Historical question on Vedic Astrology

[Guest guest]

I quite accidentally drifted upon this article:

 

http://www.astro.com/people/hand_his_e.htm

 

which quite authoritatively seems to recognize that there is only a

single origin of astrology and that is in Mesopotamia (current Iraq)

in the 2500 BC timeframe, from where it moved to Egypt, and then

Greece, and then was introduced into India, where it may have

additionally and significantly evolved with much Indian input. The

main evidence is the use of Greek terms in Sanskrit which are

presumably guaranteed to be of Greek origin - thereby forcing the

conclusion that the knowledge came from Greece to India not the other

way around.

 

This brings up the question (I know a lot of you have significant

historical knowledge since you frequently debate the birth time of

Sri Krishna):

 

What is the oldest Indian astrological text and when was it written?

Is it BPHS? Does it use the Greek terms mentioned in the above

article and does it's timing fit in with the above evidence i.e. was

it written after the earliest possible Greek influence?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

 

Archaelogy, ancient history and comparative linguistics are not

really sciences. They are highly subjective fields where people are

normally trying connect dots and imagining a lot of things. We

hardly understand the evolution of civilization. Was there a

sophisticated civilization in world at 6000 BCE? History says no,

but it could be wrong. Nothing is conclusive in ancient history.

 

In the light of this uncertainty, all the discussions on the origin

of astrology are futile (though that doesn't prevent people from

attempting it).

 

It's funny that 95% of the Sanskrit terms quited in the article you

referred to for planets, signs etc are rarely used in Sanskrit

texts. In Sanskrit literature, people are not wedded to the concept

of fixed names. Sun may be referred to Surya, Aditya, Ravi,

Vivasvan, Martanda or many other names (based on which one fits the

meter at a particular place). I have seen many names of Sun used by

Parasara, but I don't think I read anywhere in BPHS where Sun was

referred to as Heli, Venus as Asphujit, Mercury as Hermnan etc.

 

Overall, I think this particular article is manufacturing a lot of

evidence. If one talks about panaphara, apoklima etc, the point is

reasonable. But the author is giving obscure Greek-derived Sanskrit

names of all planets and signs, which are not so commonly used in

astrological literature (definitely not in BPHS). They may have

certainly come to Sanskrit long after Parasara. That doesn't prove

anything.

 

This approach of looking at word similarities can be misleading.

Similarity can work in both the directions. Similarity can also mean

that Greeks learnt from Hindus and contributed back some research.

 

The sophistication and the complexity of the teachings of Parasara

is perhaps 1000 times more developed than Greek astrology of 400 BCE

(or even Indian astrology of the same time). TO ME, it is silly to

suggest that Parasara's teachings came from Greeks. Parasara's

teachings must've decayed over several millennia/centuries and a

fresh impetus from some Greek/Hindu astrologers must've resulted in

a rebuilding activity. Between the times of Parasara/Jaimini and the

time of Hindu-Greek collaboration, some decay must've taken place,

as Kali was setting in.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

> I quite accidentally drifted upon this article:

>

> http://www.astro.com/people/hand_his_e.htm

>

> which quite authoritatively seems to recognize that there is only

a

> single origin of astrology and that is in Mesopotamia (current

Iraq)

> in the 2500 BC timeframe, from where it moved to Egypt, and then

> Greece, and then was introduced into India, where it may have

> additionally and significantly evolved with much Indian input. The

> main evidence is the use of Greek terms in Sanskrit which are

> presumably guaranteed to be of Greek origin - thereby forcing the

> conclusion that the knowledge came from Greece to India not the

other

> way around.

>

> This brings up the question (I know a lot of you have significant

> historical knowledge since you frequently debate the birth time of

> Sri Krishna):

>

> What is the oldest Indian astrological text and when was it

written?

> Is it BPHS? Does it use the Greek terms mentioned in the above

> article and does it's timing fit in with the above evidence i.e.

was

> it written after the earliest possible Greek influence?

>

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Brahmaiva Satyam

 

Namaste,

 

>

> It's funny that 95% of the Sanskrit terms quited in the article you

> referred to for planets, signs etc are rarely used in Sanskrit

> texts. In Sanskrit literature, people are not wedded to the concept

> of fixed names. Sun may be referred to Surya, Aditya, Ravi,

> Vivasvan, Martanda or many other names (based on which one fits the

> meter at a particular place). I have seen many names of Sun used by

> Parasara, but I don't think I read anywhere in BPHS where Sun was

> referred to as Heli, Venus as Asphujit, Mercury as Hermnan etc.

 

 

>But the author is giving obscure Greek-derived Sanskrit

> names of all planets and signs, which are not so commonly used in

> astrological literature (definitely not in BPHS). They may have

> certainly come to Sanskrit long after Parasara. That doesn't prove

> anything.

 

 

The Greek-derived sanskrit names have probably little or nothing to

do with Parasara. If my memory is right most of them were introduced

by VARAHAMIHIRA who admired the yavanas and referred frequently to

them.

 

It remains a different matter though whether BPHS was really authored

5000 years back or was compiled by some inspired writer much later.

 

I don't know about terms like Kendra. Some suggest that even this

word has no root word in Sanskrit. Then Parasara too will be dragged

into this. Perhaps Narasimha ji can research on this (since you are

much better than others wrt Sanskrit on this list) and tell us more.

 

>

> Overall, I think this particular article is manufacturing a lot of

> evidence. If one talks about panaphara, apoklima etc, the point is

> reasonable.

 

 

Yes some parts are reasonable. But it is unreasonable to suggest that

Indian astrology is derived fully or even largely from the Greeks,

though there is no denial that some MUTUAL influence was there.

 

 

>

> This approach of looking at word similarities can be misleading.

> Similarity can work in both the directions. Similarity can also

mean

> that Greeks learnt from Hindus and contributed back some research.

>

 

There are many things in Greek astrology that Indian astrology does

not have. But as I said, the only reasonable thing to say is that

there *could have been a *mutual influence, not that either is

derived wholly or largely from the other.

 

 

> The sophistication and the complexity of the teachings of Parasara

> is perhaps 1000 times more developed than Greek astrology of 400

BCE

> (or even Indian astrology of the same time).

 

1000 TIMES IS AN EXAGGERATION to say the least. Of course Parasara is

the probably the greatest among many. One just has to be awe struck

within the *Indian context.

 

But your above statement only suggests that you have NOT studied

Greek astrology at all. Ancient Greek astrology is as sophisticated

and as complex as Indian.

 

The dashas? The shadbalas? The fixed stars? The divisional charts?

They too had all that, with a few variations! While they don't have

Ashtakavarga we too don't have a lot that they had. Their fixed stars

are much more complex than our *current texts on nakshatras.

 

>Parasara's

>teachings must've decayed over several millennia/centuries and a

>fresh impetus from some Greek/Hindu astrologers must've resulted in

>a rebuilding activity. Between the times of Parasara/Jaimini and the

>time of Hindu-Greek collaboration, some decay must've taken place,

>as Kali was setting in.

 

But this is true for the Greek sages too. The texts that are around

are not the only ones. They are also constantly discovering more

about their ancients. So the same argument could be extended to the

Greeks too that a lot of their ancient teachings have been lost.And

it is kind of true. Their mythology is as fascinating and deep as

ours. Infact their mythology about Mercury is much more helpful

ASTROLOGICALLY, than ours (at least my opinion)

 

 

They too had a philosophical and spiritual basis for astrology. They

too have a similar grand view of astrology.

 

The ancient Greeks too spoke of fate and prarabdha, gnana and agnana,

and the role of astrology as much as we do.

 

The Corpus hermeticum, the Platonists and Neo-Platonists, are all

clear about the following (they too speak of previous schools of

thought and their sages just as we do).

 

According to them the soul descends into matter from the higher

worlds and that by its descent into matter, it is subject to the

limitations of 'Moira', the Geek word for fate or whatever. The

descent occurs through different stages, first the UNDIFFERENTIATED,

then through the sphere of the fixed stars, and eventually through

the seven planetary spheres.

 

What is striking here is that they hold that the soul is subject

to "heimermane" only from the sphere of Saturn (remember our lokaloka

mountains beyond Saturn?)Heimermane means "that which has already

been allotted". Sounds familiar? It is very much the same as our

prarabdha. Now the soul is increasingly subject to the natural law

and is constrained by moira more as it descends down through the

remaining spheres.

 

The soul descends because of agnoia or ignorance. The soul learns the

lessons through pronoia ( i.e. acceptance of the planetary energies

and Natural law, something akin to the bhakta's surrender to God).

The goal is Gnosis (knowledge) and removal of Agnosis (ignorance).

 

That again sounds like Vedanta with even the terms being similar.

Gnosis: Gnana

Agnosis:Agnana

 

There is a lot more. But I do not have much time. All I would say is

it is unfair to say that Greek astrology is not as sophisticated or

complex as Hindu astrology. It is a different matter though

about how exactly they influenced each other or whether they had

similar origins or whatever. I would remain NEUTRAL and take no

sides. Of course I identify more with Hinduism. But that does not

prevent me from either appreciating or studying other schools of

thought. As I always say, KNOWLEDGE is not any single country or race

or culture's exclusive domain. Neither is any one superior. It is

only that each of us is acquainted with one school deeply and get

attached to it. All Knowledge is Saraswati. And a Mother is a Mother,

no matter what.

 

As the Devi Mahatmyam affirms:

 

ya devi sarvabhutesu buddhirupens samsthita

namastasyai namastasyai namastasya namo namah

 

To the Goddess who is present in all creatures as Intelligence

Salutations to Her. Salutations to Her. Salutations to Her Again and

again.

 

Sarvam Saktimayam

Sarvam Sivamayam

 

Regards and Salutations to all,

Satya

 

I am taking too many breaks today with all these mails!

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your replies, PVRji and Satyaji,

 

I understand both your points. However, I do not think the writer of

the article disputes that there is a lot of ORIGINAL "research" in

Vedic astrology. He does seem to claim that the "seed" was planted by

Greek influence - after which he says or implies that a "period of

isolation" allowed Indians to germinate the original seed.

 

In my viewpoint, the proof that the original "seed" was Greek can

logically only be concluded if ALL of the following conditions are

satisfied:

 

1) The oldest Indian astrological text is available WITH ITS ORIGINAL

text. (Parenthetically, if this text is BPHS - do we know for a fact

that it has been passed down unchanged over the generations?)

2) This original text contains terms that are the same as of

contemporary Greek languages.

3) These terms are verifiably of independent and (uninfluenced) Greek

origin (PVRji also pointed out that this has to be proven).

 

Only you Gurus who can read the original Sanskrit can answer points 1

and 2.

 

Thank you,

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

 

I had so far read only your and PVNRji's posts on this and the

general line of thought and fragments of the article referred to and

your comments on them. My reply was with reference to those fragments

and PVNR's views because I am reasonably conversant with some other

schools of astrology as well to follow their contentions. I have come

across other articles on this kind of issues though. I will read the

actual article now.

 

Regards,

Satya

 

 

vedic astrology, "vedicastrostudent

<vedicastrostudent>" <vedicastrostudent> wrote:

> Thank you for your replies, PVRji and Satyaji,

>

> I understand both your points. However, I do not think the writer

of

> the article disputes that there is a lot of ORIGINAL "research" in

> Vedic astrology. He does seem to claim that the "seed" was planted

by

> Greek influence - after which he says or implies that a "period of

> isolation" allowed Indians to germinate the original seed.

>

> In my viewpoint, the proof that the original "seed" was Greek can

> logically only be concluded if ALL of the following conditions are

> satisfied:

>

> 1) The oldest Indian astrological text is available WITH ITS

ORIGINAL

> text. (Parenthetically, if this text is BPHS - do we know for a

fact

> that it has been passed down unchanged over the generations?)

> 2) This original text contains terms that are the same as of

> contemporary Greek languages.

> 3) These terms are verifiably of independent and (uninfluenced)

Greek

> origin (PVRji also pointed out that this has to be proven).

>

> Only you Gurus who can read the original Sanskrit can answer points

1

> and 2.

>

> Thank you,

>

> Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

I think you are missing the point that was made by both these worthies. In

India, scriptures were not written but transmitted from Guru to shishya

orally.The advanced knowledge was not intended for general populace. Writing

down the texts starte thousands of years later.

This is the reason that weatern scientists attribute most of the sciences to

cultures like Egyptian and Greecian cultures.This is because of lack knowledge

about how knowledge evolved and was passed on in ancient India.

Do not forget that scientists were burned at stake for propounding the theory

that Earth revolves around Sun and that it is spherical and not flat not that

long ago in that civilisation, that too by the so called scientists.

Chandrashekhar.

Chandrashekhar.

 

-

">vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent >

vedic astrology

Friday, January 10, 2003 3:33 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Historical question on Vedic Astrology

Thank you for your replies, PVRji and Satyaji,I understand both your points.

However, I do not think the writer of the article disputes that there is a lot

of ORIGINAL "research" in Vedic astrology. He does seem to claim that the

"seed" was planted by Greek influence - after which he says or implies that a

"period of isolation" allowed Indians to germinate the original seed.In my

viewpoint, the proof that the original "seed" was Greek can logically only be

concluded if ALL of the following conditions are satisfied:1) The oldest Indian

astrological text is available WITH ITS ORIGINAL text. (Parenthetically, if this

text is BPHS - do we know for a fact that it has been passed down unchanged over

the generations?)2) This original text contains terms that are the same as of

contemporary Greek languages.3) These terms are verifiably of independent and

(uninfluenced) Greek origin (PVRji also pointed out that this has to be

proven).Only you Gurus who can read the original Sanskrit can answer points 1

and 2.Thank you,SundeepArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

 

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology, "Chandrashekhar"

<boxdel> wrote:

> Dear Sundeep,

> I think you are missing the point that was made by both these

worthies. In India, scriptures were not written but transmitted from

Guru to shishya orally.The advanced knowledge was not intended for

general populace. Writing down the texts starte thousands of years

later.

 

With due respect, I do not think I am missing any point at all. I am

simply trying to resolve the conflicting claims in my head with

painstaking objectivity. Please try and understand my reasoning

carefully. I am looking for a categorical and clear statement that

says there is no GUARANTEED original copy of the "oldest Indian

astrological text". If there isn't - as you seem to saying when you

say that scriptures are transmitted orally through parampara - then

if you reason carefully and objectively, you will find that NEITHER

Robert Hand's claim (the writer of the original article) - that Vedic

astrology had a Mesopotamian origin, NOR the opposite claim - that it

did NOT have a Mesopotamian origin can be AUTHORITATIVELY made BASED

ONLY on linguistic origin of terms - because the age of the terms

cannot be ascertained. Additional evidence is then needed for either

claim.

 

Thank you,

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep,

Your premise that Robert Hand's claim that Vedic Astrology had its origin in

Mesopotamian astrology is not correct is right. The other way may not be right

for the apparent reason of inability of establishing the date of origin of

Vedic Astrology. Even if you look at the earliest civilasation per western

thinking i.e. the Egyptian civilisation's assumed antiquity,it is later than

the Vedas.Vedic astrological treatises like Surya Siddhanta et al mention the

period of 4 yugas which were not even thought of or known to these

civilisations.At least this is what I understand.

Again there is no authority, to my understanding, who can claim to know which is

the original Vedic Astrological text. Even BPHS is a written down version of

what Parashar told Maitreya and he too mentions that he heard the principles

from Lord Bramha.Reading the works it would be clear that there were various

methods followed even at that point of time in order to arrive at predictions.

Chandrashekhar.

-

">vedicastrostudent <vedicastrostudent >

vedic astrology

Saturday, January 11, 2003 2:41 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Historical question on Vedic Astrology

vedic astrology, "Chandrashekhar" <boxdel> wrote:>

Dear Sundeep,> I think you are missing the point that was made by both these

worthies. In India, scriptures were not written but transmitted from Guru to

shishya orally.The advanced knowledge was not intended for general populace.

Writing down the texts starte thousands of years later.With due respect, I do

not think I am missing any point at all. I am simply trying to resolve the

conflicting claims in my head with painstaking objectivity. Please try and

understand my reasoning carefully. I am looking for a categorical and clear

statement that says there is no GUARANTEED original copy of the "oldest Indian

astrological text". If there isn't - as you seem to saying when you say that

scriptures are transmitted orally through parampara - then if you reason

carefully and objectively, you will find that NEITHER Robert Hand's claim (the

writer of the original article) - that Vedic astrology had a Mesopotamian

origin, NOR the opposite claim - that it did NOT have a Mesopotamian origin can

be AUTHORITATIVELY made BASED ONLY on linguistic origin of terms - because the

age of the terms cannot be ascertained. Additional evidence is then needed for

either claim.Thank you,SundeepArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......