him whom you call Christ .. that is

verily the evidence.” Said my Master just as a father tells his son full of

affection.

 

***

 

Just like that if reincarnation is a fact and it remains a fact with or

without so called historical evidence and if it is not so , it is not so

despite all evidences in its favor, Just like any other thing in nature. And

time and again it has been confirmed by seers and men of realization ( that it

is fact). also some cases exists where the man or woman was able to narrate his

past existence with uncanny detail. ( I have met such a woman myself)

 

But as far as clues in Vedas and Brahmans are considered I would try to send you

the exact verses that indicate or clues towards that. ( as I only remember these

verses incompletely now and don t want to distort it )

 

Please take this letter in a very friendly way.

If you say that I am a devout Hindu ( I know I am not) , the least thing that I

would want is to hurt somebody in words , deeds and speech.

 

But frankly speaking I wonder how can one believe in Jyotish without believing

in reincarnation and the theory of Karma , for that forms the basis of the

science called JYOTISHA just as ‘similar cures similar’ is basis of homeopathy

system of medicine .

 

And yes if you find any verse in Vedas or Brahmanas that speak against reincarnation do send me.

 

And hope you would accept me as a friend despite all our differences

(if any , as I believe that as you advance in jyotisha gradually all your doubts would dissolve)

 

With regards

 

Gurudatta Dash

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Sunday, August 14, 2005 1:59 AM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Many thanks for that interesting link. Unfortunately, I could find any evidence

for the presence of reincarnation in the Rg Veda there.

 

I believe that the notion that reincarnation was only was introduced later in

the Brahmanas is standard opinion among academics, and I daresay mostly western

ones. Obviously, this source is problematic for you and for most devout Hindus.

Please understand I intend no disrespect to you or your beliefs in making this

assertion. I'm only attempting to share some information with other interested

parties on this list. If I have offended you, please accept my most sincere

apologies.

 

To avoid confusion, perhaps I should have worded my original post this way:

"most western academics have found no textual proof for the belief in

reincarnation at the time of the Rg Vedas."

 

In a larger sense, I think these sorts of debates may become more common within

the Western Jyotish community as time goes on. In the early years after Hindu

astrology was introduced to the West in the 70s and 80s, most of its adherents

had direct contact with Hinduism so that they themselves were either converts

to Hinduism, or at least very sympathetic to it. As this cohort ages however,

we may wonder what their legacy will be. Younger astrologers (such as myself

although I'm not really young at all) from the West are now discovering the

brilliance of Jyotish. But they are doing so without the influence of the

wider religious context enjoyed by the seekers from the 1960s who travelled to

India in search for fresh answers to their spiritual questions. Separated from

this embeddedness in Hindu spiritual practices, Jyotish will be studied by

astrologers who will take a more secular, academic view of its postulates and

textual resources. While this may annoy or frustrate some followers, it seems

the inevitable result of globalization and our increasingly interdependent

world.

 

all the best to you,

Chris

 

 

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:47 AM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

What a ridiculous notion that the concept of rebirth was not there at the time

Rig-veda or the Brahmanas.

 

Why you people draw your conclusion reading books on a subject which is written

by people having no idea about it.

Any way this site is not a place for discussion on Vedas.

If you want a partial glimpse of what the Vedas are I refer to a site

http://www.mountainman.com.au/rghmf__a.htm which contains not much but just one

hymn of this scared text.- the hymn to the mystic fire.

 

But that would give u an idea at least .

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:09 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Hi Barbara,

 

Thanks for your synopsis and nice to see you on this list. It's very helpful

and more or less confirms what I have found in my reading.

 

The dating of texts is a fascinating topic and as we can see by the discussion

here, not without some amount of contention. Certainly, all parties involved

have different perspectives and interests when it comes to this question.

 

One interesting element for me concerns the sense of the historical development

of Hinduism, and by extension as per our previous discussion, the development

of Jyotish to incorporate new features such as Ketu. As we know from studying

all religions, beliefs and practices have evolved and changed over time. I

have read, for example, that the doctrine of reincarnation did not exist yet at

the time of the writing of the Rg Veda. Man is born and dies only once and then

goes to a heaven-like afterlife. In the Brahmanas (dated by academics as

written between 1000 - 500 BCE), we are introduced to the notion of a second

death. I would welcome comments on this topic by those who may know more on

the subject. Recommendations for further reading would also be welcome.

 

best wishes,

Chris

-

Barbara Pijan Lama

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:27 AM

dating of Rg Veda

Namaste,

 

Regarding the dating of the Rg Veda, the "bookend" dates of 1900 BCE (terminus

post quem) and 1200 BCE (terminus ante quem) have been fairly well established

using modern linguistic and archeological analysis of textual and archeological

data.

 

For those not familiar with "linguistic dating" of texts, it's a process of

determining the age of texts by noting important linguistic change markers.

Even when texts describe "eternal" things like cosmology, morality and ritual,

it is still possible to identify when they were written. Older texts show

thicker "strata" of words & grammatical structures from "parent" languages;

whilst "newer" texts show change markers like words for new things, new

grammar, and perhaps influence of the languages of incoming conquerors. (And

many other change markers.)

 

This method is used to date scriptures of all the great religions. For example

Hebrew Bible, interpreted in received tradition as an ageless single book, is

linguistically understood to be a patchwork quilt of many scrolls, composed by

tribal authors over at least a millennium, which was finally "sewn together" as

late as 400 CE. (A major portion, Torah, was complete by 500 BCE.) Similarly,

the canonical NT gospels, known in received tradition as eyewitness reports,

were actually written from 50 CE until 100 CE in three different languages

(Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic).

 

One item used in dating the Rg Veda is that 1200 BCE is the (approx) earliest

evidence of iron in India. There are references to earlier metals in RV but

not to iron. Combine this observation with dozens of other "dating clues"

referring to agricultural methods, domesticated animals, types of plows etc.,

and scholars start to form a picture of the "time zone". Note there is a ref

to iron in Atharva Veda, which - along with dozens of others clues - points to

AV being a later text.

 

Linguistic analysis requires a lot of sleuthing, using all available clues to

place a text historically while remaining honest and open-minded about the

possibility of new data. There is certainly new thinking going on all the time,

but overall the last few decades of intensive Indological research, coordinating

textual and archeological analysis, have yielded pretty consistent findings.

 

Linguistically inclined Jyotishi (like me) might be interested to read this link

re: RV dating, given by eminent Indologist Michael Witzel, head of the dept of

Sanskrit & Indian Studies at Harvard University.

 

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/wa?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

 

 

Hope this viewpoint is useful for framing a discussion about texts held in

received traditions, or being "10,000 years old".

 

With best wishes,

 

Barbara Pijan Lama

bpijanlamajyotisha (AT) msn (DOT) com

 

 

-

Steven Stuckey

valist

Friday, August 12, 2005 1:44 PM

Re: More on Ketu.....

Christopher Kevill wrote:

Dear Steve,

 

Thanks for bringing this fascinating historical question to our attention. It's

not an area I think about often but given the unanswered questions you raise

here, perhaps it's time I should.

 

If it's true that Ketu was a later post-6th century C.E. add-on to the whole

system, then one is forced to think of the Vimshottari system and indeed all of

Jyotish in a somewhat different light. Rather than a complete system in place,

it seems to have been arrived at more gradually, as perhaps Hellenistic or

Western astrology was. And if that's true, then the idea of it being

"received" knowledge seems more unlikely. How did the great astrologers of

Parashara's time then go about the task of plugging Ketu into their

pre-existing system? Hi Chris,The great Parashara Muni was supposed to have

lived a long time ago--thousands of years. He is the father of Vyasadeva, also

known as Veda-Vyas who is accepted as the author of all the Vedas, Puranas,

Mahabharata etc. Some date the oldest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, as going back

10,000 years or more, to others there is no such thing as time constraints on

the great Vedas, as they are considered an eternal embodiment of the divine.In

light of the above, and some historians dating the Brihat Parashara Hora very

late in time (Professor David Pinagree dates it to the 7th century CE), one can

become very confused when trying to sort things out.Since I am not a sanskrit

scholar, and don't live in India, I'll probably never get an answer--and there

may be no answer anyway. My guess is that even amongst scholars on he subject

there will be many conflicting opinions. It seems we should be able to at least

date the text in some way, since we are not just dealing with an abstract

concept. One might assume there is a long history of oral tradition behind the

Parashara Hora, but at some point it was set down in writing.But I would be

interested in others opinions on this who are more knowledgeable.Best,Steve

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Please see comments below.

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:04 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Sri Chris,

Thank you for your kind letter addressed to me personally.

Please understand that the tradition in which we are brought is very catholic

and bear no disrespect for any one who ever it may be. Nor I am frustrated or

angered. Nor we discriminate between East or West when it comes to the search

for Truth. Nor we distinguish between religions and also we understand the

basic properties of limited mind and intellect. So if I have hurt you any way

by my previous letter I am really sorry.. For in every being resides He the

all pervading Atman. And I have all the respect for you and every one in this

group and all beings in this world. Let me be very clear that I just called the

‘ idea ‘ ridiculous. But not the person. And also I never said that

the links I gave gives evidence of reincarnation. I only said that it gives a

glimpse of the Vedas – only of a hymn. And wanted only to impress on the

fact that what is usually understood by Vedas by ordinary intelligentsia or

intellectuals of Vedas is never its true meaning. And basing on that no

conclusion could be drawn

 

Fine. The trouble is then how to assess competing truth claims in the absence

of documented evidence? This seems to be the crux of the dispute here -- the

written record versus the asserted oral tradition. Without any written mention

of reincarnation (or Ketu, etc) in these early texts, we are left wondering why

there is an omission. There may be a good explanation for it, but it is

something that becomes noteworthy and demands explanation. Merely asserting

the pre-existence of a particular phenomenon in the oral tradition isn't

sufficient proof in my books. You and others may of course freely differ. All

knowledge is perspectival.

 

 

 

Even if you want to be jyotishi- a real one , you have to follow him- some one

who is a master of the subject and he must have learned it from some master and

in this way you go to the Maharshishis who are the originators of the system and

whether you admit or not can never become independent or dissociate from their

influence who are deeply immersed in spirituality. (derived from Latin

spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’)

 

So if it is so, if Dharma is that which uphold existence and religion is

following with respect some one superior to us nothing in human life can be

separated from this. Therefore in ancient India all things that are propitious

to Life and growth came under the word Dharma.

 

Now I do not want to give u a sermon.. since I thought you are some what hurt in

my previous sayings I tried to explain my position.

 

No, not at all. In fact, I was fearful that my views may have inflicted

unintentional harm upon you. Good to know we are both mindful of the feelings

of the other.

 

 

 

But as far as clues in Vedas and Brahmans are considered I would try to send you

the exact verses that indicate or clues towards that. ( as I only remember these

verses incompletely now and don t want to distort it )

 

Please take this letter in a very friendly way.

If you say that I am a devout Hindu ( I know I am not) , the least thing that I

would want is to hurt somebody in words , deeds and speech.

 

But frankly speaking I wonder how can one believe in Jyotish without believing

in reincarnation and the theory of Karma , for that forms the basis of the

science called JYOTISHA just as ‘similar cures similar’ is basis of

homeopathy system of medicine .

 

And yes if you find any verse in Vedas or Brahmanas that speak against reincarnation do send me.

 

Well, here again we move toward the central problem in this debate: standards of

evidence. I believe the omission of mention of a thing is significant and ought

to compel us to investigate further. As I understand it, there is no mention of

reincarnation in the Rg Veda. Moreover, there is an alternate conception of

life and death presented there. Humans are born and die only once and if all

goes well, upon death, he can join his ancestors in heaven. (sorry I don't

have a page reference for you yet, but will find it shortly). The elaboration

of this alternate view of life and death is seemingly at odds with present day

notions of reincarnation.

 

My focus here is not so much reincarnation, but rather I'm taking it as an

analogue for any number of practices and components of the Hinduism and Jyotish

that may have undergone historical development.

 

best wishes,

Chris

 

 

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date:

7/2/04

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Thank you very much for your appreciation of the various points I made about the

dating of the Rg Veda. I am familiar with the quotation from the Mundaka

Upanishad you cited, and I have Aurobindo's Secret of the Veda, but I was not

familiar with that quotation. When I have time I will re-read it.

 

Regarding the latest posting from Christopher Kevill, where he cites the article

by Arvind Sharma from McGill University. This type of argument.seems very

persuasive on the face of it, but if you look more carefully its flaws soon

become clear. Firstly if you have a look at the list of works cited you will

find it in the main populated by a several proponents of the increasingly

discredited western academic subject of indology. Secondly if you carefully

consider the opening paragraph - the one part of a work where it is normally

impossible to hide its real intention - you will see that it is a totally

'academic' excercise in what I spoke of before; i.e. the practice is of

establishing a limited framework of reference and then drawing conclusions and

applying them in an area where the framework of reference does not apply.

 

To call Karma and rebirth doctrines is necessary in order to place them in the

world of mere ideas about them. Sharma can then say that they 'dovetail so

neatly that they are often treated as one philosopical package' therby

establishing his own thesis that the two are better looked at as separate

ideas. Then he calls them concepts and talks about the 'issues they were

developed to address'. So Karma and rebirth have become, within the small

space of his opening paragraph, by this intellectualisation, suddenly reduced

to a pair of 'issues' or ideas that at some time in the past somebody thought

of. Now it is possible to fit these two into the general theories of evolution

and to propose times when they happened to begin by finding the point in the

past at which 'evidence' for their existence disappears. This is the general

procedure.

 

But Karma just means action. This theoretical approach disguises what is being

spoken of and just prevents a proper understanding. Rebirth (as a concept)

relies on the idea of death being a real final event, not just a change. But

actual knowledge of these matters comes from right now, not from some imaginary

past time when some primitive ancestor thought them into existence.

 

I believe it is time for the West to grow up and discard this childish academic

playing with notions about everything.

 

Regards

 

Gordon Brennan

[Guest guest]

dear sri kevil

 

have you read the Vedas your self in its original form ?

 

i would request you to study 3 great works , secret of the vedas, Message of

Gita, and problems of Rebirth (of sri aurobindo ), of modern time the present

time beofore you give any comment on any thing pertaining to Hindu calture or

tradition. and if you can study foundation of indian culture then it is better.

at least i expect this before a reasonable man like you to go deep in to some

thing before giving any comment.

 

i could contradict what you have said in your comments with arguments , but that

surely would not remove the misconceptions that could only be done by your own

mind.

 

please be kind enough at least go though these books.

 

 

the following verse is from the IST MANDALA OF HYMNS TO MYSTIS FIRE: FROM THE VERSES OF DIRGHATAMAS:

 

 

 

 

 

.. Thou givest us, O Agni, for chariot and for home a ship travelling with

eternal progress of motion that shall carry our strong spirits and our spirits

of fullness across the births and cross the peace.

 

HERE THE RISHI INVOKES THE AGNI TO ENABLE HIM TO CROSS OVER BIRTHS,. HOWEVER the

meaning of the verses is not as simple as seem. there are also verses where it

is said 'manifestation after manifestation ' . also 'birth after birth' .

But as i have said earlier the pupose of the vedas is different and and to

understand Vedas it is needed that one should study the six Vedangas.

i hope you would try that at least in an open mind and with a desire to know the truth...

Gurudatta Dash

 

 

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Monday, August 15, 2005 9:35 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Please see comments below.

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:04 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Sri Chris,

Thank you for your kind letter addressed to me personally.

Please understand that the tradition in which we are brought is very catholic

and bear no disrespect for any one who ever it may be. Nor I am frustrated or

angered. Nor we discriminate between East or West when it comes to the search

for Truth. Nor we distinguish between religions and also we understand the

basic properties of limited mind and intellect. So if I have hurt you any way

by my previous letter I am really sorry.. For in every being resides He the

all pervading Atman. And I have all the respect for you and every one in this

group and all beings in this world. Let me be very clear that I just called the

‘ idea ‘ ridiculous. But not the person. And also I never said that the links I

gave gives evidence of reincarnation. I only said that it gives a glimpse of the

Vedas – only of a hymn. And wanted only to impress on the fact that what is

usually understood by Vedas by ordinary intelligentsia or intellectuals of

Vedas is never its true meaning. And basing on that no conclusion could be

drawn

 

Fine. The trouble is then how to assess competing truth claims in the absence

of documented evidence? This seems to be the crux of the dispute here -- the

written record versus the asserted oral tradition. Without any written mention

of reincarnation (or Ketu, etc) in these early texts, we are left wondering why

there is an omission. There may be a good explanation for it, but it is

something that becomes noteworthy and demands explanation. Merely asserting

the pre-existence of a particular phenomenon in the oral tradition isn't

sufficient proof in my books. You and others may of course freely differ. All

knowledge is perspectival.

 

 

 

Even if you want to be jyotishi- a real one , you have to follow him- some one

who is a master of the subject and he must have learned it from some master and

in this way you go to the Maharshishis who are the originators of the system and

whether you admit or not can never become independent or dissociate from their

influence who are deeply immersed in spirituality. (derived from Latin

spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’)

 

So if it is so, if Dharma is that which uphold existence and religion is

following with respect some one superior to us nothing in human life can be

separated from this. Therefore in ancient India all things that are propitious

to Life and growth came under the word Dharma.

 

Now I do not want to give u a sermon.. since I thought you are some what hurt in

my previous sayings I tried to explain my position.

 

No, not at all. In fact, I was fearful that my views may have inflicted

unintentional harm upon you. Good to know we are both mindful of the feelings

of the other.

 

 

 

But as far as clues in Vedas and Brahmans are considered I would try to send you

the exact verses that indicate or clues towards that. ( as I only remember these

verses incompletely now and don t want to distort it )

 

Please take this letter in a very friendly way.

If you say that I am a devout Hindu ( I know I am not) , the least thing that I

would want is to hurt somebody in words , deeds and speech.

 

But frankly speaking I wonder how can one believe in Jyotish without believing

in reincarnation and the theory of Karma , for that forms the basis of the

science called JYOTISHA just as ‘similar cures similar’ is basis of homeopathy

system of medicine

 

And yes if you find any verse in Vedas or Brahmanas that speak against reincarnation do send me.

 

Well, here again we move toward the central problem in this debate: standards of

evidence. I believe the omission of mention of a thing is significant and ought

to compel us to investigate further. As I understand it, there is no mention of

reincarnation in the Rg Veda. Moreover, there is an alternate conception of

life and death presented there. Humans are born and die only once and if all

goes well, upon death, he can join his ancestors in heaven. (sorry I don't

have a page reference for you yet, but will find it shortly). The elaboration

of this alternate view of life and death is seemingly at odds with present day

notions of reincarnation.

 

My focus here is not so much reincarnation, but rather I'm taking it as an

analogue for any number of practices and components of the Hinduism and Jyotish

that may have undergone historical development.

 

best wishes,

Chris

 

 

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date:

7/2/04

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Benon

Thanks for you kind comments. I FEEL GOOD THAT you have atleast tried to

search for the real meanings not confining the mind in the limited state, i

really appreciate your erudite observations on so called intellectal assesment

of the ancient texts. The main problem , in addition to what you have said. i

think has come from the fact that now our understanding of the ancient texts

come from English transaltions rather than a direct study of the matter which

has distorted their meaning more often than not. in this context let me quote

from the writtings of PROF B Surynaaraayana Rao, the grand father and Guru of

BV RAMAN, a great scholar person well-versed in Sanskrit and astrology who had

uncanny power of prediction an authority on the subject and other Aryaan

Sciences. This is from his introduction to his translation of Sarwartha

Chintamany to English.

 

 

even though he refers to the difficultis of JYOTISHA ,all his observations can

be applied to all the sanskrit lit. as well.

 

 

"….the flexibility of Sanskrit has been a great stumbling block in way of

rightly understanding the technical words, and the extensiveness of the

Tanatras and Mantras , Sastras and Puranas , Medicine and Astrology, Rituals

and Morals, Vedas and Vedangas add considerable difficulties in the same line

and makes any comprehensive intellect to reel back from the difficult task

which lies before him..

 

….. a few words may be quoted here to illustrate what I mean. Take the word

SOUMYA in Sanskrit. That which is born of Soma is Soumya . Soma is Chandra

(moon) and so Soumya means Budha ( mercury) who is said to be the son of

Chandra . but Soumya also means Subhagaraha or benefics as opposed to

PapaGrahas or malefic. A third interpretation for Soumya is good or mild as

opposed to Krura or wild or cruel. ****** in some cases the names of the

planets are indicative of results which they are supposed to give, and they are

very aptly used in Sanskrit language which can never be translated into English

or any other foreign language.

 

The word SAATWIK, refers to two states , one physical and one the other mental .

a man who posses great physical energy is called a Saatwika, one who has much

strength ( SATWA); Or a person who posses Satwaguna or pious disposition; (

in reference to) the three principal qualities are Satwa, Rajas, Tama/ as they

are described in Aryan Philosophical work. In the expression SATWA KUJAH. It

may be possible to offer both interpretation and both seem plausible enough in

connection with certain passages. Kuja ( Mars )represents according to some

others SATWAGUNA and also commands exuberance of physical energy. Budha means

one who gives Buddhi or intellect and as he controls wisdom , as he represents

the planet who gives GNYANANDRIYA ( consciousness of self) to the otherwise

unconscious fetus in the 7th month of its existence in mother’s womb. GURU

means, preceptor, and the big planet Jupiter. Sukra means seminal fluid,

whiteness and planet Venus. SANI means blackness, slowness as well as planet

Saturn… Rahu is called THAMA and it means shadow of the junction of the two

forces emanating from Sun and Earth.******

 

 

**Translation means the interpretation put upon the author by the translator and

not the original forcible expression of the author, which may be interpreted

altogether a different way, by a clever student if he were allowed the

original text for himself.

 

Very few realize their position as translators, and know the mischievous

consequences which flow to the world from the incapacity and carelessness.*****

 

 

He further writes:

 

“There is yet another difficulty which stares me in the face and which can not be sighted..

Astrology is necessarily a science intended for the guidance of the man both in

his temporal and spiritual affaires. Conception of temporal and spiritual ideas

are essentially different in language of English and Sanskrit., they have

sprung up quietly distinctly in two countries of England and India under

different religious , moral, social, political and physical conditions. India

labours rightly or wrongly under the belief that she has almost forgotten her

ancient civilization, and that her present children are mere pigmies when

compared to the intellectual giants who tenanted happy regions formerly , while

England labours under the idea that she has reached the acme of civilization and

that her present sons are so many intellectual giants compared to the barbarous

mental pigmies who tenanted her wild regions in former times..

 

The Arayaan civilization is essentially spiritual while the English is mostly

temporal or material. Here then lies the grand difference in thought and action

between two languages we have to deal with , and I have to draw my special

attention of my readers to this singular but more or less important fact.

 

English is a progressive language and has great ambition to assimilate useful

ideas which may be found in foreign languages. But in Sanskrit the pretentions

are of highest kind and languages strictly forbids intrusion of any kind from

the foreign languages which are considered her progeny , taking sap from her

for their existence , but lending never in return anything worthy of her ****

******

 

Another difficulty is equally unsolvable . it is the technical nature of the

science of the astrology I have undertaken to reproduce in English . English

astrology seems to have been entirely borrowed from Greek and Arabian

astronomers and these in their turn appear to have borrowed from the land of

the Vedas where all knowledge flourished before the dawn of western history. In

this double transport and travel , English astrology appears to have lost a good

deal of its previous force and usefulness possessed in original Sanskrit ****

National and religious differences , therefore had great deal to do with which

astrology as a science underwent at the hands of the foreign scholars*****the

noble and most complicated of all sciences had to be presented to the rude

nations of Europe in form comprehensible to their to stinted intellectual

attainments .**** The priests who monopolized all the learning of the lands

were men of very ordinary intellects and they were not in a position to

understand properly the complicated formulas of the Astrological science.****

the Karma theory so difficult to understand , was the stepping stone to

astrological information and the remedial portions , so abundantly found in

Hindu astrological work were completely left out for want of proper

presentation****************************

 

Even unto this day the same difficulties stare the Western faces , in spite of

the wonderful progress they have made in their arts of civilization. Whenever

any reference is made to MANI, MANTRA, OUSADHA they at once reject the whole

science as false savoring too much of suppositious and clashing with the

declared principles of Modern Science .

Nobody knows what science means now a days , but everyone talks of modern

science as if it is the easiest thing to know in this world. The medical man

talks of his noble science as much as cobbler of his science of shoe-making;

lawyer swears by the perfection of his legal science while chemist proclaims in

the top of his voice in regard to the infallible nature of his science . The

astronomer is of course a declared scientist , while the gastronomer is

equally certain of the rules of his noble science. Photography is a science as

much as orthography ******

 

Predictive portions of astrology is even more difficult for any one to understand.***

 

Astrological interpretations in a foreign language esp. in English . are no easy

work to undertake esp for a man who has clearly the defects of English language

before him and who is at the same time conscious of the extensive nature of the

Sanskrit Idioms*** "

 

 

 

wr

 

Gurudatta Dash

-

GWBrennan (AT) aol (DOT) com

valist

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:13 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Dr. Dash,

 

Thank you very much for your appreciation of the various points I made about the

dating of the Rg Veda. I am familiar with the quotation from the Mundaka

Upanishad you cited, and I have Aurobindo's Secret of the Veda, but I was not

familiar with that quotation. When I have time I will re-read it.

 

Regarding the latest posting from Christopher Kevill, where he cites the article

by Arvind Sharma from McGill University. This type of argument.seems very

persuasive on the face of it, but if you look more carefully its flaws soon

become clear. Firstly if you have a look at the list of works cited you will

find it in the main populated by a several proponents of the increasingly

discredited western academic subject of indology. Secondly if you carefully

consider the opening paragraph - the one part of a work where it is normally

impossible to hide its real intention - you will see that it is a totally

'academic' excercise in what I spoke of before; i.e. the practice is of

establishing a limited framework of reference and then drawing conclusions and

applying them in an area where the framework of reference does not apply.

 

To call Karma and rebirth doctrines is necessary in order to place them in the

world of mere ideas about them. Sharma can then say that they 'dovetail so

neatly that they are often treated as one philosopical package' therby

establishing his own thesis that the two are better looked at as separate

ideas. Then he calls them concepts and talks about the 'issues they were

developed to address'. So Karma and rebirth have become, within the small

space of his opening paragraph, by this intellectualisation, suddenly reduced

to a pair of 'issues' or ideas that at some time in the past somebody thought

of. Now it is possible to fit these two into the general theories of evolution

and to propose times when they happened to begin by finding the point in the

past at which 'evidence' for their existence disappears. This is the general

procedure.

 

But Karma just means action. This theoretical approach disguises what is being

spoken of and just prevents a proper understanding. Rebirth (as a concept)

relies on the idea of death being a real final event, not just a change. But

actual knowledge of these matters comes from right now, not from some imaginary

past time when some primitive ancestor thought them into existence.

 

I believe it is time for the West to grow up and discard this childish academic

playing with notions about everything.

 

Regards

 

Gordon Brennan

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Dash,

 

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:57 AM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

dear sri kevil

 

have you read the Vedas your self in its original form ?

 

i would request you to study 3 great works , secret of the vedas, Message of

Gita, and problems of Rebirth (of sri aurobindo ), of modern time the present

time beofore you give any comment on any thing pertaining to Hindu calture or

tradition. and if you can study foundation of indian culture then it is better.

at least i expect this before a reasonable man like you to go deep in to some

thing before giving any comment.

 

No, I certainly haven't read the Vedas in either Sanskrit or in translation.

Parashara et al gives me all I can handle, thank you! As I've said previously,

my aim here is not to begin some lengthy discussion of rebirth in the Hindu

tradition. It doesn't matter to me at all if the doctrine of rebirth goes back

10,000 years or was dreamed up yesterday by some despairing person who was

fearful of death. Given the scarcity of scholarly literature on Jyotish, I was

merely using it as an example of the kind of debate that is commonplace amongst

experts in the field. I'm more interested in the possibility of development

and change within Jyotish. My personal views are irrelevant and that is why I

have cited other authorities who would have read and understood the texts far

better than I ever could.

 

Perhaps our round table here again reminds us of the question of representation:

does one have to be a Hindu to engage in a fruitful discussion about Hinduism

and, by extension, Jyotish? All parties have their own agendas and interests

in the debate and misunderstandings are all too common. That's the nature of

the modern world I'm afraid.

 

best,

Chris

 

 

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date:

7/2/04

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri CHRIS,

 

You do not have to be A HINDU at all I repeat AT ALL ( as per your conception). So fear not.

But SURELY YOU HAVE TO BE SEEKER OF TRUTH TO a real seeker, to understand the

meaning of Jyotish. And one has seat at the feet of a Master of (Jyotish)to be

a Master your- self.

 

AND I surely doubt whether the Vedic Seers, Parashara, or Sri RAMA OR Sri

KRISHNA WERE HINDU THEMSELVES or not. For none of the scripture or they

themselves have ever described or claim themselves as Hindu.

 

Of course they were all seekers of TRUTH. and advice others to search for it

and realize the Divine.

 

And i hope to realize or love Christ also one do not have to become a Christian

( as is now understood) either.

i had mate a yogi who has realized the God through JESUS , the Christ. There are

many disciples of my Spiritual Master who have never “converted” to Hinduism ( I

do not know any one who has ever converted to Hinduism, so called) and have

maintained that they are a better Christian in the sense that there

understanding of Bible and there respect, appreciation and Love for the Great

Master ( Jesus, the Christ) has increased manifold. And coming with contact

with them many of our friend s narrow view about Christ has also undergone a

radical change.

 

 

Any way thank you for you discussion and your interest in Yotisha, the divine science.

Hope one day we would see you a successful Yotishi.

 

And yes, here is VERSE FROM THE 10TH MANDAL OF RIK-VEDA that decribes Rebirth.

 

 

DEVASYA PASHYA KAAVYAM MAHITVAA ADYAA MAMAAR HYAH SAMAAN|

-----------(55/5, Rigveda)

One who dies today takes rebirth because of the blessings of Lord Indra.Life,

death and rebirth are inevitable. This is, infact the law of nature controlled

by God. Everything that takes birth has to die one day. What we consider as

death is in fact the end of the phisical body and not of the soul which is

unborn. One should therefore, not fear death because life, death and rebirth

are natural laws of nature.

( the above explantion is not mine , it is that of transaltor s ... I personally

don t dare to interprete Vedas for the qualification they require i would never

have for thousand births. and to search the concept of Rebith IN THE SAMHTA of

VEDAS is like searching multiplication table in a book of Quantum mechanics.)

 

but as i have told earlier the flexibility of Sanskrit Langauge that too Vedic

Sanskrit is capable of diff. meanings at the same time.

it does not matter if one does not believe in REBIRTH.

 

But what matters is whether we are limited within our mind frame or go beyond

it. or reject altogether something which our limited mind structure fail to see

or understand.

 

 

 

 

With Love and respect

 

Gurudatta Dash

 

 

-

Christopher Kevill

valist

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:30 PM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

Dear Dr Dash,

 

-

Dr. Gurudatta Dash

valist

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:57 AM

Re: dating of Rg Veda

dear sri kevil

 

have you read the Vedas your self in its original form ?

 

i would request you to study 3 great works , secret of the vedas, Message of

Gita, and problems of Rebirth (of sri aurobindo ), of modern time the present

time beofore you give any comment on any thing pertaining to Hindu calture or

tradition. and if you can study foundation of indian culture then it is better.

at least i expect this before a reasonable man like you to go deep in to some

thing before giving any comment.

 

No, I certainly haven't read the Vedas in either Sanskrit or in translation.

Parashara et al gives me all I can handle, thank you! As I've said previously,

my aim here is not to begin some lengthy discussion of rebirth in the Hindu

tradition. It doesn't matter to me at all if the doctrine of rebirth goes back

10,000 years or was dreamed up yesterday by some despairing person who was

fearful of death. Given the scarcity of scholarly literature on Jyotish, I was

merely using it as an example of the kind of debate that is commonplace amongst

experts in the field. I'm more interested in the possibility of development

and change within Jyotish. My personal views are irrelevant and that is why I

have cited other authorities who would have read and understood the texts far

better than I ever could.

 

Perhaps our round table here again reminds us of the question of representation:

does one have to be a Hindu to engage in a fruitful discussion about Hinduism

and, by extension, Jyotish? All parties have their own agendas and interests

in the debate and misunderstandings are all too common. That's the nature of

the modern world I'm afraid.

 

best,

Chris

 

 

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date:

7/2/04