Various ancient astrologers were polymaths and scientists, and rishis. Some may have had what others today would call religious or superstitious beliefs, but for them it was paradigms of how to think about the world, just like there are paradigms for how contemporary people think about the world. Imagine what people thousands of years in the future will think about our so-called educated, rational, scientific beliefs through the paradigms of today. The immature ones in that future age will ridicule our "scientific" superstitions that are considered rational and sophisticated today - which will be called "superstitious rubbish," by them.
Concerning the epistemology of the science of today: Hume brought to attention the problem of induction, and the example of grue emeralds by Nelson Goodman is based along that same epistemological problem for science. Popper attempted to refute Goodman by stating that scientific theories need to be based on real things, however, this is not a refutation of the problem, only the example was refuted, and Popper missed the epistemological point entirely. The problem is how do we know which scientific theory is based on real phenomenon, or that the phenomenon is even understood correctly? Consider Ptolemy's epicycles in regards to Popper's attempt to refute the problem of induction. Also, we can never be sure with perceptions, nor can we be sure with conceptions - why must nature conform to the intellect of humans? Popper, however, agreed with Hume that induction is not logical. The Jain epistemology is more subtle than this.
If scientists say their beliefs are rational they ought to study epistemology to understand their own position better. If scientists say their beliefs are more believable than say, a religious scripture, because the scientific method is self-corrective and they point to the 'evidence' of a theory being correct, as proof of the theory - but the theory was formulated based on that evidence - as to why we should believe that theory, then they are using the logic fallacy of petitio principii. Scientists say we should believe scientific theories because they are self-corrective - that is to say: temporary and false. In other words, we should believe scientific theories because they are temporary and false. This is quite clearly irrational, and yet it is a common paradigm taught in our society - it is these type of paradigms, combined with the scientific theories of today, which are surely heading towards ridicule in the future millennia.
There exists the common propaganda today, that the ancients were so ignorant, they believed the world was flat. Here is an incomplete list disproving that propaganda: Surya Siddhanta 1.59-60 (trans. by Bapu Deva Sastri); Siddhanta Siromani 3.19 & 3.52; Aryabhatiya 4.6; Srimad Bhagavatam 5.21.8-9;Panchasiddhantika 13.1; Brihat Samhita 5.8; Vishnu Purana 2.8; and Eratosthenes is stated in contemporary Western history as the first who calculated the circumference of the earth, but he learned his science from the ancient Egyptians, like Pythagoras and Solon. In fact, astrology is dependent upon a round earth - the math calculations require it. The Shulba Sutras contain the earliest preserved geometry. The following sources contain heliocentric references: Shatapatha Brahmana 220.127.116.11; Aitareya Brahmana 3.44;
There are millions of ancient texts in India that have never been translated into English and ancient science is included in them, in spite of the barbarian's destruction of major libraries in India, such as at Nalanda, Jagaddala, Odantpuri, Puphagiri, Vikramashila, Somapura Mahavihara, Taxila, Sharada Peeth, Telhara, Vallabhi, and we know about the destruction of the libraries of Alexandria, Babylon, Ninevah, Darius, and Byzantium, but we don't consider the indigenous knowledge that was destroyed through the Christian Empires, since the people who built Newgrange et al, also had sciences. Which brings me to the next point: when we ridicule the ancient superstitions without having studied them we are effectively destroying that knowledge without even knowing what it contained, just as the barbarians in the past who physically destroyed it seeking domination, but we allow it to be ridiculed, neglected, and rot away rather than record it into our libraries and universities - this is why Otto Neugebauer wrote an essay titled, 'The Study of Wretched Subjects' and why we should study them. Also, see an article titled: 'The Problem of Astrology' by Robert Schmidt. Neugebauer was in error on the chronology or timeline of Indian science history due to ignorance or ethnocentrism, like many earlier Orientalists, and David Pingree, likewise, was in error in his views of the development of astronomy and astrology science: Pingree narrowly defined astrology as using an ascendant point and said the Hellenists invented the ascendant, but we find "ahorātrāṇividadhad viśvasya miṣato vaśī" inRigveda 10.190.4 - 'aha' or day and 'ratri' or day-night as the divider between nocturnal and diurnal charts, i.e. the ascendant, the previous sutras are referring to Chandra Kendra and the Moon's tidal effects, and the Rigveda is older than Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8.
Sayana, in his commentary on the Rigveda, stated the speed of light using the ancient Indian measurement systems and it matches the speed of light as known today, and he wrote that his knowledge was based on the ancients. There are various references in the ancient texts to different measurements of time in different realms: "This sightseeing has lasted only a single day according to the standards prevailing here, whereas twelve thousand years have passed by in the world you are used to" (Tripura Rahasya 12.95), also see Srimad Bhagavatam 9.3.29-32. Here we see Einstein was preceded, not only by Ruder Boscovich, but by ancient Hindus. The Muslims also had this teaching in their scientific development, some of which was transferred to Europe after the destruction by the Christian empires, of the sciences of the druids and other indigenous Europeans.
If we ask many university science student what the origins of existence is, they will undoubtedly mention the Big Bang. The red-light shift could be a function of the nature of light over time, rather than evidence the universe is expanding, but many alleged scientists will pronounce the Big Bang with certainty of belief, no different than a fundamentalist religious person or any other person of any paradigm. How is this different than any other belief system? The danger scientists have is, once they learn a concept or idea or theorem, it establishes itself as dogma in the mind, and they are likely to remain stagnant in their beliefs, and yet scientists ridicule astrology or religion as a belief. Usually, the old science ideas leave with the old generation, science does not progress because scientists are open-minded, rather it progresses with the youth replacing the elders. Scientists would do well to relearn the 4 idols from 'Novum Organum' by Francis Bacon. A true scientist keeps an open mind, otherwise no further development is possible.
If it is said that astrology does not have a basis which is understood scientifically, it is only because astrology has been neglected by science, not that there are no explanations and theories of the mechanisms in both ancient and modern literature, e.g., the 'Vivekachudamani,' and Percy Seymour, respectively. What is the definition of 'biological life'? Biologists do not agree, and they do not know what biological life is, nor how to define it, and they do not know whence life came, but biology is still considered a science and people still study and investigate it, and try to learn and understand. This is not a perfect analogy since astrology was already developed by ancient people - who may have had mind capacities which have atrophied in modern humans - this is what the ancients themselves, teach. There are countless unsolved problems in various, and in fact, all, sciences, that are not understood as to how something works, but no scientist has ever said we should not study their science because we do not understand the mechanisms. Imagine if the first chemists rejected the entire ancient medical system outright rather than building on it by isolating the active plant and mineral chemicals from the ancient 'materia medica'? - Scientists have taken that position towards astrology to their own detriment - there will be revolutionary changes and paradigm shifts in many fields of science when scientists understand the basis of the principles of, e.g., shamanism and astrology.
There is often a straw man argument against astrology: gravity of the planets is less than close small objects, therefore astrology is rubbish. Astrology does not teach that gravity is the force behind its operation. Besides, science does not even understand gravity! Furthermore, it is thought in physics, that matter is actually energy. This idea was first developed mathematically (in contemporary Western history) by Ruder Boscovich. Physics teaches that gravity is a function of mass - but mass (matter) does not exist. Therefore, the theory of gravity is false, as understood today. If the unprovable argument is made that, determination cannot exist because I do not believe in it, therefore we should not study astrology, then why isn't that argument made against neurology and genetics? There have been numerous arguments and viewpoints on the problem of free will and determinism, across cultures and ages. In Jyotisha, there are 4 types of karma to address this problem. In a hypothetical society wherein there was no paradigm of free will, there would still be a justice system to inflict punishment and protect people from others, the only difference would be that 'blame' would not exist - this gives a whole new level to the concept of forgiveness, which is the healthy way to live for the victims of crimes. A common charge against astrologers is that they take money from the gullible, as though out of all human services, astrologers should work for free, because they are greedy charlatans - anyone who makes this claim should renounce their own salary, otherwise they are a hypocrite.
Another statement often leveled at astrology, by those who were unfortunately lied to by the self-styled 'skeptics' is that it has been "tested" and found to be false. This is not true. There are many astrology schools and traditions. No scientific committee has tested even one ancient astrology aphorism from India and using their traditional sidereal zodiac, statistically. Furthermore, the so-called 'skeptics' and 'scientists' of CSICOP, who were testing one rare contemporary school of astrology claims, falsified the results, as was revealed by one of their members: Dennis Rawlins in 'sTarbaby', Fate (October 1981). One wonders why the skeptics are not skeptical of their own pet theories, it is only those dangerous 'others' theories and sciences they are 'skeptics' towards. These self-labeled skeptics suffer from confirmation bias of their own beliefs and they will find what they are looking for, or falsify it if they don't. These scientists are no different than the priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, and yet they are the ones who honor Galileo, even though the skeptic scientists against astrology are actually acting in the role of the contemporary priest class - whom they claim to despise - perhaps they can study the psychological phenomenon called 'projection'. "There is no idea, however ancient and absurd that is not capable of improving our knowledge […] In a democracy [science] should be separated from the state just as churches are now separated from the state […]" (Against Method by Paul Feyerabend). Scientism is a cult.
There have been scores of science studies showing an indisputable relationship between biological life forms and cosmic objects through their cycles in the solar system. There are lists of science studies in 'The Case For Astrology' by John Anthony West (- of whom this writer disagrees with the author on his views of astrology), and lists of scientific studies in 'Issues In Veda And Astrology' edited by Haribhai Pandya.
If so-called rationalists say astrologers do not agree on which zodiac to use, tropical or sidereal, or geocentric and heliocentric, this is not an indication that astrology is rubbish. There are more commonalities than differences between the major traditional schools. Some astrology schools rely on harmonic aspects and do not use a zodiac. The 13th sign was invented in 1930 through an arbitrary division by the IAU, and Ptolemy included Ophiuchus in his Almagest but neither Tropical nor Sidereal astrology used that constellation as one of the 12 signs, since the stars of Sagittarius and Scorpio cover that region of the ecliptic longitudinally, and it is irrelevant to tropical astrology. Also, no subject ever studied has 100 percent agreement, and if there is a subject that has 100 percent agreement, then that subject is dead and not a living, branching, flourishing subject or it is propaganda like the false arguments against ancient astrology science by scientists and the media:
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits. […] The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. […] We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of" (Propaganda by Edward Bernays pgs. 47 & 9)
If we look at our scientists only a few centuries ago we see they believed the earth was created in 4004 BCE, however, if we look at the scientists in ancient societies such as India, we see different measurement systems. The Buddhists taught that there are an infinite number of universes like ephemeral bubbles appearing and disappearing continuously on the background of eternity. The Hindus have similar teachings.
"Even though Time creates endless universes, it is not wearied nor does it rejoice […] When Time thus dances in this universe, creating and destroying everything, what hope can we entertain? […] This world is like a potter's wheel: the wheel looks as if it stands still though it revolves at a terrific speed - even so to the deluded person, this world appears to be stable even though in fact it is constantly changing […] Many aeons have come and gone; they are but moments in time - for there is essentially no difference between an epoch and a moment, both being measures of time [from the viewpoint of eternity]. From the viewpoint of the gods even an epoch is but a moment of time (Vasistha's Yoga 1.23-27).
The epoch meant here is a kalpa, which is one day of Brahma. This kalpa is 4,320,000,000 years and 360 such Brahma days make a Brahma year. Brahma's life is 100 such years and Hindu's teach that Brahma is currently in his 51st year. This kalpa is divided into 14 manvantaras and we are in the 7th called Manu Vaivasvata. Each manvantara is 306,720,000 years, with gaps between the manvantara's in a kalpa. Each manvantara is divided into 71 mahayugas and 1000 mahayugas make one kalpa. Each mahayuga is divided into 4 yugas called Krta, Treta, Dvapara, and Kali, and their lengths are respectively, 4800, 3600, 2400, and 1200, years of the gods. These 4 yugas are a mahayuga of 12,000 years of the gods, times 360 equals 4,320,000 earth years.
71 mahayugas form a manvantara also called Manu, and 14 manvantaras are one day of Brahma called a Kalpa. The day of Brahma is followed by a dissolution called Naimittika where living beings are destroyed and after one night of Brahma the creation starts a rebirth and a new cycle. The kalpa or day of Brahma is equal to 4,320,000,000 earth years. One day and one night of Brahma is 8,640,000,000 earth years. 360 of these days make a year, and the life of Brahma is 100 of these years. At the end of the cycle of Brahma, Prakrittika Mahapralaya happens and the universe itself is dissolved. The cycle of Brahma is 311,040,000,000,000 years. After one cycle of Brahma another Brahma recreates the universe from the navel of Narayana (the infinite). These fore-mentioned time divisions are paraphrased from a Hindu astrologer in England, Sanjay Rath. There are also much smaller divisions of time. The point here is that scientists today say the earth is 4,320,000,000 years old. Where did they get that number from? The ancients. The Chaldeans also used a similar number sequence and they also were using a Sanskrit word for month: ritu. There was much cross-cultural contact in ancient times and it was not all a one-way transmission into India as earlier Western scholars stated. Also, see Rigveda 4.58.3. This is true of the contemporary archeologist's use of metal ages, which have parallels with: the golden age, silver age, bronze age, and iron age which are nomenclature from the ancients and the 4 Ages of Man are found around the world, in the Hopi, Lakota, Aztec, Olmec, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Norse traditions, and likely others.
We know Newton was an alchemist and astrologer - now, that is not to say we should study astrology because Newton did, but it tells us something: intelligent minds have been fascinated with the nature of reality and they study not only 'acceptable' sciences (astrology was already unacceptable in Newton's time and even in ancient times by some), but the meaning and purpose of life - across disciplines. People have different temperaments. Some believe the purpose of life is to learn, and many ancient astrologers felt the same way. Consider the ancient medical systems: 120 of the active compounds used in modern medicine are derived from plants and the vast majority correlate with their traditional usage to cure specific diseases. The foundation of modern medicine is based on the ancient teachings of the traditional plants and minerals used for specific diseases - this field still exists and is called ethnopharmacology. Scientists could gain by studying the ancient science of astrology in a similar manner, in regards physics, meteorology, and predicting earthquakes and volcanic action, and so on. Why are our skeptical scientists trained to dismiss other knowledge fields with no investigation? How many agnostics are agnostic towards their own paradigms and fields of study? Why is it fashionable to dismiss anything that does not have the label of acceptability from the authorities in those fields? If one thinks, erroneously, that scientists do not behave in these irrational and unscientific ways, and it is only the pseudo-scientist followers, then see a manifesto titled: 'Objections to Astrology' by Bart J. Bok, which was signed by 186 so-called scientists in 1975, including 18 Nobel laureates. The priest class was replaced by scientists in modern society, and rather than the crusades or interpersonal jihad, we have different forms of the same phenomenon, such as the persecution of ancient sciences and censorship - the destructive domination mentality has not changed one iota.
Has the reader ever seen an astrology chart? There are 12 signs, 12 houses, and 9 grahas or 'planets' in Jyotish. Each of those components has different elemental associations. Consider the ancient teaching of the 4 or 5 elements of fire, earth, air, water, and akasa or ether. Consider the science of today with its fire=plasma, earth=solid, air=gas, water=liquid, and ether is the substratum. The hatha yoga science as well as ancient medicine, incorporates these and other parts of ancient science into its teachings. Besides the above complexity of an astrology chart, in Parashara Jyotish teachings there are 16 divisional charts of the primary astrology chart, breaking up the 360 degrees and 12 signs into smaller portions down to the D-60 or sastiamsa chart which is 30 minutes or half of a degree of each 12-fold section of the 360 degree circle - which means this astrology chart changes entirely in about 2 minutes of clock time. There are 17 basic charts and scores of timing techniques of dashas, progressions, directions, profections, return charts, and transits. In Nadi astrology of the Chandra Kala Nadi school of astrology there are 150 divisions of a zodiac sign, which is to say each nadi amsa is 12 minutes of arc, and these 12 minutes of arc are further divided in half. The birthchart ascendant horoscope is read using that 6 minute of arc that is on the eastern horizon at birth, in jataka or the part of astrology that is used to read the destiny of an individual, in combination with all possible planetary configurations. This nadi amsa means the entire horoscope chart changes in the 20 seconds or so of clock time (depending on latitude) that 6 minute arc of the zodiac is on the eastern horizon or ascendant point.
In an evolved, free, open, and scientific society, it is considered immature and barbaric to diminish and ridicule a knowledge system or science or school of thought, merely because it is different. The term 'science' comes from the Latin 'scientia' which means knowledge or system of knowledge. Astrology is a system of knowledge, therefore astrology is considered a science if we look at the root meaning of the word. People do not try to disenfranchise sociologists, or anthropologists, or literary theory schools, and so on, from the universities. Every school of thought is welcome and encouraged to develop and evolve their knowledge system. Educated people have been trained to accept differences in regards to ethnicity, but they still behave in what they themselves would consider bigoted ways, towards other groups of people with different belief systems, such as astrologers. We no longer burn witches at the stake, although the authorities still try to subvert the herbalists, and unfortunately there is still this immature, atavistic attitude in our society and we need to consider why we cannot grow beyond that. If we cannot grow beyond that, then we should at least stop deceiving ourselves.
The U.N. has a mandate titled: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is an international consensus, which most civilized nations agreed on, and it states that all people have the right to their own cultural and ethnic identity and the right to preserve that identity. All humans are indigenous, therefore all humans share these rights: apply this analogy to astrology. Educated people in our society have also determined that it is a moral and usually legal wrong, to be bigoted towards other ethnic groups, there is an issue here with the freedom of speech, but the compromise has been that institutions which are funded by society or taxpayers have a legal binding on them that they shall not discriminate based on ethnicity, but individuals are free to be bigoted in their personal lives. There needs to be the same legal binding in regards to bigotry towards groups of people with a common belief system, for institutions of higher learning which are funded by taxpayers. In other words, no more prejudice towards astrologers, or any other shared belief system, in public institutions. Astrology in some cases is also intertwined with certain religions and it then becomes religious persecution - otherwise, what is the purpose of pluralism if it does not include belief-systems?
The ancient astrology is very different from the newspaper horoscopes of today which are very simplistic, but even Sun Sign astrology occasionally use aspects of planets to the Sun so it can be more complex than simply where the Sun was or is, at any given point in time. The total number of possible astrology charts in Jyotish is many times greater than the amount of grains of sand on earth, therefore the argument that people are divided into 12 groups, is false. Tropical astrology is based on the harmonics and resonance frequencies combined with the earth's orbit around the Sun and it is a time-based reference system, and Sidereal astrology is based on the harmonics and resonance frequencies of the space and stars around us and it is a spatial-based reference system. The reason an astrology system would work is because it is using a resonance harmonic frequency system of patterns, like music (and music of the spheres), or electricity, magnetism, etc., and these electromagnetic frequencies interact and combine with the earths electromagnetic field as well as the bio-electrical organisms. Prashna, or horary, works because the issues and questions are likewise a result of the time of the question and the energy of that time. Some day our science will develop enough to measure these fields, of which electromagnetism may merely be a derivative or lower order of this prana, and possibly catch up to where the ancient rishis were with their superior mind abilities.
Here is an example of an ancient astrology aphorism: "When Jupiter is occupying kendras or konas, and is aspected by Venus or Mercury, and Saturn joins parvathamsa, the person becomes a Vedantist" (sutra 294 of Sri Sarwarthachintamani trans. by B.Suryanarain Rao). A Vedantist in our society would mean an intellectual monk; this type of description needs to take into consideration the culture. "If the 4th and 5th contain malefics, Jupiter is in the 12th, with the Moon in the 6th or 8th without the aspect or conjunction of benefics, the native will experience blindness" (Hora Sara 24.45). Notice the complexity of these aphorisms and there are thousands of thousands of complex aphorisms like this in Jyotish. This is not Sun Sign astrology, it is much more complex than that and it is falsifiable - many claims in Jyotish are falsifiable, like much of the ancient astrology. If the argument is made that one small aspect of one school of astrology has been shown false, this does not falsify the entire science! This would be like disproving the Big Bang theory or Newtonian physics, and suggesting we should not study physics because aspects of physics were shown to be false - this is clearly an irrational and unscientific attitude which goes undetected in regards the unsubstantiated irrational contempt for astrology - based on ignorance and fear, and the dominating monkey mind. The reason modern astrology went into psychological motives and developed a modern Western psychological inclinations system that is unfalsifiable, is because governments were attempting to imprison astrologers 100 years ago, with draconian medieval-type laws against fortune-telling. Luckily, we have evolved beyond those days in our free and open "scientific" societies which also have a higher value on human rights - to a small degree.
Science does not develop solely by reason, it also requires something loosely called intuition. Let us look at Srinivasa Ramanujan as an example, he said a goddess appeared in his mind and gave him his math equations, and Hardy couldn't really accept that, but Hardy knew Ramanujan gave correct results at a high level of maths. A bird cannot fly with only one wing. Science is a bird that cannot fly without the two wings of reason and intuition, and yet there are scientists who would ridicule the phenomenon that they cannot understand, namely the phenomenon of how it is possible for a Ramanujan, or a Tesla, to see math patterns, or electrical frequency patterns and machines in their mind, respectively, without trial and error experimentation. Those who talk about being rationalists and who ridicule 'irrationality' are the ones who systematize the products of intuition of others. The rationalists ridicule what they have not experienced and ironically they are ridiculing the very thing that science needs in order to advance and develop new systems and paradigms, as well as technology. This is why induction is a necessary component of science but it cannot be called rational.
Feyerabend wrote a critique on the 186 scientists and their manifesto, 'Objections to Astrology' by Bart J. Bok, and compared the higher intellect and spirit of scholarly inquiry of a Roman Catholic church text written in 1484 titled, 'Malleus Maleficarum.' "[Malleus Maleficarum] has four parts: phenomena, aetiology, legal aspects, theological aspects of witchcraft. The description of phenomena is sufficiently detailed to enable us to identify the mental disturbances that accompanied some cases. The aetiology is pluralistic, there is not just the official explanation, there are other explanations as well, purely materialistic explanations included. Of course, in the end only one of the offered explanations is accepted, but the alternatives are discussed and so one can judge the arguments that lead to their elimination. This feature makes the Malleus superior to almost every physics, biology, chemistry textbook of today. Even the theology is pluralistic, heretical views are not passed over in silence, nor are they ridiculed; they are described, examined, and removed by argument. The authors know the subject, they know their opponents, they give a correct account of the position of their opponents, they argue against these positions and they use the best knowledge available at the time in their arguments. […] Comparing the Malleus with accounts of contemporary knowledge the reader can easily verify that the Pope and his learned authors knew what they were talking about. This cannot be said of our scientists. They neither know the subject they attack, astrology, nor those parts of their own science that undermine their attack" (The Strange Case of Astrology by Paul Feyerabend). Those 186 pseudo-scientists, 18 of them Nobel prize winners, were not well trained in the subject they damned and some of them rejected a BBC interview to explain their position because they said they "had never studied astrology and had no idea of its details"! Sartre apparently had the right idea when he declined the Nobel, when we look at his potential company.
"I saw the Shakadhuma by the solstice in the distance, dividing the superior from the inferior" (Rigveda 1.164.43).
"Uttaraphalguni is the mouth of the year. Purvaphalguni is its tail, just as two ends of a thing meet so these two ends of the year meet together" (Gopatha Brahmana 1.19). 3800 BCE
"The full Moon night in the Phalgunis is the beginning of the year; the latter Phalgunis are the beginning, the former the end. Just as the two ends of the circle unite, so these two ends of the year are connected. In that he sacrifices with the Vaishwadeva sacrifice on the full Moon night in the Phalgunis, verily at the beginning he delights the year. Again the four monthly sacrifices are sacrifices of healing; therefore they are performed in the joining of the seasons, for in the joining of the seasons, pain is born" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 5.1). 3800 BCE
Also, see Shatapatha Brahman 18.104.22.168; Taittiriya Brahmana 22.214.171.124; Sankyayana 4.4 and 4.1.
"When the return of the Sun took place from the middle of Aslesha, the solstice was then right. It now takes place from Punarvasu" (Brihat Samhita 3.1-2). 1st century BCE
"On the new Moon of Magha he rests, being about to turn northwards: the priests also rest, being about to sacrifice with the introductory Atirata chant; thus for the first time they obtain him; on him they lay hold with the Chaturvinsha rite; this is why the lay hold rite has its name. He (the Sun) goes north for six months; him they follow with six month rites in forward arrangement. Having gone north for six months he stands still, being about to turn southwards; the priests also rest, being about to sacrifice with the Vishuvat (solstice) day; thus for the second time they obtain him. He goes south for six months; him they follow with six month rites in reverse order. Having gone south for six months he stands still, being about to turn north; these also rest, being about to sacrifice with the Mahavrata day; thus for the third time they obtain him. In that they serve him (the year) three times, and the year is in three ways arranged, verily it serves to obtain the year. With regard to this the following sacrificial verse is sung,
Ordaining the days and nights,
Like a cunning spider,
For six months south constantly,
For six months north the Sun goes" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 19.3).
"The Sun, therefore, goes by the south for six months and for six months by the north" ( Krshna YajurvedaTaittiriya Samhita 6.5.3).
"The Vishuvat (solstice) is like a man; the first half of the Vishuvat is like the right half of a man; the second half of the Vishuvat is like the left half" (Aitareya Brahmana 4.22).
"The Vishuvat (solstice) is the head of the sacrifice" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 26.1).
"Easy to invoke, oh Agni, may the Krittikas and Rohini be, auspicious Mrigashira and peaceful Ardra. Graceful be Punarvasu, beautiful Pushya, bright Aslesha, with the solstice at Magha for me…" (Atharvaveda Samhita 19.7.2).
'Antiquity of the Vedic Calendar' by K.D. Abhyankar
"The Nakshatras are the houses of the Gods" (Taittiriya Brahmana 126.96.36.199)
"In silence, with closed eyes, the priests sit until the Nakshatras appear. When the Nakshatras appear, they open their eyes; the Nakshatras are light" (Kausitaki Brahmana 27.6).
"The Fathers fashioned heaven with the Nakshatras" (Rigveda 10.22.10).
"Brihaspati as he was born revealed Tishya (pushya) Nakshatra" (Taittiriya Brahmana 188.8.131.52).
"When the Sun is in the first part of the lunar mansion Krittika, and the Moon in the fourth of Vishakha; or when the Sun is in the third part of Vishakha, and the Moon is in the head of Krittika, that equinoctial season is holy and is styled the Mahavishubha, or great equinox" (Vishnu Purana 8.71-73).
The zodiac is a Greek term, but in ancient India the sky was divided into sections called Adityas.
Here are some of the references to adityas in the vedic texts:
Rigveda 6.67.4; 8.25.3; 10.36.3; 10.132.6; 10.185.3; 7.60.5; 8.47.9; 7.41.2; 4.18.4; 4.18.8; 9.69.3; 10.72.8; 9.114.3; and the adityas are mentioned individually in other places in that text.
Satapatha Brahmana 3.1-3.3 & 184.108.40.206; Tandya Brahmana 23.15.3 & 24.12.4; Taittiriya Brahmana 220.127.116.11-2; Talavakaropanisad Brahmana 4.5.1-3 & 4.10.10; Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 3.9.5; Mahabharata; Visnupurana 1.15.90; Nirukta 1.15.9
"From Father Liber to Alexander the Great, they reckon the number of their kings to have been 154, and they reckon 6,451 years and three months" (Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 6.59-60).
"From Dionysus to Sandrocottos, the Indians count 153 kings and more and 6042 years and during this time, thrice for liberty […] this for 300 years and the other for 120 years" (Arrian, Indica, 9.9).
Also see: 'Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy' by K.D. Abhyankar, and section 3 chapters 1 and 2 of 'Gods, Sages, and Kings' by David Frawley for further archeoastronomy evidence that is irrefutable as to the dating of the astronomy information they contain.
Compare the ages of recent developments in the archeology of India and the scholarship in archeoastronomy, with the history of India according to the Greeks. Mehrgarh and the early Indus civilization has been dated to 6500-7000 BCE. A previous link to a paper titled, 'Antiquity of the Vedic Calendar' by K.D. Abhyankar as well as his book 'Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy' gives textual support using archeoastronomy to independently date the vedic era to 6500-7000 BCE. The chapters 1 and 2 from section 3 in the book, 'Gods, Sages, and Kings' by David Frawley also give textual evidence using archeoastronomy independently dating the vedic era to 6500-7000 BCE. The Greek historians independently stated that Indian civilization dates to 6800 BCE.
Is it not remarkable? Is it not strong evidence from multiple sources and fields of knowledge that the official Indology dating of the veda and Indian civilization is not even close to the facts, based on speculation of 19th century Orientalists using zero evidence, as proven in the link to page 2 of the 'Orion' by B.G. Tilak? On the one hand, we have Indologists (still today!) claiming the veda is from the 2nd millenium BCE based on zero evidence and pure speculation, and on the other hand, we have actual evidence including archeology evidence, archeoastronomy evidence, and ancient Greek (outsider) historian evidence which all agree on the same time frame that the Vedic era civilization is from 9000 years b.p.?
"Nonetheless, even though our knowledge of the history of ancient astronomy is extremely incomplete, there are scholars who believe that they can uncover important parts of this history by speculative reconstruction. One example of this is a paper entitled 'The Recovery of Early Greek Astronomy from India,' by David Pingree (PG). In order to indicate the complexities and pitfalls of the speculative process, we will examine the key argument of this paper in detail. This will involve the use of a number of technical astronomical terms, but we will explain these as we go along. Our method will be to first present Pingree's theory, and then give his reasons for accepting this theory as true. Then step by step we will show the fallacies in his reasoning and present an alternative theory that is in better agreement with the facts […]
"Now, how does Pingree know that this is what Aryabhata did some 1,400 years ago? His key argument is that if we use Ptolemaic calculations to reproduce Aryabhata's supposed steps, then we obtain Aryabhata's parameters for mean planetary motions almost exactly. Aryabhata's parameters, listed under R in Table A2.1, are in the hundreds of thousands and millions. Column (1) of this table lists the differences between Aryabhata's parameters and these parameters as reconstructed by Pingree. For example, for Jupiter, Aryabhata's rate is 364,224 revolutions per yuga cycle, and Pingree's reconstruction is larger than this by 4. Since these differences are very small, it is hard to imagine how Aryabhata could have arrived at his parameters without following the scenario that Pingree proposes. This makes it seem that Pingree's conclusion concerning Aryabhata is indisputable, and equally so his contention that nearly every aspect of Indian astronomy was imported from Greek sources without acknowledgement […]
An argument such as Pingree's has a great impact on the academic world. It tends to be immediately convincing to scholars, and it becomes established as a foundation stone in an imposing school of thought that cannot be easily challenged by nonprofessionals. As a result, scholars in other fields (such as comparative religion and history) accept the conclusions of such a school as a matter of course, and modify their own views in accordance with it […]
…However, one can indeed find other ways by which Aryabhata could have arrived at his parameters […]
…most of the significant digits in these parameters come from the Brahmapaksa parameters, which Aryabhata acknowledges as source material […]
…As we shall see, this fine tuning can be accounted for in ways other than the one advocated by Pingree. To do this, it is first necessary to examine Pingree's argument more closely […]
"After we have checked our Ptolemaic calculations at the Kali-yuga starting date, the next step is to perform these calculations for noon of March 21, A.D. 499, the date of Aryabhata's alleged calculations. There are 454,759 days from Ptolemy's epoch to this date. If we compute the Ptolemaic mean positions for this date, a number of interesting points emerge. First of all, the Ptolemaic mean longitudes do not at all agree with Pingree's figures, as given in his Table 2 (PG, p. 116). This can be seen by comparing the rightmost and leftmost columns of Table A2.2." […]
"In his Table 1, Pingree lists distances from Zeta Piscium under the heading "Distance from Zeta Piscium," and mean longitudes under lambda, the Greek letter symbolizing these quantities (PG, p. 115). Yet in his table 2, he lists quantities under lambda that are really distances from Zeta Piscium, and he refers to these quantities as mean longitudes. We have not been able to account for this discrepancy in nomenclature […]
We have also not been able to account for the discrepancies between the middle and rightmost columns of A2.2, for it would seem that calculations for 454,759 days after Ptolemy's epoch should be even more precise than calculations for 860,172.25 days before that epoch. (We note that Pingree's Ptolemaic calculations apparently have not been corrected for the time difference between Ptolemy's city of Alexandria and Aryabhata's city of Ujjain; this possible correction does not account for the discrepancy.) […]
…For Venus and Mercury the errors in Pingree's reconstruction of Aryabhata's parameters turn out to be worse than those reported by Pingree in his paper. (Compare columns 1 and 2 of Table A2.1.) This indicates errors on Pingree's part, but it might be argued that it does not detract very badly from his hypothesis. We therefore ask, Is there some reasonable way of reconstructing Aryabhata's parameters that produce smaller errors for all of the planets than Pingree's method? The answer is yes. To explain this, we must turn to a discussion of the mean positions of the planets according to modern astronomy […]
…Let us suppose that Aryabhata did this, and that he then computed his parameters using his observed longitudes rather than longitudes copied from a Greek table. This leads to a reconstruction of his parameters based on modern calculation of the differences between mean longitudes and the sun's mean longitude. The longitudes and resulting parameters for this reconstruction are listed in the last two columns of Table A2.3, and the errors in this reconstruction are listed in column (5) of Table A2.1. As we can see, these errors are zero, except for Mercury, where the error is equal to that in Pingree's reported reconstruction (see columns (1) and (2)). Thus, the hypothesis of observation yields better results than the hypothesis of copying from Greek tables […]
"These statements certainly convey the impression that the Indian sine table was directly obtained from a related trigonometrical table used by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus. However, what do we find if we actually examine the paper by G.J. Toomer that these authorities are citing? Let us briefly consider this […]
The first thing that we learn from this paper is that there are no surviving Greek documents containing Hipparchus' chord table, even in a fragmentary form. Indeed, 'there is no explicit evidence about the nature of Hipparchus' chord table,' and no real proof that such a table ever existed (TM1, p. 6). It is important to note that only one work of Hipparchus' had survived - a commentary on the stars - and this does not present his mathematical methods. As we have already noted, this is typical of the state of our knowledge of pre-Ptolemaic Greek astronomy […]
…By this reasoning Toomer maintains that "the nature of Hipparchus' chord table is conclusively established" (TMI, p. 16). Since the table has the structure of an Indian sine table, it follows that Indian trigonometry must have been derived from the Greeks. The idea that Greeks may have been influenced by Indian developments is never even suggested by modern Western historians of science. But in this case, of course, we have no evidence for influence either way, since the connection between Hipparchus' two numbers and the Indian sine table is purely speculative […]
"Since the chord table of Hipparchus has not survived (if it ever existed), it is remarkable that such slender evidence can be offered as the basis for 'inevitable' conclusions about it. Yet, as we have seen, such speculative reconstructions are not unusual in the field of the history of science. Here we will give one more example. This is provided by the mathematician B.L. van der Waerden, who traces back Hipparchus' trigonometry to the Greek mathematician Appolonius of Perge […]
…One should note here that van der Waerden does not cite a reference giving Appolonius' estimate of [greek math pi symbol], and he also gives no reference that specifically attributes studies of trigonometry to Appolonius. Thus we do not know what Apollonius's estimate of [greek pi math symbol] was, nor do we know whether he actually knew any trigonometry […]
"We have discussed the arguments of Pingree, Toomer, and van der Waerden in detail to show the kind of foundations that underlie scholarly conclusions about the origins of Indian astronomy. The main characteristic of these foundations is that they are composed almost entirely of unsupported assumptions, biased interpretations, and imaginary reconstructions. It is unfortunate, however, that after many scholars have presented arguments of this type in learned treatises, the arguments accumulate to produce an imposing stratified deposit of apparently indisputable authority. In this way, supposedly solid facts are established by the fossilization of fanciful speculations whose original direction was determined by scholarly prejudice. Ultimately, these facts are presented in elementary texts and popular books, and accepted on faith by innocent people" (Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard L. Thompson).
10.190.4 Rigveda Samhita
अहोरात्राणिविदधद विश्वस्य मिषतो वशी ||
ahorātrāṇividadhad viśvasya miṣato vaśī ||
Ordainer of the days nights, Lord over all who close the eye.
The standard story in the West is that horoscope, and astrology as defined by Pingree is that this term means the 'marker of the hour' or the ascendant in an astrology chart and it was invented by Hellenists. 'Ahoratranividhad' means 'aha' or day and 'ratri' or day-night division and this is the ascendant and divider between diurnal and nocturnal charts. The verses surrounding that verse 10.190.4 prove that it is referring to astrology/astronomy concepts.
The rigveda samhita is older than any of the fragments of astrology texts that are used to define history that way and once again, ""Who knows the one wheel with 12 fellies and 3 axles? Therein are set together the 360 like spokes moving and unmoving" (Rigveda Samhita 1.164.48). The oldest known text contains mathematical purity. The 12 adityas are the soul of the rasis or constellations or signs in vedic astrology.
"By his attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports all those horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity, viz. the burning of widows, the destroying of infants, and even the immolation of men. Nay, his aim goes still deeper; for by the same means he endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction." - A Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy by John Bentley London 1825
"If, as is most probably, the Naksatras were not an Indian invention at all, but were derived from some foreign - perhaps Semitic - source, […]" - p.49 Rigveda Brahmanas by Arthur Berriedale Keith London 1920 He offers no evidence or reason to make such a claim, but this was standard procedure in what passed for "scholarship" in the previous decades.
"Some scholars have claimed that the Babylonians invented the zodiac of 360 degrees around 700 BCE, perhaps even earlier. Many claim that India received the knowledge of the zodiac from Babylonia or even later from Greece. However, as old as the Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic text, there are clear references to a chakra or wheel of 360 spokes placed in the sky. The number 360 and its related numbers like 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 108, 432 and 720 occur commonly in Vedic symbolism. It is in the hymns of the great Rishi Dirghatamas (RV I.140 – 164) that we have the clearest such references […]
[…] To quote from David Pingree’s "History of mathematical astronomy in India," in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, C.S. Gillespie (ed.), pp. 533-633, Charles Scribners, New York, 1981, page 534: "In the case of the priority of the Rgveda to the Brahmanas, it is not always clear that the views expressed in the latter developed historically after the composition of the former. All texts that can reasonably be dated before ca. 500 BC are here considered to represent essentially a single body of more or less uniform material." The point of his statement is to try to get such Rig Veda references as those of Dirghatamas later than the Brahmana texts as both reflect a similar sophisticated astronomy, which is necessary to make it later than the Babylonian references and a product of a Babylonian influence as he proposes. This requires reducing all the layers of Vedic literature to a more or less uniform mass at a very late date, which is contrary to almost every view of the text" (Vedic Origins of the Zodiac: The Hymns of Dirghatamas in the Rig Veda by David Frawley).
Shatapatha Brahmana (18.104.22.168) Yajnavalkaya states: "The sun strings these worlds - the earth, the planets, the atmosphere - to himself on a thread."
"The Sun never sets nor rises thats right. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken" (Aitareya Brahmana 2.7).
"The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. […] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising" (Vishnu Purana 2.8).
“The sun has tied Earth and other planets through attraction and moves them around itself as if a trainer moves newly trained horses around itself holding their reins.”
Rig Veda 1.164.13
“Sun moves in its orbit which itself is moving. Earth and other bodies move around sun due to force of attraction, because sun is heavier than them.
Rig Veda 1.35.9
“The sun moves in its own orbit but holding earth and other heavenly bodies in a manner that they do not collide with each other through force of attraction.
“The Sun never really sets nor rises. When people think the Sun is setting (it is not so). For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side…Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets….” (Aitareya Brahmana 3.44).
Shulba Sutras earliest known preserved geometry.
Also, see: Satapatha Brahmana 22.214.171.124; Talavakaropanisad Brahmana 4.5.1-3 & 4.10.10; Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 3.9.5.
The Satapatha Brahmana 126.96.36.199 can easily be dated to 4000 BCE given the astronomy data in that verse, and the Krshna Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8 'chitra purnamase' beginning of the year portion cannot have been formulated later than 8500 years ago, if the constant of precession of the equinoxes has stayed close to the same, unless it is referring to a previous point in the Great Year of Plato. This also matches the carbon dating of sites in Bharata including the city of Mehrgarh at 7000 BCE. "From Father Liber to Alexander the Great, they reckon the number of their kings to have been 154, and they reckon 6,451 years and three months" (Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 6.59-60). "From Dionysus to Sandrocottos, the Indians count 153 kings and more and 6042 years and during this time, thrice for liberty […] this for 300 years and the other for 120 years" (Arrian, Indica, 9.9). Also see: 'Antiquity of the Vedic Calendar' by K.D. Abhyankar; 'Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy' by K.D. Abhyankar; 'Gods, Sages, and Kings' by David Frawley. By comparison, see the specious speculation of the contemporary Western scholarship on the dating of Indian history, in: 'Orion' by B.G. Tilak (pg. 2).
"There was indeed a time when the Sun's southerly course began from the middle of the star Aslesa and the northerly one from the commencement of the star Dhanistha. For, it has been stated so in ancient works.
At present the southerly course of the Sun starts from the beginning of Cancer and the other from the initial point of Sign Capricorn. The actual fact which goes against the old statement can be verified by direct observation. The Sun's change of course can be detected by marking everyday the position of a distant object either at sunrise or sunset, or by watching and marking the entry and exit of the shadow of the gnomon planted at the centre of a big circle drawn on the ground" (Brhat Samhita 3.1-3 by Varahamihira 1st century BCE).
"The circumference of the earth has been pronounced to be 4967 Yojanas and the diameter of the same has been declared to be 1581 1/24 Yojanas in length: the superficial area of the Earth, like the net enclosing the hand ball, is 78,53,034 square Yojanas, and is found by multiplying the circumference by the diameter" (Siddhanta Siromani 3.52).
"The diameter of the Earth is 1600 Yojanas. Multiply the square of the diameter by 10, the square root of the product will be the circumference of the earth. The earth's circumference multiplied by the sine of co-latitude (of the given place) and divided by the radius is the Sphuta or rectified circumference (i.e. the parallel latitude) at that place. Multiply the daily motion (in minutes) by the distance of the given place from the Middle Line of the Earth, and divide the product by the rectified circumference of the Earth" (Surya Siddhanta 1.59-60 by Bapu Deva Sastri)
"The sphere of the Earth, being quite round, situated in the center of space, in the middle of the circle of asterisms, surrounded by the orbits of the planets, consists of water, earth, fire, and air" (Aryabhatiya 4.6).
Vriddhagarga described precession of the equinoxes in 500 BCE.
"In India, the beginning of Uttarayana has been used for starting the year from remote antiquity as is evident from the Vedanga Jyotish calendar and Aitareya Brahmana 18.18 and 18.22, where it is stated that on Vishuvadina, which occurred in the middle of the year, the sun reached its maximum altitude, that indicated the beginning of Dakshinayana. In fact, this was the practice in most of the ancient civilizations. For example, the Gregorian calendar, which begins the year only ten days after the winter solstice, is a relic of this ancient practice" (Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy by K.D. Abhyankar).
"The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year" (Krshna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8) This verse is referencing the era when the full Moon was in Chitra and opposite the Sun (at 0 Aries) at the winter solstice. Given the standard rate of precession of 71.8 years per degree. Therefore, this verse dates to 6500 BCE.
"Thou art Krttikas, the Naksatra, Agni, the deity; ye are the radiances of Agni, of Prajapati, of the creator, of Soma; to the Re thee, to radiance thee, to the shining thee, to the blaze thee, to the light thee
Thou art Rohini the Naksatra, Prajapati the deity; Mrgashirsa the Naksatra, Soma the deity; Ardra the Naksatra, Rudra the deity; the two Punarvasuss the Naksatra, Aditi the deity; Tisya the Naksatra, Brhaspati the deity; the Asresas the Naksatra, the serpents the deity; the Maghas the Naksatra, the fathers the deity; the two Phalgunis the Naksatra, Aryaman the deity; the two Phalgunis the Naksatra, Bhaga the deity; Hasta the Naksatra, Savitr the deity; Citra the Naksatra, Indra the deity; Svati the Naksatra, Vayu the deity; the two Vishakhas the Naksatra, Indra and Agni the deity; Anuradha the Naksatra, Mitra the deity; Rohini the Naksatra, Indra the deity; the two Vishrts the Naksatra, the fathers the deity; the Asadhas the Naksatra, the waters the deity; the Asadhas the Naksatra, the All-gods the deity; Crona the Naksatra, Visnu the deity; Shravistha the Naksatra, the Vasus the deity; Shatabhisaj the Naksatra, Indra the deity; Prosthapadas the Naksatra, the goat of one foot the deity; the Prosthapadas the Naksatra, the serpent of the deep the deity; the Apabharanis the Naksatra, Yama the deity. Full on the west; what the gods placed" (Krshna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita 4.4.10).
The above list of 27 nakshatras is the earliest known list of nakshatras. Many people claim there were originally 28 nakshatras and they point at Atharvaveda Samhita 19.7 as evidence of this, however, originally there were 3 Vedas and the Atharvaveda Samhita was only added later and the Atharvaveda is the youngest veda and it can be dated to 2500 BCE in the list of nakshatras (AV 19.7) wherein it states that Magha was at the solstice.
"Taking his own daughter, Revati, Kakudmi went to Lord Brahma in Brahmaloka, which is transcendental to the three modes of material nature, and inquired about a husband for her. When Kakudmi arrived there, Lord Brahma was engaged in hearing musical performances by the Gandharvas and had not a moment to talk with him. Therefore, Kakudmi waited, and at the end of the musical performances…[he] submitted his long-standing desire.
After hearing his words, Lord Brahma, who is most powerful, laughed loudly and said to Kakudmi, 'O King, all those whom you may have decided within the core of your heart to accept as your son-in-law have passed away in the course of time. Twenty-seven catur-yugas have already passed. Those upon whom you may have decided are now gone, and so are their sons, grandsons and other descendants. You cannot even hear about their names" (Srimad Bhagavatam 9.3.29-32). On the relativity of time.
"People living in countries at points diametrically opposite to where the sun is first seen rising will see the sun setting, and if a straight line were drawn from a point where the sun is at midday, the people in countries at the opposite end of the line would be experiencing midnight. Similarly, if people residing where the sun is setting were to go to countries diametrically opposite, they would not see the sun in the same condition" (Srimad Bhagavatam 5.21.8-9).
'The Divine Forces of the Lunar Naksatras' by Radhe gives an account of the Nakshatra deities from the vedic era. The Brhat Naksatra by Sanjay Rath gives insight on the use of the Nakshatras in Jyotisha.
"The Krittikas do not swerve from the eastern direction, all the other constellations do" (Shatapatha Brahmana 188.8.131.52).
"The equinoxes occur in the seasons of spring and autumn, when the Sun enters the signs of Aries and Libra. When the Sun enters Capricorn, his northern course commences; and his southern when he enters Cancer" (Vishnu Purana 2.8.63).
"When the return of the Sun took place from the middle of Aslesha, the solstice was then right. It now takes place from Punarvasu" (Varahamihira).
"From the bright half of the month of Magha is the beginning of the northern course of the Sun. The Sun and the Moon begin their rise from Shravishta" (Garga quoted by Somakara on Vedanga Jyotish 5.5).
"The year is a revolving wheel of the Gods; this is immortality" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 20.1).
"Soma, the king, is the year. Coming with the seasons he approaches" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 7.10).
"The year is sixfold having six seasons; by this sixfold offering the Gods obtained the sixfold year with its six seasons, and by the year all desires, all immortality" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 14.1).
"Three hundred and sixty are the days of the year; so great is the year; the Lord of creation is the year; the sacrifice is the Lord of creation" (Aitareya Brahmana 2.167).
"The Sun, therefore, goes by the south for six months and for six months by the north" (Krshna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita 6.5.3).
"Who is the wife of the year, may she be auspicious to us. Who is the replica of the year, we worship you as that night" (Atharva Veda 3.10.2-3).
"The Ekashtaka day is the wife of the year. When this night comes the Lord of creation (Prajapati) resides with her. Immediately from the beginning of the year, the rites of initiation are observed" (Tandya Mahabrahmana 5.92).
"They sacrifice to the year, four days before the full Moon in Magha" (Somakara quoting Laughakshi). 2000 BCE
"..with the solstice at Magha for me…" (Atharva Veda Samhita 19.7.2). 2300 BCE
"One should consecrate the fire in the Krittikas; …the Krittikas are the mouth of the Nakshatras" (Taittiriya Brahmana 184.108.40.206) 2300 BCE
"The Nakshatras are the houses of the Gods… the Nakshatras of the Gods begin with the Krittikas and end with Vishakha, whereas the Nakshatras of Yama begin with Anuradha and end with Apabharani" (Taittiriya Brahmana 220.127.116.11). 2300 BCE
"The Krittikas do not swerve from the eastern direction, all the other constellations do" (Shatapatha Brahmana 18.104.22.168). 2300 BCE
"The bridal train of the Sun Goddess comes, which the Sun God has set in motion. In Magha the cows are slain, in the Phalgunis she is wed" (Atharva Veda 14.1.13).
"The full Moon night in the Phalgunis is the beginning of the year (the winter solstice)" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 5.1).
"With the Maruts, Indra, let your friendship be. Then you will defeat all enemies. The three times sixty Maruts, increasing you, are holy like a mass of rays" (Rgveda Samhita 8.96.7-8).
"The Maruts are visible from afar, like the heavenly ones with the stars" (Rgveda 1.166.11).
"Like Heaven with the stars, Agni appears along both firmaments" (Rgveda 2.2.5).
"Agni is first established here by the ordainers, the holy invoker, to be worshipped in the sacrifices. The bearer of truth, most wise, he appears as Heaven with the stars" (Rgveda 4.7.1,3).
"Varuna knows the twelvefold months and their progeny, and he knows the one additionally born" (Rgveda 1.25.8).
"The six Rishis born of the Gods are twins, the seventh they say is born alone" (Rigveda 1.164.15).
"The Sun Gods (Adityas) ordain in harmony the year, the month and the day, the sacrifice, the night and the chant" (Rigveda 7.66.11).
"When for twelve days, oh Ribhus, you delighted, sleeping in the house of him who cannot be hidden, you made the fields fertile, you led down the rivers. Plants stood in the deserts, the waters entered the depths" (Rigveda 4.33.7)
"The house of him who cannot be hidden is that of the Sun God Savitar" (Rigveda 1.110.2-3).
The above two verse show the existence of both solar and lunar calendars in the Rig Veda and a sidereal year. To understand many of the above quotes and the ones below, read the two chapters on astronomy in the book 'Gods, Sages and Kings' by David Frawley, where these verses are explained. Also, see 'Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy' by K.D. Abhyankar.
"Four are his horns, three are his feet, two are his heads and seven are his hands" (Rgveda 4.58.3). Also, see the Prose Edda and the Babylon priest.
"The bridal train of the Sun Goddess comes, which the Sun has set in motion. In the month of Agha the cows are slain, in Arjuni she is wed" (Rgveda 10.85.13). 4000 BCE
"In the month of Magha the cows are slain, in Phalguni she is wed" (Atharvaveda 14.1.13). 4000 BCE
"Uttara Phalguni is the mouth of the year. Purva Phalguni is its tail, just as two ends of a thing meet so these two ends of the year meet together" (Gopatha Brahmana 1.19). 4000 BCE
"The full Moon night in the Phalgunis is the beginning of the year; the latter Phalgunis are the beginning, the former the end…" (Kaushitaki Brahmana 5.1). 4000- 4500 BCE
"…the Phalguni full Moon is the first night of the year" (Shatapatha Brahmana 22.214.171.124). 4000 BCE
Also, see Taittiriya Brahmana 126.96.36.199 and Sankyayana 4.4 and 4.1 for similar eras.
Then, see Krshna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8 for the full Moon in Chitra at the beginning of the year. The samvatsara, or beginning of the year, was the full Moon night at the winter solstice in the ancient Vedas. Therefore, the Chitra era at the winter solstice dates to 6500 BCE.
Hi Robert, I think I have read your website in the past? Do you write at Aquarius Papers?
My points were various and sundry. The primary purpose here was to correct misinformation about astrology in general and Jyotisha in particular. I am not sure what "my position" is, the only point was to demonstrate the contradictions and hypocrisy of the establishment and their propaganda against astrology, while at the same time correct wrong assumptions about Jyotisha among the astrology community itself. I have read far too much misinformation against astrology, Jyotisha, and sidereal astrology.
Here is an example of what I mean, which is excerpts from a recent message I sent to a tropical astrologer:
In an article you wrote on the philosophy of sign rulerships you included this quote from Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 1.17):
"Since the most productive of heat and warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, the luminaries, as houses. Leo, which is masculine, to the Sun and Cancer, which is feminine, to the Moon."
Here is the full quote:
"Since of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, that is, to the luminaries, as houses, Leo, which is masculine, to the sun and Cancer, feminine, to the moon."
Why did you omit the first part in bold?
The parts in bold are from ancient texts Ptolemy had access to, originally formulated when the summer solstice was at the beginning of Leo, this was also when the krittikas contained the full Moon at the autumnal equinox or alternatively the new moon at the vernal equinox depening on whether it was dawn or dusk, this era was around 2300 BCE, and the knowledge of those placements was passed down in various cultures, including the Persian, Egyptian (see Fagan), Chaldean- Hebrew, and Hindu.
"As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle" (Ezekiel 1:10). 2300 BCE
"And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle (Revelation 4:7). 2300 BCE
"One should consecrate the fire in the Krittikas; …the Krittikas are the mouth of the Nakshatras" (Taittiriya Brahmana 188.8.131.52) 2300 BCE
"The Krittikas do not swerve from the eastern direction, all the other constellations do" (Shatapatha Brahmana 184.108.40.206). 2300 BCE
"The Nakshatras are the houses of the Gods… the Nakshatras of the Gods begin with the Krittikas and end with Vishakha, whereas the Nakshatras of Yama begin with Anuradha and end with Apabharani" (Taittiriya Brahmana 220.127.116.11). 2300 BCE
Valens had the northern hemisphere vernal equinox set at 8 Aries, while earlier astrologers in the western tradition had the northern hemisphere vernal equinox set further into Aries. See Babylonian System A, and Babylonian System B.
In another article by you on why there are 12 signs and not 13, you wrote:
"This would not be possible because constellations vary greatly in size whereas zodiac signs do not.
It is worth considering that when the Babylonians developed their zodiac they recognised seventeen visible constellations that lay in the area measured by the zodiac. The reduction of the number of their constellations was done over time to facilitate astronomical measurement, and in response to the increased importance of the zodiac. But note that the constellation boundaries were adjusted to ease association of constellations with zodiac signs, not vice versa. The twelve-fold design of the zodiac is never changed to reflect alterations of constellation boundaries"
Firstly, the veda (my use of the term 'veda' includes the brahmana and later texts) includes a 12-fold wheel and the signs were called Adityas in those days and many verses from the vedic era can be dated using archeoastronomy. There were originally only 3 Vedas, then a 4th was added later, that 4th veda (Atharva) has astronomy that can be dated to 2500 BCE or around the time of the late Harappa era, but the AV also contains older verses. Therefore, to call the zodiac a Babylonian thing, is false and narrow and possibly ethnocentric as well. The Chaldeans were using a Sanskrit word for month (rtu).
Secondly, if we accept the premise that constellations have changed within a culture and between cultures, then to word the 12 constellation based sidereal signs as "constellation boundaries were adjusted to ease association of constellations with zodiac signs…the zodiac is never changed to reflect alterations of constellation boundaries", is a logical contradiction. If the boundaries of constellations are arbitrary, then it is impossible to state that those arbitrary and changing boundaries are not equal and not the same as equal zodiac signs, therefore it is impossible to frame the discussion as you have.
Try this premise: the constellation and sidereal zodiac signs are identical - see how everything changes with that premise? I am unsure why the sidereal constellation signs are always treated as a sort of primitive connect the dots paradigm, is this intentional or merely lack of consideration? Imagine the star groups and spaces between them, now if you want to argue that the spaces between them prove the constellations are not identical with sidereal signs, then zoom in on those empty regions of space until all you see is stars marking every one second of arc. There are countless stars. The truth is, any sidereal astrologer with any sense, would consider the sidereal signs to be those regions of space containing the nature of that stellar energy groupings, and they would think of it in harmonic terms. The harmonics can be divided into 12 or into any smaller division up to the Chandra Kali Nadi text division of 300 divisions per zodiac sign.
Why do Tropical astrologers feel obligated to attack and diminish and obscure facts in regards to sidereal astrology signs and the history of sidereal astrology whether Indian or Western? I have been trying to understand why. Are Tropical astrologers threatened by the existence of another paradigm? Is it the same phenomenon of a cult? What is it in the human mind that does this. I have been trying to understand the censorship and lies by omission in the Tropical astrology world.
My main concern is that the scholarship in the astrology community uses omissions of facts concerning the sidereal issue. I am not advocating sidereal astrology: my main purpose here is an appeal to tropical astrologers not to omit facts, and let students decide these issues for themselves with all facts on the table and nothing obscured from the discussions and presentations and articles etc.
I am requesting an open inquiry into the truth and history, and let the facts lay where they are. Allow students to make up their own minds.
Please do not confuse my purpose or point. I am not an evangelist. I simply do not appreciate the obscuring of inconvenient facts, and it is upsetting when students follow the bad examples of their teachers in the astrology community and attack other schools of astrology.
No more astrology wars. No more lies by omission. These are my concerns with the astrology community of today.
Renay Oshop - teacher, searcher, researcher, immerser, rejoicer, enjoying the interstices between Twitter, Facebook, and journals.