Historical question on Vedic Astrology

October 16, 2009

Dear All, I came across an informative conversation by Dr. Satya Prakash Choudhary ji in vedic astrology archives for the month Jan, 2003. Since it was very informative, I am presenting an edited version of the same here for the benefit of all.Love and regards,Sreenadh==================================

Historical question on Vedic

Astrology

[Editor: The following is an

edited version of a conversation happened in vedic astrology during

Jan, 2003]

Sundeep (vedicastrostudent):

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?

Narasimha Rao (pvr108):

Archaeology,

ancient history and comparative linguistics are not really sciences. They are

highly subjective fields where people are normally trying to 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 quoted 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.

Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary (satyaprakasika):

Quote

It's funny that 95% of the Sanskrit terms

quoted 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.

Unquote

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 with respect to

Sanskrit on this list) and tell us more.

Quote

Overall, I

think this particular article is manufacturing a lot of evidence. If one talks

about panaphara, apoklima etc, the point is reasonable.

Unquote

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.

Quote

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.

Unquote

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.

Quote

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).

Unquote

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.

Quote

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.

Unquote

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.

Sudeep (vedicastrostudent):

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.

Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary (satyaprakasika):

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.

Narasimha Rao (pvr108):

Quote

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.

Unquote

Yes, you are

absolutely right. I hope you agree that Parasara existed way before

Varahamihira did, in which case India

astrology existed way before the Greek influence.

According to the

Robert Hand article quoted by Sundeep, Hindus learnt astrology from Greeks and

did not know it until Greeks brought it to them. I was talking about Parasara's

texts in that context. Some of these guys say that Parasara came long after

Varahamihira (which is what you are hinting at below).

Quote

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 with respect to

Sanskrit on this list) and tell us more.

Unquote

Yes, I will do

some research. But Kendra could easily have been derived from indra or some

other word (the indra - greatest and middle point - of a circle). We can only

speculate either way.

Quote

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.

Unquote

The issue is -

did this mutual influence come after Parasara taught the great science and

people almost forgot it or did this mutual influence come at the inception of

Hindu astrology. Robert Hand suggests the latter and I firmly believe in the

former.

Quote

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.

Unquote

Yes, I can

"1000 times" is an exaggeration. I can return your compliment by

saying "but your above statement only suggests that you have NOT studied

Parasara's teachings at all". But I will not get personal like you and

will keep the focus on the subject.

Please note that

I am not just saying that Parasara's teachings are superior to the Greek

astrology of the last two millennia. I am also saying that they are also

superior to the Hindu astrology of the last two millennia (as taught by authors

from Varahamihira to Mantreswara).

Parasara's

teachings are not just about dasas, shadbalas, fixed stars and divisions. If

one reads BPHS fully, one can see how complete and brilliant-beyond-words it is

compared to ANY OTHER astrological text available today, Greek and Sanskrit.

Regarding the

rest of your comments on the similarity between ancient Hindu astrology and

ancient Greek astrology:

My guess is that

civilization existed for a long long time before what we currently know. My

guess is that astrological knowledge originated from the same source (which is

not babylon of 2000 BC or Greece

of 50 BC, but much earlier) and there was collaboration again around 100 BC-500

AD as several cultures came together again. The similarities in cultures,

astrologies and even languages cannot be coincidences. Clearly, there are

missing links in the evolution of civilization.

Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary (satyaprakasika):

I will not

address the contents of your mail that I could agree in principle to. I will

address those that I either don't agree to, or have something more to add upon.

Quote

Yes, you are

absolutely right. I hope you agree that Parasara existed way

before Varahamihira did, in which case India

astrology existed way before the Greek

influence.

According to

the Robert Hand article quoted by Sundeep, Hindus learnt astrology from Greeks

and did not know it until Greeks brought it to them. I was talking about

Parasara's texts in that context.

Some of these

guys say that Parasara came long after Varahamihira (which is what you are

hinting at below).

Unquote

One need not

even go till Parasara's time to argue that predictive astrology existed in India

much before Varahamihira or even the 2-5 AD when astrology (Jataka) re-entered India

under Greek influences in whatever form. The Greek influences according to all

the western scholars who support that view entered India

between 2-5 AD. But even as far back as the 6th century BC one could show the

existence of Jataka in India.

Asita the court astrologer of Suddhodhana cast the little Siddhartha (would be

Buddha)'s chart and predicted two things. So even if someone proves any Greek

influences on Jataka or re-entry around 2-5 th AD, they still have a lot more

to address about this PRIOR EXISTENCE of Jataka in India.

Oh no you have

misunderstood me. When I talk of an inspired writer compiling Parasara's

teachings much later around 5th AD or whatever, it is about the TEXT itself. I

have no doubts about Rishi Parasara (father of Vyasa) having existed much

earlier. Infact I have diligently gone through the Puranas and collected

references to him, while writing the story of Vyasa. Moreover Parasara is one of

the rishis in the parampara that I belong to. How can I question his existence

or the traditionally accepted date for rishi Parasara?

But regarding

the *text itself I cannot say if the rishi's teachings were compiled much later

or whatever. But then the authoritativeness of the text stands questioned

because if a later author could have inserted any words of Greek origin (if at

all- this has to be proved after a multi-disciplinary research only; yet no

finding can perhaps be conclusive). If words like Kendra or Trikona too stand

questioned in addition to Apoklima, Panaphara etc, then it *could be that a later

author has either inserted or re-written or compiled the earlier teachings of

Parasara. If that be so, how could anyone be sure that this compiler did not

add some techniques too?

My main point

here is that just because a text says something one cannot be sure of anything

definitely as rishi vakya. So except the Veda Samhita (that too only the

Samhita), I am not willing to accept anything as definitely unalterable rishi

vakyas.

Let me cite one

instance. Some research the Puranas for astrological truths because Vyasa being

the great seer that he is, they believe that what the puranas reveal must be

unquestionable. But this is wrong. Most puranas that we read today have been

expanded from their original form. So is the case with the itihasas. The skanda

purana that 95% Indians read today is no more considered as the original or older

version by Vyasa. A much older and shorter version is in existence. The version

found in Nepal

and certain other places is the older one. During the golden period of Guptas

etc, most puranas were written again. So I cannot accept most texts in their

current form as full-fledged rishi vakyas. The case with the Veda Samhita is different.

I will write more elaborately on this another day regarding the Veda Samhita's

origin being undeniably rishi vakyas.

Quote

Yes, I will do

some research. But Kendra could easily have been derived from indra or some

other word (the indra - greatest and middle point - of a circle). We can only

speculate either way.

Unquote

Please do share

your findings/opinions.

Quote

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.

The issue is -

did this mutual influence come after Parasara taught the great science and

people almost forgot it or did this mutual influence come at the inception of

Hindu astrology. Robert Hand suggests the latter and I firmly believe in the former.

Unquote

Again I have to

bring in Asita as an example. As for Robert Hand, he is an authority on western

astrology to a certain extent. Though he seems to be acquainted with Vedic

astrology, he is not really deep into it to be able to make a judgment. While I

admire him for his technical brilliance and intellect with respect to western

astrology, his statements only show that his knowledge of Indian astrology is

not of an acceptable level. Undoubtedly he has researched into Arabic, Latin and

Greek works and should not "form definite opinions " about Hindu astrology

which is not his domain.

Another point I

wish to submit is that Robert Hand is an intellectually honest astrologer to a

reasonable extent. The article could reflect an earlier opinion. Since I have

followed most of his works, I know for sure that he always keeps his mind open

and changes his opinion without being biased when the situation demands. If I

am not mistaken, of late he seems to be more neutral about the origins of Hindu

astrology. He was definitely biased a few years back just as most vedic

astrologers are biased against greek or arabic astrologies due to less

knowledge.

I hope to be

able to meet him this year later through a common friend (a western

astrologer). If this happens I will be able to ascertain as well as put forward

my contentions. But I respect him for his work just as I respect any

professional scientist.

Quote

Yes, I can "1000 times" is an

exaggeration. I can return your compliment by saying "but your above

statement only suggests that you have NOT studied Parasara's teachings at

all". But I will not get personal like you and will keep the focus on the

subject.

Please note

that I am not just saying that Parasara's teachings are superior to the Greek

astrology of the last two millennia. I am also saying that they are also

superior to the Hindu astrology of the last two millennia (as taught by authors

from Varahamihira to Mantreswara).

Parasara's teachings are not just about dasas,

shadbalas, fixed stars and divisions. If one reads BPHS fully, one can see how

complete and brilliant-beyond-words it

is compared to ANY OTHER astrological text available today, Greek and Sanskrit.

Unquote

I am sorry if my

expression hurt you. But it was not meant to be personal at all! And on the

other hand I should say that you are getting personal now! Calmly let us

consider this. Please tell me if you have studied Greek astrology and if so

which authors? Ancient or modern? If you haven't studied atleast 30% of their

practices, my statement stands true. So there is nothing to feel bad about my observation.

If you have studied let us discuss some points to see whether they are even 10

or 50 times less sophisticated than us.

But if you argue

that a lot of the original teachings have been lost and the current level of

jyotish is very inferior to the original one due to Kali yuga, then I have

something to say. If it is Kali yuga for us, it is Kali yuga for other races

too. Even other ancient cultures and races speak of a golden period or Satya

yuga and the current Kali yuga in their teachings. They too had their sages. What's

more? Some of our saints have been mentioned by them and like wise. To me the

word rishi does not have just an Indian or Aryan or Dravidian or Jain or Parsi

connotation. Some of our Puranas speak highly of the Sun-worshippers of Mitraic

or Zorastrian practices. The Tamil siddha tradition speaks of a great Chinese

siddha.

And I firmly

adhere to the Hindu teaching that we are born with three runas or debts. The

debt towards the sages (rsi rna) is an important one that I deeply feel often.

That is the reason why I tried to write Vyasa and Parsara's story inspite of

the difficultness of the task.

Sharing the

wisdom of the sages with others is one way we repay the debt. If not for them,

none of us would be discussing all this today. I feel the same way about the

sages of other traditions and cultures too because I am firmly convinced of the

commonness of humanity, its legacy, its heritage.

Other races and

cultures too have had their rishis. They too had great knowledge in the ancient

times. And there seems to have been even some connections between all. And

logically too, life on this planet (forget human beings alone) cannot have had

different origins. We have a common ancestry. Just as all the different states

of India are

diverse in their own way, but yet united at one level; different ancient races

too have a unity. So when you said that Parasara's teachings are 1000 times

more complex and sophisticated than Greek astrology, I would defend our Greek

cousins, as much as I would defend the Indian contention if I were to meet

Robert Hand. But if you say that you are comparing Greek knowledge of 200AD and

the original teachings of Parasara, in fairness to the ancient Greeks, I will

say that you are putting oranges and apples in the same basket and should not

forget that they too believe in their ancient sages and Satya yuga.

Finally

Vasishta, Sakti, Parasara, Vyasa and Suka are part of my rishi Parampara. My

daily prayers start with chanting the Advaita guru parampara verses. So I

worship and love them as much as you may love or defend Parasara. While I love

my Guru parampara more, I respect all paramparas and rishis (be they Greek or

Zorastrian or Jaina) equally. I will not prolong the discussion.

== 0 ==

==================================

October 17, 2009

Dear Sreenadhji,My opinion of Dr. Satyaprakash Choudhary is not very flattering, which is formed after I read one of his articles where he said that the Atharvana jyotisha is not very old as it mentions Vara and that Vara has actually come to India from the Greeks. These shallow pingrean scholars will not hesitate to demean the indian shastra at the drop of a hat and show their love for any outside india. Hats off to Max Muller and Sir Jones as they succeeded in creating generations of Indians who is more western than the westerners themselves. Firstly Dr. Satyaprakash did not care to to know whether the Vara is there or not in other shastras. Secondly even if he could not find it himself he did not hesitate to express a moment of doubt before he gave his verdict. Such is the pitiable conditions of the Bharata mata's children. Yesterday I read

another mail, where a greeko-file expressed doubt over the date of Mahabharata saying that the Kali yuga is an invention of Mayasura and that that Mayasura concocted some astronomical positions and suggested the start of the Kali yuga in 3102 BCE. He completely ignores the puranic and the astronomical evidences apart from the calculations of the Saptarshi calendar and evidences given by Kalhana. He further says that Mayasura claimed to have learnt astrology from Surya Bahagwan, though to my knowledge it was Vivasvat, from whom Mayasura learnt astrology and there were more than one Vivasvat in the Surya vamsha.I think Bharat Mata will have to wait till one or two generations of distortionists leave the earth before she can see the truths prevailing.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Fri, 10/16/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote:sreesog <sreesog Historical question on Vedic Astrology Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 1:44 PM

Dear All, I came across an informative conversation by Dr. Satya Prakash Choudhary ji in vedic astrology archives for the month Jan, 2003. Since it was very informative, I am presenting an edited version of the same here for the benefit of all.Love and regards,Sreenadh============ ========= ========= ==== Historical question on Vedic

Astrology [Editor: The following is an

edited version of a conversation happened in vedic astrology during

Jan, 2003] Sundeep (vedicastrostudent): 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?

Narasimha Rao (pvr108): Archaeology,

ancient history and comparative linguistics are not really sciences. They are

highly subjective fields where people are normally trying to 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 quoted 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