Manu smriti/progressions/aspects (for Satya)

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

> You have mentioned the following in your article on Dasamsa.

>

> >Another technique of timing involving the divisional charts is

> >progressions. Progressions are controversial and many Indian

> >astrologers do not approve their use. But some scholars accept it as

> >endorsed by Manu Smriti.

>

> I have also read in your posts long back on some occasions that the

> so called western aspects have been mentioned in Manu smriti.

>

> I would be most interested to see any references regarding the same.

> Have you yourself read it somewhere? Or have you come across

> references in someone's works? What is the basis for this? This point

> is of importance to the comparative histories of western and indian

> schools of astrology, as it can influence opinions regarding the

> origins, relations, exchange etc between ancient western and Indian

> astrologies.

>

> Thanks in advance for any useful information.

 

The editor of AM took liberty with my text and changed the phrase "granted

by" used by me to "endorsed by". Manu smriti does not explicitly endorse

progressions, but only grants a basis for them when it talks about the days

of gods and the days of humans. As explained to me by my guru, this is the

basis of progressions.

 

There was a public discussion of progressions by Pt. Sanjay Rath in the

advanced session of the SJVC-West seminar at Ukiah, USA (that is why I too

went public with it. Otherwise, I would've kept quiet like I kept quiet on

Tithi Pravesha until last May). You may be able to get the CD's in which

progressions are discussed by Pt. Rath, from www..org site.

 

It is my *guess* that most of the basis of western astrology was formed by

some Vedic scholars who moved from India to west in ancient times and took

with them specialization in some branches of Vedic astrology. Progressions

are used in some traditional paramparas (like the one I belong to), but 1

deg per year is not the most famous one.

 

Hope this helps. Sorry, I can't be of much more help!

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

> The editor of AM took liberty with my text and changed the

phrase "granted

> by" used by me to "endorsed by". Manu smriti does not explicitly

endorse

> progressions, but only grants a basis for them when it talks about

the days

> of gods and the days of humans. As explained to me by my guru, this

is the

> basis of progressions.

 

Well in that sense the Tantric works like the Brihad Nila Tantra give

a more clearer basis for secondary progressions, by equating a day

with an year.

 

Generally one may be accused of "reading" too much "into" the texts

here. While the Tantric texts that deal with occult truths *could

perhaps* be used to "derive" such basis, Manu Smriti cannot not be

accepted by standard arguments. Since Manu is largely concerned with

LAW MAKING and refers to other puranic kind of accounts in different

contexts, contextually, I am skeptic towards "reading into the text"

what it does not purport to tell. As for the dasamsa progression,

there may not be any basis for it really in any Indian TEXT. In all

such contexts where the purpose is obviously something else, it is an

accepted practice to adopt the following approach.

 

 

"tatra hi gauni kalpana sabdasya yatra mukhyartho na sambavati"

 

"Where literal meaning does not fit in, then alone the metaphorical

meaning is to be adopted."

 

 

As the Brahma Sutra bhasya tells us, "It is unreasonable to give up

the plain meaning of words used and put new meaning in their place"

 

 

And most important is the fact that contextually the attributed

meaning or derivation has no place at all.

 

What about the so called "western aspects" having their basis in Manu

smriti as you wrote in another context? I am very skeptic if we will

find even this kind of (day of the gods and year of humans) basis for

it as the ASPECTS will be harder to "read into" any text! May I know

the basis (however unacceptable or wildly speculative it may seem)

for the aspects in Manu smriti?

 

Let me clarify my position on the progressions. Jataka as a sastra

remains what it is and there may be nothing wrong with borrowing

certain ideas from foreign schools of thought, where deemed fit, as

long as there is no need to alter the existing paradigm and

framework. I myself use the progressions (both secondary as well as

true tertiary) and a few other concepts that are generally not part

of mainstream jyotish.

 

But claiming a foreign concept as our own is unfair, at least as long

as some reasonable evidence is not produced.

 

 

> It is my *guess* that most of the basis of western astrology was

formed by

> some Vedic scholars who moved from India to west in ancient times

and took

> with them specialization in some branches of Vedic astrology.

 

 

I cannot agree to this because I have studied modern western as well

as Arabic astrologies with the same enthusiasm that I have for

Jyotish. Other ancient schools of astrology like the Greek or

Babylonian have also left many fragments intact atleast to the extent

that one may study their general framework to some extent. Unbiased

studies convince me that the Western schools had their own roots to

say. They are as interesting, vast and grand in their scope as

jyotish and they have many ideas that are independent of jyotish. At

some points of time, jyotish and some western astrology schools have

influenced EACH OTHER. But as far as the origins are concerned,

western DID NOT originate from jyotish, though they both could have

had a common mother. But that mother could not have been Vedic.

 

Progressions

> are used in some traditional paramparas (like the one I belong to),

but 1

> deg per year is not the most famous one.

 

Is there any other traditional parampara that you know of that uses

progressions (since you you say that progressions are used in *SOME

traditional paramparas?

 

Please understand my reasons for the discussion. I would like to

remain unbiased and investigate claims that are contrary to what is

obvious. I have no wish to contradict you or anyone else. But the

TRUTH is of utmost importance, since intellectual honesty is very

important in giving credit to the deserving school of thought. And

any claims contrary to the existing evidence should be supported by

facts or arguments in favour of the claim. I understand that Faith is

important in spiritual life. But in the study of an art and science

(though spiritual at heart) like jyotish, where consistent

methodologies and techniques are used, standard methods of

questioning in such contexts is very healthy in the LONG RUN. And

jyotish is a PRATYAKSHA SASTRA (practical).

 

I hope you will clarify the same with Sanjay ji atleast now since, in

future someone else WILL ask you for a clarification since being a

guru you are a REPRESENTATIVE of your parampara (especially given the

high probability for the claim to be improbable and of course the

topic being very controversial and contrary to known facts)

 

 

Regards,

 

Satya

 

 

> Hope this helps. Sorry, I can't be of much more help!

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

[Guest guest]

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

I have researchend this subject of time equations between earth and higher

planes in my article in the August issue of Jyotish Digest. The article is

called Time and Space in Vedas and Puranas. I think it's on my website also.

If not, then I can send it to those interested.

 

The equations that the Manu Samhita mentions are as follows:

 

1 day on the Moon equals to 1 month on the Earth (i.e. 12 deg a year, which

roes not refect any particular D-chart from the Parasari range)

1 day on the Sun (and svarga loka) equals one year on the earth (1 deg per

year progression, i.e. D=30).

1 day on higher planes is much more time on Earth, so is would refer to the

speed of progression which is much less than 1 deg and refers to possibly

much higher D-charts. Som emore information is found in the Srimad

Bhagavatam which I also included in my article. But I could not establish a

logical sequence of slowdown of the rotation of the Kalacakra from Bhurloka

upto Satyaloka. It is said that on Satyaloka one day conicndes to 2000

Caturyugas on Earth.

 

Another guess by me is that on bila-svarga, i.e. lower planetary systems

like atala, sutala, vitala etc. the spped of rotation of the kalacakra is

higher, i.e. one year there is less than one year on the earth.

 

I think this subject is very interesting and should be researched further.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

gauranga

Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

Phone:+36-309-140-839

 

 

-

<satyaprakasika

<vedic astrology>

Sunday, January 05, 2003 3:37 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Manu smriti/progressions/aspects (for Satya)

 

 

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> > The editor of AM took liberty with my text and changed the

> phrase "granted

> > by" used by me to "endorsed by". Manu smriti does not explicitly

> endorse

> > progressions, but only grants a basis for them when it talks about

> the days

> > of gods and the days of humans. As explained to me by my guru, this

> is the

> > basis of progressions.

>

> Well in that sense the Tantric works like the Brihad Nila Tantra give

> a more clearer basis for secondary progressions, by equating a day

> with an year.

>

> Generally one may be accused of "reading" too much "into" the texts

> here. While the Tantric texts that deal with occult truths *could

> perhaps* be used to "derive" such basis, Manu Smriti cannot not be

> accepted by standard arguments. Since Manu is largely concerned with

> LAW MAKING and refers to other puranic kind of accounts in different

> contexts, contextually, I am skeptic towards "reading into the text"

> what it does not purport to tell. As for the dasamsa progression,

> there may not be any basis for it really in any Indian TEXT. In all

> such contexts where the purpose is obviously something else, it is an

> accepted practice to adopt the following approach.

>

>

> "tatra hi gauni kalpana sabdasya yatra mukhyartho na sambavati"

>

> "Where literal meaning does not fit in, then alone the metaphorical

> meaning is to be adopted."

>

>

> As the Brahma Sutra bhasya tells us, "It is unreasonable to give up

> the plain meaning of words used and put new meaning in their place"

>

>

> And most important is the fact that contextually the attributed

> meaning or derivation has no place at all.

>

> What about the so called "western aspects" having their basis in Manu

> smriti as you wrote in another context? I am very skeptic if we will

> find even this kind of (day of the gods and year of humans) basis for

> it as the ASPECTS will be harder to "read into" any text! May I know

> the basis (however unacceptable or wildly speculative it may seem)

> for the aspects in Manu smriti?

>

> Let me clarify my position on the progressions. Jataka as a sastra

> remains what it is and there may be nothing wrong with borrowing

> certain ideas from foreign schools of thought, where deemed fit, as

> long as there is no need to alter the existing paradigm and

> framework. I myself use the progressions (both secondary as well as

> true tertiary) and a few other concepts that are generally not part

> of mainstream jyotish.

>

> But claiming a foreign concept as our own is unfair, at least as long

> as some reasonable evidence is not produced.

>

>

> > It is my *guess* that most of the basis of western astrology was

> formed by

> > some Vedic scholars who moved from India to west in ancient times

> and took

> > with them specialization in some branches of Vedic astrology.

>

>

> I cannot agree to this because I have studied modern western as well

> as Arabic astrologies with the same enthusiasm that I have for

> Jyotish. Other ancient schools of astrology like the Greek or

> Babylonian have also left many fragments intact atleast to the extent

> that one may study their general framework to some extent. Unbiased

> studies convince me that the Western schools had their own roots to

> say. They are as interesting, vast and grand in their scope as

> jyotish and they have many ideas that are independent of jyotish. At

> some points of time, jyotish and some western astrology schools have

> influenced EACH OTHER. But as far as the origins are concerned,

> western DID NOT originate from jyotish, though they both could have

> had a common mother. But that mother could not have been Vedic.

>

> Progressions

> > are used in some traditional paramparas (like the one I belong to),

> but 1

> > deg per year is not the most famous one.

>

> Is there any other traditional parampara that you know of that uses

> progressions (since you you say that progressions are used in *SOME

> traditional paramparas?

>

> Please understand my reasons for the discussion. I would like to

> remain unbiased and investigate claims that are contrary to what is

> obvious. I have no wish to contradict you or anyone else. But the

> TRUTH is of utmost importance, since intellectual honesty is very

> important in giving credit to the deserving school of thought. And

> any claims contrary to the existing evidence should be supported by

> facts or arguments in favour of the claim. I understand that Faith is

> important in spiritual life. But in the study of an art and science

> (though spiritual at heart) like jyotish, where consistent

> methodologies and techniques are used, standard methods of

> questioning in such contexts is very healthy in the LONG RUN. And

> jyotish is a PRATYAKSHA SASTRA (practical).

>

> I hope you will clarify the same with Sanjay ji atleast now since, in

> future someone else WILL ask you for a clarification since being a

> guru you are a REPRESENTATIVE of your parampara (especially given the

> high probability for the claim to be improbable and of course the

> topic being very controversial and contrary to known facts)

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Satya

>

>

> > Hope this helps. Sorry, I can't be of much more help!

> >

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Satya ji,

 

> As the Brahma Sutra bhasya tells us, "It is unreasonable to give up

> the plain meaning of words used and put new meaning in their place"

> And most important is the fact that contextually the attributed

> meaning or derivation has no place at all.

 

More than 50% of the astrological knowledge will lose its classical

base if we insist on taking literal meanings.

 

> But claiming a foreign concept as our own is unfair, at least as

long

> as some reasonable evidence is not produced.

 

To me, the very fact is that this knowledge came to me through

parampara is a reasonable evidence.

 

More than 70% of astrology that really works is not found in any

books. It has been passed mouth to mouth.

 

> Progressions

> > are used in some traditional paramparas (like the one I belong

to),

> but 1

> > deg per year is not the most famous one.

>

> Is there any other traditional parampara that you know of that uses

> progressions (since you you say that progressions are used in *SOME

> traditional paramparas?

 

Unfortunately, I cannot give any specific details. When the topic of

progressions came up on another Jyotish list a few years back,

somebody (don't recall the name) wrote that he knew of a traditional

astrologer from a village in north India, who used some "Bhrigu

progressions" that were 3 deg per year. I read it and left it at

that. I read later also (somewhere else) about some traditional

astrologers who use 3 deg per year progressions. Still I did not

believe it was really traditional. Later, Sanjay ji taught me

progressions based on various divisions and then everything fell in

place. So my comment that progressions are used in some paramparas is

based on anecdotal evidence (apart from my own parampara that is).

 

> I hope you will clarify the same with Sanjay ji atleast now since,

in

> future someone else WILL ask you for a clarification since being a

> guru you are a REPRESENTATIVE of your parampara (especially given

the

> high probability for the claim to be improbable and of course the

> topic being very controversial and contrary to known facts)

 

I did acknowledge to start with that the topic was controversial and

many astrologers don't accept this.

 

As far as I am concerned, this knowledge came to me from my guru in a

parampara. That is enough for me to accept it. If I ask Sanjay ji for

strict and explicit classical references of the knowledge given by

him, I will have to reject 80% of what he teaches me, including the

wonderful technique of "Tithi Pravesha".

 

> Regards,

>

> Satya

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

Namaste Narasimha ji,

 

 

>Satya: >As the Brahma Sutra bhasya tells us, "It is unreasonable to

>give up the plain meaning of words used and put new meaning in their

>place". And most important is the fact that contextually the

>attributed meaning or derivation has no place at all.

 

>PVNR> More than 50% of the astrological knowledge will lose its

>classical base if we insist on taking literal meanings.

 

The guideline that I stated is applicable to smrtis like Manu Samhita

and other allied NON-ASTROLOGICAL literature. I very well know that

SYMBOLISM is a major method behind astrology which uses the language

of metaphor very often. I am not suggesting that astrological

language should be read literally and the symbolism be discarded. By

all means we should use symbolism where ever required to interpret

**ASTROLOGICAL literature. No doubt about that. My point here is

about *NON-ASTROLOGICAL TEXTS being used to DERIVE **RETROSPECTIVELY

an astrological concept.

 

The eye sees what the mind knows! So once we know that a technique

exists, it is easy to "READ INTO" another text from some other

context (be it Manu Samhita or the Veda or Modern Physics or

even "Alice in Wonderland")what one wants to read.

 

My problem with such RETROSPECTIVE ATTRIBUTION is that in the LONG

RUN, it distorts history. Quite often this has happened to Indian

literature. Eventually there is a danger of being accused of

intellectual dishonesty by a western historian or astrologer one day.

 

But when we say that the Manu Samhita has either endorsed

or "GRANTED" it is misleading since it sounds as if Manu Samhita

grants or endorses the technique of progression (in this context

secondary progression). A lay reader who has not seen the Manu

Samhita, could take it as a direct evidence. Manu Samhita is a NON-

ASTROLOGICAL TEXT and its purpose NON-ASTROLOGICAL.

 

And if one wants to derive, one can derive not just the secondary

progressions, but tertiary (based on Moon's cycle), jovian (Jupiter's

cycles) and many more based on the sphere or loka mentioned.

 

 

 

> Satya: But claiming a foreign concept as our own is unfair, at

>least as long as some reasonable evidence is not produced.

 

> PVNR: To me, the very fact is that this knowledge came to me

>through parampara is a reasonable evidence.

> More than 70% of astrology that really works is not found in any

> books. It has been passed mouth to mouth.

 

Parampara is a double-edged sword. For argument's sake, let us

consider this. Is there anybody else other than Sanjay ji who

represents the Achyuta Dasa parampara who could verify the statement?

Or is Sanjay ji the only representative? And if that be the case, I

will pose another question.

 

 

>From what I gather from what is on SJC's website, Achyuta dasa is

probably at the starting of your parampara. Arguably Achyuta dasa

lived in times that are not distant from our own times (16th

century). By then Arabic astrology was already in India in its form

called Tajika. So again chronologically speaking, the TECHNIQUE of

SECONDARY progressions was popular in the west much before it

seemingly appeared in Indian astrology. Here I am not talking of any

so called attributed or derived basis from a *NON-ASTROLOGICAL text,

but am confining myself to the *ASTROLOGICAL TECHNIQUE. Moreover you

were using something called dasamsa progression for which you are yet

to show any basis even by way of indirect or attributed evidence. So

for all practical purposes, Manu Samhita has no role here. In all

fairness to western astrology, till some acceptable evidence is

produced, I will leave it there.

 

 

 

BTW speaking of Tajika brings to mind the other question that you

left unanswered. In some other posts nearly a year and half back, you

had claimed that the so called western aspects also were granted or

endorsed or given by Manu (let us not bother about the exact word

used by you then). Can any basis be given (however wildly speculative

it may be) for it? I am just curious to know where from you would

DERIVE the western aspects in anything written by Manu. Please show

me even the symbolic basis for the aspects in Manu's works.

 

 

Again talking of family traditions, I have no objection to any

astrological technique or whatever coming from a family tradition or

parampara. But taking REFUGE under a non-astrological text to justify

oneself is what I object to, unless you can give some evidence. If

you just say that it was taught by your guru, it is fine. Or if you

say it was a piece of personal research, fantastic. Both these are

acceptable, but definitely not Manu's sanction!

 

 

>PVNR> Progressions are used in some traditional paramparas (like the

>one I belong to),but 1 deg per year is not the most famous one.

 

>Satya: >Is there any other traditional parampara that you know of

>that uses progressions (since you you say that progressions are used

>in *SOME traditional paramparas?

 

>PVNR:> Unfortunately, I cannot give any specific details. When the

>topic of progressions came up on another Jyotish list a few years

>back,somebody (don't recall the name) wrote that he knew of a

>traditional astrologer from a village in north India, who used

some "Bhrigu progressions" that were 3 deg per year. I read it and

>left it at that. I read later also (somewhere else) about some

>traditional astrologers who use 3 deg per year progressions. Still I

>did not believe it was really traditional. Later, Sanjay ji taught

>me progressions based on various divisions and then everything fell

>in place. So my comment that progressions are used in some

>paramparas is based on anecdotal evidence (apart from my own

>parampara that is).

 

 

Sounds like fairly quite a few number of traditional astrologers use

the progressions! So it is not that uncommon a technique in jyotish.

But none of the classical scholars felt the need to mention it in any

work! Either they did not know or probably it was such a common place

thing that it did not require any mention. Interestingly all claims

remain unverified so far except for *anecdotal evidence. in times to

come, one of the readers of your article could give anecdotal

evidence one day that progressions are granted by Manu and that they

are part of Jyotish!

 

 

>Satya: I hope you will clarify the same with Sanjay ji atleast now

>since,in future someone else WILL ask you for a clarification since

>being a guru you are a REPRESENTATIVE of your parampara (especially

>given the high probability for the claim to be improbable and of

>course the topic being very controversial and contrary to known

>facts)

 

>PVNR:> I did acknowledge to start with that the topic was

>controversial and many astrologers don't accept this.

> As far as I am concerned, this knowledge came to me from my guru in

>a parampara. That is enough for me to accept it. If I ask Sanjay ji

>for strict and explicit classical references of the knowledge given

>by him, I will have to reject 80% of what he teaches me, including

>the wonderful technique of "Tithi Pravesha".

 

It is not just controversial. It is not that *many astrologers dont

accept this. It is that the reference was not appropriate and

misleading. But instead of dwelling on that, I will move on to other

things.

 

 

Speaking of the "Tithi Pravesha", I have two observations to make.

Two years back it struck me as to why one cannot extend the concept

of the Hindu New Year based on a luni-solar calendar (like in

Andhra), to solar return. And what I got by doing, I termed it

as "Tithi Return". My Tithi Return is very much the same as

SJC's "Tithi Pravesha". Whether it is an insight as in my case, or it

is a parampara based teaching as in your case, there IS A DEFINITE

ASTROLOGICAL BASIS for it. It can be justified by known ASTROLOGICAL

TECHNIQUES AND ASTRO-LOGIC. Though indirect, one could say that there

is some basis for this logic in traditional *astrological literature,

atleast by way of inference. Of course there is a logic for

progressions too. But that does not warrant the inappropriate

reference to Manu as having granted it a basis, as it is misleading

to me. That is like trying to make it sound as ancient and

authoritative as Manu, which it is not.

 

 

Well as you know I am not against research. Jataka is a pratyaksa

sastra, not ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE that cannot be changed at any cost. As

long as the VEDIC PARADIGM and SPIRIT remain unaltered, probably one

can be liberal with what is allowed and what is not.

 

 

Before we proceed further, let me clarify that I am not against

tradition. I am very liberal in spiritual matters. But I would like

to verify that what is represented as traditional is really

traditional, or presented in APPROPRIATE words atleast, and not be

misleading, at least in branches of knowledge like Jyotish.

 

 

And that brings me to another issue. Sometime back, there was a

discussion about Jyotish being Para Vidya and certain standards being

discussed in the name of it being para vidya. I did not object to the

usage of that word then because the atmosphere was heated up already

with Dinanatha's case. So in good spirit I did not want to divert and

add to the explosiveness. In better times, now I will raise that

point. But before that I would like to submit a few standard

practices wrt VEDIC LITERATURE.

 

 

THE VEDA IS CONSIDERED (if you are a believer) SUPREME AND

UNALTERABLE. The vedangas, puranas, itihasas, upavedas are considered

equally sacred, BUT in all matters where there is any contradiction,

the VEDA overrules the secondary literature. Any one who is familiar

with the vedic system knows this, whatever tradition or parampara

he/she belongs to. Whichever System of Indian philosophy one

s to (as long as they are among the astikas), all accept the

Divine origins (that Veda is Apauruseya) and accept the Veda as

Supreme authority, as the Veda is considered to be REVEALED

KNOWLEDGE. Whether it is Kanada (Vaisesika) or Gotama (Nyaya) or

Kapila (Samkhya) or Jaimini (Purva Mimamsa) or the various schools of

Vedanta, all accept the authority of the Vedas.

 

 

Now the statement that Jyotish is Para Vidya that SJC representatives

(gurus) often make is mis-information. Let us see what the Veda

itself says about this.

 

 

Do you know where in the Vedas, the classification of knowledge into

Para and Apara Vidya is given? Have you studied this before saying

such an important thing to many sisyas who believe what they are

taught, because they believe it comes through the traditional

parampara? I am afraid not.

 

 

It is in the Mundaka Upanisad that the entire expanse of knowledge

has been classified under two heads- apara and para. I will reproduce

the verses.

 

 

"Saunaka, duly approached Angiras and asked: Through what (whom)

being known, O venerable sir, does all this become known?

 

 

To him he said: The knowers of Brahman say with certainty that two

kinds of knowledge are to be known- -the para (higher) as well as the

apara (lower).

 

Of these the apara is the Rg veda, the Yajur veda, the Sama veda, the

Atharva veda, siksa (orthography or pronunciation), kalpa (ritual),

vyakarana (grammar), chandas (prosody or metrics) and jyotisa

(astronomy/naksatra vidya). Now the Para or the highest is that

whereby that imperishable (aksara) Brahman is known.

 

That which is the subject of knowledge, beyond the reach of grasping,

without gotra, without color and form, without eyes and ears (senses

of perception), without hands and feet (senses of action), Eternal,

Omnipresent, All pervading, exceptionally subtle, Immutable, the

Primal Cause of all beings, the wise see Him everywhere".

 

Mundaka Upanisad (1, i, 3-6)

 

Thus we have the authority of the very Veda that only the knowledge

of the Imperishable Brahman/God is Para. The rest all including the

other contents of veda that deal with mundane prayers, rituals, etc

as well as the vedangas, are all considered apara or lower to say.

Only the part of the Veda that directly is concerned with Knowledge

of the Absolute, or God or the One, is considered Para. Nothing else.

 

>From the above, it becomes clear that Jyotish, even the Vedanga part

of it (which definitely is not predictive anyway) is NOT PARA, but

apara vidya.

 

The 6 systems of philosophy (shad darsanas) too are based on the

INSPIRED REVELATIONS of the Veda, which they regarded as their

Source. All the vedangas, upangas and upavedas are meant to explore

the mysteries of the vedas and to elucidate, expound and elaborate

the knowledge imparted through the Vedas.

 

That is why the Vedas are referred to as SRUTI. The sruti is

different from the sastra. The sastra is the systematized knowledge,

based on the sruti, and has EVOLVED out of it. Each sastra deals with

one facet of knowledge in a specialized way. The sruti, sastra and

smrti (Manu Samhita is a smrti that primarily concerns itself with

ethical, legal and moral codes), are all concerned with man and his

relation to the Creation.

 

It is known that with changing times, new codes (legal,ethical and

moral) are written. A case in point is Parasara smrti. But such

modifications or teachings have to be based on the revealed

knowledge, the Veda. Where a contradiction occurs, the sastra is

discarded in favour of the sruti (Veda).

 

Kindly do not misunderstand my intentions, that I am trying to argue

or contradict you. Whether it is the depiction of Jyotisa as Para

vidya, or attribution of progressions to Manu smrti (which it

definitely does not deal with as its purpose is entirely different),

it goes against the tradition, that which a parampara should uphold.

All else is secondary, subservient to the Veda.

 

But there is nothing that prevents an astrologer from adding

progressions to his methodology in JATAKA (which is different from

Vedanga jyotisa in its purpose), since jyotish is a sastra and you

are free to add techniques AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CONTRADICT the Veda.

 

In conclusion, I affirm once again that I am not against the use of

progressions (I myself use them), but wonder whether it is

appropriate to READ THINGS into other texts whose intended purpose is

an entirely different matter. It is not a question of literal or

symbolic use of an ASTROLOGICAL text, but about the appropriateness

of the CLAIM.

 

It is the responsibility of a guru to ascertain the facts and clarify

fully with both his guru as well as the general vedic thought before

venturing to affirm or suggest something, especially whe he is

representing a parampara. One day or the other some student will ask

you the same question. Or another astrologer may ask for a

clarification. Or still worse someone may use this in bad spirit. As

I said, parampara is a double edged sword. Well I raised this

question in good spirit. Please don't take offence. There is some

thing that we all gain in every discussion. Let us ponder over the

same.

 

 

And finally I guess our outlooks are probably different. To me both

the relative truth as well as absolute truth are important, though

the main basis and emphasis is on the Absolute.

 

Regards,

 

Satya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Satya ji,

 

> In conclusion, I affirm once again that I am not against the use

of

> progressions (I myself use them), but wonder whether it is

> appropriate to READ THINGS into other texts whose intended purpose

is

> an entirely different matter. It is not a question of literal or

> symbolic use of an ASTROLOGICAL text, but about the

appropriateness

> of the CLAIM.

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I do not agree with your

differentiation of texts, and the appropriateness of "reading

things" into them, based the "intended purpose". Intended purpose

can be subjective and even misleading. Reading things is reading

things. Period. You can't differentiate between reading things into

Parasara's teachings or Manu's teachings.

 

Anyway, thank you for your advice. I will talk more on this topic

later, when the time is right.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

JAYA JAGANNATHA!

 

Dear Satya,

 

Namaste.

>

> But when we say that the Manu Samhita has either endorsed

> or "GRANTED" it is misleading since it sounds as if Manu Samhita

> grants or endorses the technique of progression (in this context

> secondary progression). A lay reader who has not seen the Manu

> Samhita, could take it as a direct evidence. Manu Samhita is a NON-

> ASTROLOGICAL TEXT and its purpose NON-ASTROLOGICAL.

>

> And if one wants to derive, one can derive not just the secondary

> progressions, but tertiary (based on Moon's cycle), jovian (Jupiter's

> cycles) and many more based on the sphere or loka mentioned.

 

Well, the fact that the kalacakra rotates with different relative speeds on

the different planes of the universe is an astronomical fact described both

in Manu Samhita and Srimad Bhagavatam (and Bhagavad-gita and other Puranas

as well). Whether we can derive artological thechniques from them is another

question and it should no doubt be well substantiated. Parampara does not

mean that any member of it or its founder is allowed to introduce a new

doctrine. No Parapmara means transmitting the knowledge revealed to us by

the Maharishis (smriti). This is elucidated by Bhagavan Srik Krishna in the

Bhagavad Gita 4th Adhyaya (evam parampara praaptam). So Parampara's function

is to preserve the correct understanding of the shastras not to distort it

or add new things. This is assured if every member repeats what he has

learned from his Guru and does not invent new things.

 

Krishna also says that he was retelling the knowledge of the Gita to Arjuna

because the parampara descending from the Sungod Vivasvan was broken and the

knowledge was lost so He Himself came to reveal it once more. Only Bhagavan

or His empowered representative has the right to reveal knowledge which was

not presented to us before. Otherwise all members of the parampara should

adhere to the above rule.

 

Coming back to the relative differences in the movement of the Kalacakra I

think it should have some role in chart interpretation although I wouldn't

claim that I know how to apply it. Usually for astrological purposes we take

the apparent view of the grahas' movement from the Earth. We are not aware

of any Ganita system projected to another plane of the universe, therefore

it woudl be difficult to find out how a heaveny astrologer would cast the

chart of a being born in one of the higher lokas.

 

Nevertheless I feel that you cannot disect the body of Vedic and Puranic

literature because it's a holistic knowledge and I'm sure that we should

look at the points of connection between philosophical literature like

Upanishads or Vedanta, Puranic histories, Vedic mantras and Vedangas like

Jyotish etc. An example of this is the research that I'm planing to conduct

into the use of Varga devatas. Here I would draw your attention to the

Saptarasa, lords of D-7 amsas. They quite closely resemble the oceans

surrounding the islands of the Bhu-mandala (refer to 5th slandha of Srimad

Bhagavatam for more detail). I have given some details about them in my

work. Some astrologers would say that they have no relationship to the

Saptamsa, but I think there should be something. I'm editing my paper a

little bit and soon I will publish it or send it to all those who asked me

for a copy.

 

>

> BTW speaking of Tajika brings to mind the other question that you

> left unanswered. In some other posts nearly a year and half back, you

> had claimed that the so called western aspects also were granted or

> endorsed or given by Manu (let us not bother about the exact word

> used by you then). Can any basis be given (however wildly speculative

> it may be) for it? I am just curious to know where from you would

> DERIVE the western aspects in anything written by Manu. Please show

> me even the symbolic basis for the aspects in Manu's works.

>

 

As I have said I think so-called non-astrological literature may also have a

lot of references connected to Jyotish, so I would also like to see if there

are actual shlokas referring to the Tajaka aspects in Manu-samhita. Also if

someone would help me with all the shlokas from Mahaharat that seem to give

astrological info reg. timing of the events in the Mahabharata history, I

would be very glad to receive them.

 

> Sounds like fairly quite a few number of traditional astrologers use

> the progressions! So it is not that uncommon a technique in jyotish.

> But none of the classical scholars felt the need to mention it in any

> work! Either they did not know or probably it was such a common place

> thing that it did not require any mention. Interestingly all claims

> remain unverified so far except for *anecdotal evidence. in times to

> come, one of the readers of your article could give anecdotal

> evidence one day that progressions are granted by Manu and that they

> are part of Jyotish!

 

I agree that the most sure is if a statement is based on shastra, of which

we have an abundance in Jyotish, really! Although mediaevala uthors should

also be studied with care (because of the alleged tajaka and yavana

influence), we would still take statements by Mantreshwara, Dundhiraja,

Harihara etc. as grounded. However if someone is unable to present any

shastric reference behind his reasoning, then we should be much more

cautious with accepting it. As I have said even knowledge in a parampara

should be based on shastra.

 

> >PVNR:> I did acknowledge to start with that the topic was

> >controversial and many astrologers don't accept this.

> > As far as I am concerned, this knowledge came to me from my guru in

> >a parampara. That is enough for me to accept it. If I ask Sanjay ji

> >for strict and explicit classical references of the knowledge given

> >by him, I will have to reject 80% of what he teaches me, including

> >the wonderful technique of "Tithi Pravesha".

 

This is what I'm saying. If someone represents a Parampara he should be able

to show the origin of his knowledge. You are authorized by saying that you

have learned it from your Guru. But the Guru should also be able to show

that it was taught to him by his guru and not just invented by him. And so

on and so forth, back to the Maharishis. This is the parampara system. Of

course if something seems to be working, then it may also be another reason

for accepting it, but as I said I would be very careful with knowledge which

is not substantiated by enough evidence.

 

> SJC's "Tithi Pravesha". Whether it is an insight as in my case, or it

> is a parampara based teaching as in your case, there IS A DEFINITE

> ASTROLOGICAL BASIS for it. It can be justified by known ASTROLOGICAL

> TECHNIQUES AND ASTRO-LOGIC. Though indirect, one could say that there

> is some basis for this logic in traditional *astrological literature,

> atleast by way of inference. Of course there is a logic for

 

Agree. We can be innovative, ut very carefully.

> THE VEDA IS CONSIDERED (if you are a believer) SUPREME AND

> UNALTERABLE. The vedangas, puranas, itihasas, upavedas are considered

> equally sacred, BUT in all matters where there is any contradiction,

> the VEDA overrules the secondary literature. Any one who is familiar

> with the vedic system knows this, whatever tradition or parampara

> he/she belongs to. Whichever System of Indian philosophy one

> s to (as long as they are among the astikas), all accept the

> Divine origins (that Veda is Apauruseya) and accept the Veda as

> Supreme authority, as the Veda is considered to be REVEALED

> KNOWLEDGE. Whether it is Kanada (Vaisesika) or Gotama (Nyaya) or

> Kapila (Samkhya) or Jaimini (Purva Mimamsa) or the various schools of

> Vedanta, all accept the authority of the Vedas.

 

I beg to pardon you. If you read through Jiva Goswami's Tattva-sandarbha

(available both in Sanskrit and translations) you will see proven that the

supreme and most infallible literature is the Vedanta-sutra and the Srimad

Bhagavatam which is a detailed explanation of its meaning by the author

Vedavyasa himself. This is also explained in the 1st skandha of Srimad

Bhagavatam where Vyasa felt dissatisfaction even afterr compiling all the

Vedas, Vedangas, Puranas, Itihaasas and Vedanta. Thus one should not mistake

Srimad Bhagavatam tosimply be another Purana, but the spotless (amala)

Purana which is free from any reference to karma-kandiya activities or

demigod-worship. On the other hand, the 4 Vedas deal with these same things

in 90%. So Krishna says to Arjuna: traigunya vishaya vedaa nistraigunyi

bhavaarjuna. "The Vedas deal with the three gunas mostly, and you should

transcend them, o Arjuna". So Bhagavad/gita and Srimad Bhagavatam are the

supreme Vedic literature and if any other statement appearing in any other

place appears to be contradictory, then it should be interpreted in this

light.

 

> Of these the apara is the Rg veda, the Yajur veda, the Sama veda, the

> Atharva veda, siksa (orthography or pronunciation), kalpa (ritual),

> vyakarana (grammar), chandas (prosody or metrics) and jyotisa

> (astronomy/naksatra vidya). Now the Para or the highest is that

> whereby that imperishable (aksara) Brahman is known.

 

Could you give the original sanskrit as well? As far as I can see here the

object of knowledge is defined, not the body of literature dealing with it

(referring to Brahman). And my above statements are confirmed by this: the 4

Vedas and 5 Vedangas are apara Vishay whereas Vedanta and its explanations

are Paraa Vidya.

 

> That is why the Vedas are referred to as SRUTI. The sruti is

> different from the sastra. The sastra is the systematized knowledge,

> based on the sruti, and has EVOLVED out of it. Each sastra deals with

> one facet of knowledge in a specialized way. The sruti, sastra and

> smrti (Manu Samhita is a smrti that primarily concerns itself with

> ethical, legal and moral codes), are all concerned with man and his

> relation to the Creation.

 

Sruti and smriti would not define the level of knowledge, but the way it is

revealed. And Bhagavan Sri Krishna says in the Mahabharata: dharmasya

tattvam nihitam guhaayaam, i.e. the real truth of Dharma is hidden in the

heart of the self-realised souls. So you could expect that they would reveal

even higher knowledge that is revealed by the Vedic mantras emanating from

the breath of Mahavishnu. Or at least is it more explained.

 

> It is the responsibility of a guru to ascertain the facts and clarify

> fully with both his guru as well as the general vedic thought before

> venturing to affirm or suggest something, especially whe he is

> representing a parampara. One day or the other some student will ask

> you the same question. Or another astrologer may ask for a

 

Definitely agree to that.

 

Yours,

 

Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer

gauranga

Jyotish Remedies:

WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET

Phone:+36-309-140-839