The Ancient Zodiac (Steve)

[Guest guest]

At 02:43 AM 5/4/04 -0700, Steve wrote:>

>Therese wrote:

>

> True of the *lunar* zodiac. This was during the Taurus precessional age

>

>> before the 12 sign zodiac evolved or was discovered. The zodiac of 12

>> signs evolved much later during the Aries precessional cycle.

>

>

>Hi Therese,

>

>Yes, I agree this seems to be the case. There is a reference to a wheel

>with 12 divisions mentioned in one of the four Vedas (the Rig I believe)

>but this cannot be misconstrued as anything like horoscopic astrology. A

>few of the planets are mentioned as well, and a number of authors point

>to some semblance of the signs-- noting at the same time that these

>names may not have anything to do with the zodiac per se but may instead

>refer to the bull, the ram etc.

 

Hi Steve,

 

I'm going to try a quick reply to your post because I'll be away one or two

days and list posts age very fast in instant web time.

 

>I'm certainly not a scholar on this subject, but most of my

>investigations, like yours, have led me in this direction. The best

>thing I've seen on the origins of the 28 divisions from the Vedas, is in

>a 50 page article by Dr. S Balakrishnan PHD.

 

Some time ago I printed out material from that site--I remember that

article--, but right now I'm not sure where it is. But regarding the age of

the Vedas there is a great deal of controversy, even among the PhDs. It's a

multi-faceted topic that's too complicated to go into on this list.

 

>Dr. Balakrishna points out, as does David Frawley in his " Gods, Sages

>and Kings " references in the Atharva Veda to the grouping of 28

>nakshatras beginning with Krittika.

 

Just to insert a note: David Frawley is a great proponent of the very

ancient age of Indian culture and writings. He and I have had our run-ins

in past years. It's enough to say that his views are not necessarily the

latest views of scholars. but again, that's not a topic for this list.

 

>There are earlier reference to

>various nakshatras, I think as far back as the Rig Veda-- 4,000 to 6000

>BCE. Here the nakshatras are not mentioned as a group but singly, and as

>Frawley has attempted to prove, in relation to the equinoxes and

>solstices. His dating of the Rig Veda in fact in part is based on the

>reference to the vernal equinox appearing in Punarvasu (Gemini) while

>the winter solstice occurs in Revati (Pisces).

 

Yes...I remember. I have his books.

 

>Dr. Balakrishna's very imortant contribution to the dating of the

>Atharva Veda has to do with a verse by the Rishi Garga wherin the 28

>nakshatras beginning from Krittika are mentioned along with a reference

>to the summer solstice appearing in Magha. Frawley mentions this same

>reference and gives it a time frame of 2480 to 1760 BC to cover the full

>13* 20' of Magha. Balakrishna on the other hand, makes use of the

>knowledge that nakshatras at that time, prior to the being fit into 13*

>20' divisions were in fact referenced to a single star, in this case

>Regulus.

 

I've gotta find that article/articles! I think I even bound them into a

folder.

 

>Balakrisna now makes the date for this statement by Garga Muni as approx

>2400 BCE, when in fact, the vernal equinox was nearly precisely conjunct

>Alcyone while the summer solstice occured at the conjunction with

>Regulus. If you look at this in Solar Fire, it's a beautiful thing.

>Dating for the equinox is April 10, 2400 BC while the solstice is July

>13, 2400 BC. We are within about a degree here of exact conjunction.

>This *minor* discovery may in fact be the first actual dating of the

>appearance of the 28 nakshatras in the Vedas.

 

I'm going to go back and carefully review that paragraph and the rest of

your post when I'm at the computer again. It's too late tonight.

 

>

>Very nice site by the way--[Lost Zodiac]

 

Thank you...

 

>however I don't see anything there on the

>exact measurement of Aldebaran/Antares.

 

That's the point. They weren't mentioned in the text as major marking stars

for the early 12 sign zodiac. But I'll double check this to see if they are

on the list and if so, how their measuements are given.

 

As you state, " Its a toss up "

>between Fagan and Lahiri/Krishnamurthi regarding at least other

>measurements.

 

>I'd like to know more on how we can " put to rest " the measurement of

>Aldebaran, Antares, Regulus etc by Fagan--within a degree or so? or are

>we talking 15 degrees or more?

 

I'm not sure what you mean here, Steve. Can you re-phrase the question?

 

>Whatever we are talking about-- in degrees or less than a degree, how

>does that invalidate the drawing of the Ezna zodiac on the ceiling of

>theTemple in Khnum?

 

Gee, Steve, I've got to look that up too. It's been awhile. What are we

trying to show/prove with that drawing?

 

>Fagan states from " Astrological Origins " : " Here they denoted the first

>half of the zodiac commenced with the constellation Taurus and the

>second half with Scorpio. These winged creatures had nothing to do with

>Aries the Ram. They could not possibly represent the equinoctical point

>for on October 4, 137 BC, the date of the zodiac, these were in Aries 5*

>and Libra 5* respectively "

 

>....This temple was built during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II, 23rd

>dynasty, 144-115 BC. "

 

>Three separate festivals for the new year are apparenty inscribed on the

>walls of the temple and dated by Fagan as all occurring in either 137 or

>136 BCE.

>

>Is the above incorrect by modern scholarship? If so perhaps you can

>point me to an article or book that discredits Fagan's work on this.

>Here I am not concerned with anything being a degree or so out, I am

>also not concerned with ayanamsa here---Taurus appears to be the leader,

>whether from purely Egyptian, Mesopotamian or other sources.

 

This is going to take awhile...checking this out, I mean, but I won't

forget. I do have to finish up at least one article, though and tomorrow I

have major dental work. It may knock me out for a couple of days.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

 

Therese

 

Oh...you wrote more below...

 

Yes, I agree with most of what Robert Hand writes. I hope I'll have time to

give enough thought to *your* thoughts! But if I get into this before my

article is finished (on Gemini) it will never get done!! Not enough brain

reserves!

 

T.

>

>

>I have all the Hindsight books for years collecting dust on the shelves

>and pulled them out to see what I could see on houses. Very difficult

>going I'm afraid, especially early on. Vetius Valens talks about houses

>and derived meanings. Things obviously get much clearer by the time we

>are at Johannes Schoener at the end of the 15th century.

> >From what I've read, it appears that both Valens and Ptolemy made

>visits to the library at Alexandria during the development of their

>ideas--wherein were housed among other books, many Indian texts.

>

>I think Robert Hand sums up my feelings on this issue, from the " History

>of Astrology--Another View " :

> " The question of debt or lack thereof of Hindu astrology to Hellenistic

>is an extremely controversial one. Many authors of the Hindu school

>would like to deny that there was any at all. This position is a bit

>hard to support given the above, and also given the very frequent

>references to the " Yavannas " who were the Greeks or more precisely Greek

>speaking persons of various ethnic extractions "

>

> " On the other hand there are Westerners, of whom the author is not one,

>who believe Hindu astrology comes entirely from the West (or more

>precisely Middle East). David Pingree is his study of the Yavanajataka

>does an extremely thorough job of cataloging the parallels between the

>of that work and and that of the Greeks, and even he is forced to admit

>that there are many differences. However such differences do not

>require two different origins. All it requires is a period of isolation

>between two branches of a tradition after an earlier period of unity,

>such that the two branches can diverge, and one, the eastern, merge with

>the native traditions already in place. While we do not insist that

>Hindu astrology is entirely or even principally an offshoot of

>Hellenistic astrology, it must be said that the required period of

>isolation did occur which could have caused a single tradition to become

>two. "