Criteria for accepting or rejecting authority

July 4, 2001

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA!

Dear Arno,

This is regarding your other question about what my criteria are for

taking someone as authoritative. To answer that let us look at the

history of Jyotish. I am making it as brief as possible to save time.

Yet if you look at it in an unbiased way, like an outsider, you might

see my point. I am also touching upon some other related issues.

Vedic period --- 8000 BC ? (Many scholars say that astrology wasn't

yet predictive and was only astronomy). A work called Vedanga

Jyotisha is ascribed to the vedic period

Epic period --- 4000 BC. Many references to calculations and

predictive astrology are found in the epics.

The above periods could vary from scholar to scholar. My point is not

here.

The sages belonged to this period. The knowledge handed down by the

sages is considered as REVEALED, DIVINE AND HENCE AUTHENTIC. Once

Kali yuga started, imperfections are said to have crept in. We don't

exactly know the level of knowledge before 6th century BC. But it is

well known that Asita, the court astrologer of King Suddhodhana

predicted that the new born prince might become a renunciant. The

prince did become the Buddha. At least we know that predictive

astrology was practised during 6th century BC itself in India. But

the Buddha being a gnani, insisted on Purushardha, that personal

effort and discipline played a major role in spiritual development.

Since his focus was on Nirvana, like most gnanis, he condemned

astrology (it is interesting that Swami Vivekananda condemned

astrology while his own Guru Sri Ramakrishna was open to astrology;

here again lies the difference between how a bhakta and gnani see

things ). The Buddha felt that astrology made people weak. With the

rise of Buddhism, interest in astrology too went down. By the time of

king Ashoka (3rd centuryBC), astrology was out of favour and was

ignored.

However after 2nd centuryBC there was a revival of interest in

astrology as is evident from some excavations at Sanchi. By 1st

century BC, Ujjain had become the Greenwich of India of those days.

Ideas were exchanged, discussions held and astrology was gaining

strength. Of course astrology grew in the West too under the

influence of Hipparchus (150 BC ) to Ptolemy (140 AD). There was a

surge in predictive astrology the world around by now. Around 1st BC

thanks to the Saka and Suhana rulers, astrology RE-ENTERED India.

Greek astrology had its influences on India. (Scholars who argue that

predictive astrology came to India from elsewhere focus on this RE-

ENTRY conveniently forgetting the earlier references to predictive

astrology as in the case of Asita. I am not suggesting that astrology

originated in India. It could even be possible that it originated

simultaneously in various parts of the world in some ancient

civilisations. Most Indian astrologers believe that Indian astrology

is Original esp because of the nakshatras and tithies which are

unique, though external influences are undeniable. At the moment this

controversy is not really relevant or required). By around 400AD the

Siddhantic calender based on the Pancha Siddhantas was gaining

prominence. Then comes Aryabhatta (AD 476-523). Hereafter begins the

period when many classics came to be written.

Some say that the Parasara who wrote BPHS belonged to 5th cen AD and

that he was not the same as Parasara the father of Vyasa. We will

leave that aside for the time being. Varahamihira , the most famous

of all, is said to be a student of this second Parasara. Varahamihira

systematized all astrological and astronomical knowledge available

then in the form of books. Then others followed suit. Kalyana Varma

(6th cenAD), , Vaidyanatha (16th century AD) and Mantreshwara (16th

cent AD) are some important names. Kalyana Varma crystallises very

comprehensively Varahamihira's works as well as those of others like

Yavana etc. Vaidyanatha models his wonderful work "Jataka Parijata"

after Varahamihira and Kalyana Varma. His work is widely acclaimed

and is also among the prescribed texts for any serious student. I

will stop here and not enter the 20th century which saw BV Raman,

Seshadri Iyer, Meena, Krishnamurthy, KN Rao,……and many others.

Ofcourse, I have not covered many illustrious authors like that of

Prasna Marga etc.

Now the point is the words of sages like Parasara and Satyacharya are

considered very authoritative. Varahamihira onwards is more of the

human work. Of course they derived their ideas from the teachings of

the sages. We are aware that Varahamihira, Mantreshwara, Neelakantha

etc have been influenced also by foreign astrologers to some extent

(It is probably good that they were). While they are all brilliant,

couldn't we be open to the fact that they could also make some

mistakes. For instance Krishnamurthy is considered a brilliant

astrologer even by his adversaries. As far as his method is

concerned, he is fantastic. But would you consider him infallible?

Would you consider his remarks on ashtakavarga etc, seriously? He is

brilliant in his system. But he is wrong when he says that certain

techniques of traditional astrology don't work. I am not suggesting

any comparision between Vaidyanatha and Krishnamurthi. But what I am

suggesting is that if we can doubt some words of a 20th century

scholar, how can we blindly think that a 15th or 16th century

scholar, or for that matter, any other scholar is infallible? I am

not questioning tradition here. All I am saying is that tradition

shouldn't become binding. The rich base which these great minds gave

us should be valued, but not taken blindly. Aren't there enough

contradictions? How do we deal with these? Faith and perseverance

will surely help, but will not further the cause of the subject. If

the Arabic parts could influence Jyotish sahams, if Tajika could be

accepted, why can't we take a serious look at other things like the

Western aspects? Could they be integrated into Jyotish without

changing the foundations? I am not suggesting that we should take all

the thousands of asteroids and every other thing hanging out there in

space. But we could do well by seeing other things, the actual

techniques.

The other issue here is we all agree that the available data is

incomplete. So is it really worth repeating verses like parrots? Do

they work as they are? Or do we need any research or modifications?

For some reasons, certain places have been altered, new verses

inserted, and so on. So what do we do? Lapse into inaction and

despair? No. We should be cautious when we take certain verses

literally. A case in point is Moola nakshatra etc. As I already

stated, social evils are perpetrated with the help of such verses.

Shouldn't we investigate first into the truth behind such dictums?

Though some puraanas are quite good, some cannot be taken too

seriously. Infact some great thinkers of India have rejected the

Puranas as not being authentic. Certain puranas write that Lord

Vishnu came as Buddha to mislead people from the truth. This is a

clever attack at Buddhism. But since they could not deny the personal

appeal of the Buddha, they had to embrace him as Vishnu! Intolerance

shown in some puranas to the Jains, or Buddhists, or even rival sects

within Hinduism is not a product of any sagely person. There is a lot

that is questionable. So most literature should be taken as a

starting point, but not blindly in an unquestioning manner. Do

western astrologers take Ptolemy or Hipparchus or anyone else as an

infallible authority as we do so with a Mantreshwara or Vaidyanatha?

Though they are all brilliant, can't we be open to change and a

healthy research mind? Our own scholars have taken good ideas from

other countries. But we refuse to even look at anything new, in the

name of convention or tradition. Where do we draw the line? I am

nobody to say anything definitely. I can only say what I myself do.

Take the words of the sages reverentially, but keep in mind that the

available data is incomplete and altered. Treat the scholars' (human)

works as the foundation, but have a healthy questioning attitude. Try

new things to see if they really work. Be open to good ideas wherever

they come from. Tradition has its role. Undeniably we are very lucky

to have such a rich base handed down to us. But we cannot stop there.

When in doubt over a scholar's opinion, a saints words are taken as

more authoritative. In all matters of philosophy the teachings of the

saints may be considered from time to time. One can only pray and

hope for guidance. Truth is a pathless land. No country or religion

or path can claim it exclusively. There is a lot more that I could

have written, but cannot due to lack of time. But I hope that I have

conveyed atleast the main idea. I know that most die-hard

traditionalists will not agree with me. But I have to be truthful to

myself. I have to represent my thoughts faithfully. I may be

considered arrogant for questioning the tradition. No I do not feel

that I am right or anything. I only request others to ponder over

such possibilities. Let me also clarify that I am not dismissing

anyone as wrong at all. I respect and am grateful to all the

classical writers. I worship the sages who revealed the divine

knowledge. My salutations to all the astrologers.

Regards,

Satya.

July 4, 2001

Extremely well put!

Gary Gomes

Gangadhara Girish

Swami Kampananda

-

<satyaketu

Wednesday, July 04, 2001 6:23 AM

[vedic astrology] Criteria for accepting or rejecting authority

> AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA!

>

> Dear Arno,

>

> This is regarding your other question about what my criteria are for

> taking someone as authoritative. To answer that let us look at the

> history of Jyotish. I am making it as brief as possible to save time.

> Yet if you look at it in an unbiased way, like an outsider, you might

> see my point. I am also touching upon some other related issues.

>

> Vedic period --- 8000 BC ? (Many scholars say that astrology wasn't

> yet predictive and was only astronomy). A work called Vedanga

> Jyotisha is ascribed to the vedic period

> Epic period --- 4000 BC. Many references to calculations and

> predictive astrology are found in the epics.

> The above periods could vary from scholar to scholar. My point is not

> here.

>

> The sages belonged to this period. The knowledge handed down by the

> sages is considered as REVEALED, DIVINE AND HENCE AUTHENTIC. Once

> Kali yuga started, imperfections are said to have crept in. We don't

> exactly know the level of knowledge before 6th century BC. But it is

> well known that Asita, the court astrologer of King Suddhodhana

> predicted that the new born prince might become a renunciant. The

> prince did become the Buddha. At least we know that predictive

> astrology was practised during 6th century BC itself in India. But

> the Buddha being a gnani, insisted on Purushardha, that personal

> effort and discipline played a major role in spiritual development.

> Since his focus was on Nirvana, like most gnanis, he condemned

> astrology (it is interesting that Swami Vivekananda condemned

> astrology while his own Guru Sri Ramakrishna was open to astrology;

> here again lies the difference between how a bhakta and gnani see

> things ). The Buddha felt that astrology made people weak. With the

> rise of Buddhism, interest in astrology too went down. By the time of

> king Ashoka (3rd centuryBC), astrology was out of favour and was

> ignored.

>

> However after 2nd centuryBC there was a revival of interest in

> astrology as is evident from some excavations at Sanchi. By 1st

> century BC, Ujjain had become the Greenwich of India of those days.

> Ideas were exchanged, discussions held and astrology was gaining

> strength. Of course astrology grew in the West too under the

> influence of Hipparchus (150 BC ) to Ptolemy (140 AD). There was a

> surge in predictive astrology the world around by now. Around 1st BC

> thanks to the Saka and Suhana rulers, astrology RE-ENTERED India.

> Greek astrology had its influences on India. (Scholars who argue that

> predictive astrology came to India from elsewhere focus on this RE-

> ENTRY conveniently forgetting the earlier references to predictive

> astrology as in the case of Asita. I am not suggesting that astrology

> originated in India. It could even be possible that it originated

> simultaneously in various parts of the world in some ancient

> civilisations. Most Indian astrologers believe that Indian astrology

> is Original esp because of the nakshatras and tithies which are

> unique, though external influences are undeniable. At the moment this

> controversy is not really relevant or required). By around 400AD the

> Siddhantic calender based on the Pancha Siddhantas was gaining

> prominence. Then comes Aryabhatta (AD 476-523). Hereafter begins the

> period when many classics came to be written.

>

> Some say that the Parasara who wrote BPHS belonged to 5th cen AD and

> that he was not the same as Parasara the father of Vyasa. We will

> leave that aside for the time being. Varahamihira , the most famous

> of all, is said to be a student of this second Parasara. Varahamihira

> systematized all astrological and astronomical knowledge available

> then in the form of books. Then others followed suit. Kalyana Varma

> (6th cenAD), , Vaidyanatha (16th century AD) and Mantreshwara (16th

> cent AD) are some important names. Kalyana Varma crystallises very

> comprehensively Varahamihira's works as well as those of others like

> Yavana etc. Vaidyanatha models his wonderful work "Jataka Parijata"

> after Varahamihira and Kalyana Varma. His work is widely acclaimed

> and is also among the prescribed texts for any serious student. I

> will stop here and not enter the 20th century which saw BV Raman,

> Seshadri Iyer, Meena, Krishnamurthy, KN Rao,..and many others.

> Ofcourse, I have not covered many illustrious authors like that of

> Prasna Marga etc.

>

> Now the point is the words of sages like Parasara and Satyacharya are

> considered very authoritative. Varahamihira onwards is more of the

> human work. Of course they derived their ideas from the teachings of

> the sages. We are aware that Varahamihira, Mantreshwara, Neelakantha

> etc have been influenced also by foreign astrologers to some extent

> (It is probably good that they were). While they are all brilliant,

> couldn't we be open to the fact that they could also make some

> mistakes. For instance Krishnamurthy is considered a brilliant

> astrologer even by his adversaries. As far as his method is

> concerned, he is fantastic. But would you consider him infallible?

> Would you consider his remarks on ashtakavarga etc, seriously? He is

> brilliant in his system. But he is wrong when he says that certain

> techniques of traditional astrology don't work. I am not suggesting

> any comparision between Vaidyanatha and Krishnamurthi. But what I am

> suggesting is that if we can doubt some words of a 20th century

> scholar, how can we blindly think that a 15th or 16th century

> scholar, or for that matter, any other scholar is infallible? I am

> not questioning tradition here. All I am saying is that tradition

> shouldn't become binding. The rich base which these great minds gave

> us should be valued, but not taken blindly. Aren't there enough

> contradictions? How do we deal with these? Faith and perseverance

> will surely help, but will not further the cause of the subject. If

> the Arabic parts could influence Jyotish sahams, if Tajika could be

> accepted, why can't we take a serious look at other things like the

> Western aspects? Could they be integrated into Jyotish without

> changing the foundations? I am not suggesting that we should take all

> the thousands of asteroids and every other thing hanging out there in

> space. But we could do well by seeing other things, the actual

> techniques.

>

> The other issue here is we all agree that the available data is

> incomplete. So is it really worth repeating verses like parrots? Do

> they work as they are? Or do we need any research or modifications?

> For some reasons, certain places have been altered, new verses

> inserted, and so on. So what do we do? Lapse into inaction and

> despair? No. We should be cautious when we take certain verses

> literally. A case in point is Moola nakshatra etc. As I already

> stated, social evils are perpetrated with the help of such verses.

> Shouldn't we investigate first into the truth behind such dictums?

> Though some puraanas are quite good, some cannot be taken too

> seriously. Infact some great thinkers of India have rejected the

> Puranas as not being authentic. Certain puranas write that Lord

> Vishnu came as Buddha to mislead people from the truth. This is a

> clever attack at Buddhism. But since they could not deny the personal

> appeal of the Buddha, they had to embrace him as Vishnu! Intolerance

> shown in some puranas to the Jains, or Buddhists, or even rival sects

> within Hinduism is not a product of any sagely person. There is a lot

> that is questionable. So most literature should be taken as a

> starting point, but not blindly in an unquestioning manner. Do

> western astrologers take Ptolemy or Hipparchus or anyone else as an

> infallible authority as we do so with a Mantreshwara or Vaidyanatha?

> Though they are all brilliant, can't we be open to change and a

> healthy research mind? Our own scholars have taken good ideas from

> other countries. But we refuse to even look at anything new, in the

> name of convention or tradition. Where do we draw the line? I am

> nobody to say anything definitely. I can only say what I myself do.

> Take the words of the sages reverentially, but keep in mind that the

> available data is incomplete and altered. Treat the scholars' (human)

> works as the foundation, but have a healthy questioning attitude. Try

> new things to see if they really work. Be open to good ideas wherever

> they come from. Tradition has its role. Undeniably we are very lucky

> to have such a rich base handed down to us. But we cannot stop there.

> When in doubt over a scholar's opinion, a saints words are taken as

> more authoritative. In all matters of philosophy the teachings of the

> saints may be considered from time to time. One can only pray and

> hope for guidance. Truth is a pathless land. No country or religion

> or path can claim it exclusively. There is a lot more that I could

> have written, but cannot due to lack of time. But I hope that I have

> conveyed atleast the main idea. I know that most die-hard

> traditionalists will not agree with me. But I have to be truthful to

> myself. I have to represent my thoughts faithfully. I may be

> considered arrogant for questioning the tradition. No I do not feel

> that I am right or anything. I only request others to ponder over

> such possibilities. Let me also clarify that I am not dismissing

> anyone as wrong at all. I respect and am grateful to all the

> classical writers. I worship the sages who revealed the divine

> knowledge. My salutations to all the astrologers.

> Regards,

> Satya.

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

July 4, 2001

Namaste Sri Satya,

> The sages belonged to this period. The knowledge handed down by the

> sages is considered as REVEALED, DIVINE AND HENCE AUTHENTIC. Once

> Kali yuga started, imperfections are said to have crept in.

> Now the point is the words of sages like Parasara and Satyacharya

are

> considered very authoritative. Varahamihira onwards is more of the

> human work. Of course they derived their ideas from the teachings

of

> the sages. We are aware that Varahamihira, Mantreshwara,

Neelakantha

> etc have been influenced also by foreign astrologers to some extent

> (It is probably good that they were). While they are all brilliant,

> couldn't we be open to the fact that they could also make some

> mistakes.

Very well-said. In fact, I want to point out that even words

attributed to Parasara could be fallible. Note the word "attributed"

here.

Most of us assume that the teachings of sages such as Parasara and

Jaimini are infallible as they were "revealed" knowledge. However,

the verses attributed today to Parasara may not really be his.

Texts like Ramayana and Mahabharata were well-preserved in India, but

sensitive knowledge like astrology was kept a secret. In the last

century or so, some dedicated scholars went around to traditional

families, collected the verses they possessed, put them all together

and created the BPHS that is in existence today. In fact, we hear of

new verses discovered every now and then.

Even if the sages were infallible, this process IS. We cannot assume

that every verse we find in BPHS is authentic.

In the case of Jaimini, the current situation is even worse. Jaimini

wrote "Astadhyayi" (literally, the one with 8 chapters) and only 4

are known today! Not only do we have the problem of arranging

aphorisms in the right order for the 4 known chapters and

interpreting them, but we have the problem of finding the other half

of the text!

> Some say that the Parasara who wrote BPHS belonged to 5th cen AD

and

> that he was not the same as Parasara the father of Vyasa. We will

> leave that aside for the time being. Varahamihira , the most famous

> of all, is said to be a student of this second Parasara.

Varahamihira

The language and style of BPHS clearly shows it is ancient and of the

same time of Vyasa. Look at the works of Kalidasa (Uttara Kalamrita),

Varahamihira (Brihat Jataka), Prithuyasas (Hora Sara), Kalyana Verma

(Saravali), Vaidyanatha (Jataka Parijata), Mantreswara (Phala

Deepika) etc. They are all written in complex meters. Though the

simple and flexible meter of anushtup was the de facto standard in

Vyasa's time (almost all of Mahabharata used it), it went out of

fashion in later days. Anushtup is too simple for modern (relatively)

authors. None of the other works I mentioned uses it much. Why, take

me as an example. At the beginning of my book, I have a Sanskrit

verse in praise of Krishna. As authors used to do it in old days, I

wrote it myself. But note that the meter is the rigid "Saardoola

Vikreeditam". When I wanted to write a poem, only complex meters came

to my mind. The same is true for almost all post-500BC Jyotish works

I read.

OTOH, Parasara's BPHS is a voluminous work and the author relied

entirely on anushtup. I don't know of any work in the modern period

(post-500BC) that is so voluminous and uses only anushtup. (It was,

however, quite common in Puranic times or Mahabharat time.)

I have no doubt that Parasara who wrote BPHS belonged to Mahabharat

time. Moreover, he himself talked about "Yudhishthira of this yuga".

Yodhishthira lived at Mahabharat time in Dwapara yoga.

One last comment: The idea that modern historians have about the

evolution of human civilization COULD be totally off. History and

archaelogy are more subjective and arbitrary than subjects like

mathematics and physics. I am writing this because you mentioned the

Vedic and epic periods.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

July 5, 2001

Namasthe.

I concur with Shri Narasimha's reply to this post.

In addition, another note:

The word in the tradition itself is "adhikaara". Even recent

teachers of Vedic shaastras, such as Adi Shankara and

SaayaNa, discuss this term at length: Who has adhikaara, who

doesn't? Who grants to any such a "powerful priviledge"?

And the shaastras are quite clear on this issue: one who

sincerely engages in yogic saadhanaa and really practices

the particular subject is granted "adhikaara" on the subject

in due time by his peers. Mere readers, writers, and

translators have no authority on the subject. I feel that

this social rule, common in any field of human activity,

stems from the declarations of Taittiriya upanishad, chapter

1. Max Muller and his peers were notable for violating this

rule. Hence the current muddle in the English west with

respect to Vaidika shaastras.

Cheers & namasthe,

tik

satyaketu wrote: