Discussion on Vedic Astrology

Astro Dienst recently published my article, Vedic Astrology – What It Is and What It’s Not. An interesting discussion then arose on their forum. The text in quoted format are things posted in response to my article, to which I am replying.

There is a lot of cherishing for the indian astrology in this article. But the fundamental questions about the general validity of it raised by Dieter Kochs’s article among others are not answered in any way.

I do not go point for point against Dieter’s article because I basically agree with all his points. Everything he mentions is a valid criticism of what now goes under the name “Vedic astrology.” We who are students of “Vedic astrology” need the backbone and integrity to admit that and deal with it. The need for my article is not to correct what is already correct, but to set a different context for those critiques which does not neglect the positive contributions that Indian astrology has to offer if we approach it intelligently.

There are many different sidereal zodiacs. Which is the right one? Where do we find the exact starting point for it?

I address this point in the article, but I apologize for not doing so more clearly or at more length. I was brief in this article because I have another extensive article in draft on this topic. My opinion is that the modern Indian concept of twelve sidereal signs is a mistake. It is not supported by classical Indian definitions and needs to be corrected.

thanks for answering my post. I hope I understand you correct in the way that you want to base everything on 27 Fixstars (with the according 27 nakshatras) rather than the 12 signs.

Not exactly.

My opinion is that the ancient astrology of India did not involve the 12 signs, but over the centuries the Indians have developed and preserved very useful techniques for using the 12 signs interpretively. I don’t think these should be overlooked or thrown away, but I do believe that to utilize these techniques effectively at the modern stage of equinoctial precession we must abandon their erroneous sidereal definition.

Additionally, my opinion is that the true contribution of Indian astrology has yet to clearly emerge from India, because the Vedic system of 27 stars interacting with the Sun and Moon (and to some extent other heavenly entities) has yet to be presented coherently

That [27-star system] still raises the same problems IMO.

1. the Fixtars themselve are moving and aren’t fixed at all.

The excruciatingly slow movement of the “fixed” stars is of a scope that makes it irrelevant to the scope of human history. Astrology, at least in my opinion and practice, is build open practical subjective/observational astronomy, not objective/philosophical astronomy. Therefore, for astrological purposes, the stars are indeed “fixed.”

2. the 27 nakshatras are connected to the 12 signs. The 1. nakshatra Ashwini is related to 0-13.20 Aries for instance. [/quote]

No. This is absolutely incorrect and is a side-effect of the erroneous sidereal conception of the 12 signs.  Or in other cases it arises due to lack of familiarity with Sanskrit mathematical terminology.

The 12 signs are anchored to equinoxes and solstices, and are based on the intersection of the Moon’s monthly rhythm with the Sun’s yearly one. The 27 stars are anchored to actual visible stars, and are based on the intersection of the Sun’s daily rhythm with the Moon’s monthly one. The two are independent of one another, though there is perhaps no reason that they cannot be complimentary.

The meanings of the 27 Vedic stars have nothing to do with signs or planets. That is misinformation. No matter how prevalent and widely accepted misinformation becomes, it is still misinformation. The meaning of each star derives entirely from the Vedic god who empowers each. I am in the midst of writing an extensive book on exactly this subject.

I made an observation (probably I am not the first one):

The names of the two nakshatras Jyeshtha and Mula mean “the oldest one” and “root”. This raises the question whether the real starting point of the nakshatra system could be here – although the ancient texts do not speak about it.

Now, it is interesting that the galactic equator (the central line of the Milky Way) crosses the ecliptic about in the middle of the nakshatra Mula – if the Lahiri ayanamsha is used.

I wonder whether this is more than just a coincidence.

You’re correct in assuming that this is a fairly common speculation.

As you have noted, the ancient texts do not ascribe any importance to a “galactic center” or “galactic equator” so if we are seeking to understand the Vedic definition of their nakṣatras we should ignore these musings.

Jyeṣṭhā is so named because it belongs to the Vedic god Indra – who is the eldest of the 13 main gods, being the firstborn of the progenitress Aditi and thus the leader of the gods, as the elder brother (jyeṣṭha-putra) becomes the leader of the siblings. The name does not indicate that the Vedics considered it the oldest star, first star, or anything similar.

Mūla is so named because it belongs to the Vedic goddess Nirṛti – the lawless one who lives in the netherworld (below ground, under the roots of things). That this nakṣatra is also at the root of the Milky Way may be part of the reason that this goddess takes possession of it, but does not indicate that the Vedic nakṣatra should be counted or reckoned from a galactic equator, or its intersection with the earth’s. In my opinion that would be an error.

the exact location of the nakshatras depends on the ayanamsha and is therefore an unsolved problem.

Yes, but the implication of the problem is not severe since the discrepancy between various ayanāṁśa is small (compared to the more pressing problem of a sidereal zodiac).

You are a philosophical and theoretical intellect, and you apply this to your study of astrology. I greatly admire and respect that. Discrepancies of a few degrees are significant to such thinkers. But I think the roots of astrology are observational and practical. In such context a few degrees uncertainty is, honestly, not a big deal.

To me, ayanāṁśa literally means “portion to the equinox” (since aṁśa can mean portion and ayana in astrological context refers to the northward and southward movement of the Sun relative to the equator, i.e. the matrix of solstices and equinoxes). From Sūryasiddhānta I have learned that ayanāṁśa is a mathematical device to translate computations from sidereal nakṣatra coordinates to tropical coordinates (explicitly for the purpose of determining the ascendant, and implicitly for erecting the houses around that ascendant). So, the really important issue pressing Indian astrology today is not what ayanāṁśa to use! It is what to use it for.

They currently use it wrongly to translate tropical coordinates to sidereal echoes. This is really the big, huge problem in Indian astrology that needs to be tackled and confronted. The question of “which ayanāṁśa” is moot until we have established what ayanāṁśa is in the first place.

Ayanāṁśa  is a measurement of the position of the vernal equinox point relative to the nearest fixed star of the era in which the ayanāṁsa is computed.

Additionally, this definition resolves the misconception that the Indians had a “trepidation” theory.

Vedic astrology – the actual ancient stuff – was highly observational and natural. “Look up there. See that beautiful red star? OK, that is the reference point for Rohiṇī. Now, just a little to the side of it, see that beautiful blue cluster of stars? OK, those are the reference point for Kṛttika. Now, see the dim triangle next to it? That’s the reference for Bharaṇī.” If you ask me, that’s how it went down in the old, old, old days. And of course significant mathematics were then applied to refine and homogenize it, but the basis of it was observational, not mathematical. I think that is why an exact mathematical zero point for nakṣatra seems conspicuously absent from the texts on astrological computation.

Thanks for the great discussion!

Vic

~~~

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

Ancient Vedic Astrologer’s Awareness of Precession of the Equinoxes and 12 Tropical Divisions

To see how ancient Vedic astrology utilized tropical measurements, arranged their year around them, and divided the tropical course of the Sun in various ways, including 12 segments, let’s look at the oldest surviving astrological text: the Vedanga Jyotish of Rg Veda.

Rg Vedanga Jyotisha 5 says that a year begins when the Sun is in Shravishtha (an older name for Dhanishtha). Now if you rewind the equinoxes you will find that just about 4,000 years ago (the estimated date of Rg Veda’s compilation / and Vedanga Jyotisha) the winter solstice would occur when the Sun enters Shravishtha. The 5th text states this explicitly by stating that this is the beginning of the year because it is the location of “uttarayana” – the point at which the Sun begins moving northward and the days begin getting longer. The Winter Solstice.

Rg Vedanga Jyotish 6 tells us that the shortest day and the beginning of the northward course of the Sun (and Moon) begins at Shravishtha, and that the beginning of the sourthward course begins in Aslesha (the opposite star from Shravishtha).

Rg Vedanga Jyotish 7 tells how much (on average) the day increases each day from the winter solstice, and visa versa from the summer solstice.

These three texts show beyond any reasonable doubt that ancient Vedic astrologers used tropical calculations (solstices and equinoxes) as the foundation for their measurement of the year. The solstices and equinoxes were translated to stellar locations either because (a) they were unaware that the equinoxes moved in relation to the stars, or (b) because all of the math for their calculations are based on stellar observations, the tropical points need to be transposed. I personally see no need to assume (a) and regardless if it is accepted or not, (b) is evident.

Rg Vedanga Jyotish 31-33 tell of “Vishuda” (equinoxes) – and explain how to calculate them for each year in the 5 year yuga cycle.

Rg Vedanga Jyotish 9 defines each of the six Vedic “seasons” as being equivalent to the Sun’s movement through 4 and a half nakshatra segments (interestingly, the text also gives seasons to the Moon!). This is another example of tropical / seasonal measurements being translated back and forth to sidereal equivalents.

Earlier, in Rg Vedanga Jyotish 5, mention of different months for lunar and solar calendars was made. And the name of the first tropical / solar month of the year was declared to be “Tapas”

Vaajasaneyi Samhita 13.14 gives the names of the 12 solar months:

“Tapas (Austerity) and Tapasya (Performer of Austerity) are the two months of the Frozen Season.

“Madhu (Sweetness) and Maadhava (Enjoyer of Sweetness) are the two months of the Blossoming Season (Spring).

“Shukra (Bright and Clear) and Shuci (Pure and Clean) are the two months of the Hot Season (Summer).

“Nabha (Bursting) and Nabhasya (Fogged) are the two months of the Rainy Season.

“Isha (Fertile) and Oorja (Invigorating) are the two months of the Mature Season (Autumn).

“Saha (Overcoming) and Sahasya (Strong) are the two months of the Frost Season.”

It is not in the Rg Veda version, but in the Yajur Vedanga Jyotish 28 says that the solar year has 366 days! (not an idealized 360, an accurate tropical 366). It says that there are 12 months in 6 seasons in 2 halves in this year, and that five such years constitute a “yuga.”

So we see that the ancient Vedic Astrologers calculated a year as the movement of the Sun from one winter solstice to the next. This movement of the Sun through time and space was divided into various segments, primarily into halves, 6ths and 12ths. The later of these is identical (or at least fundamentally similar) to how the 12 tropical signs of non-Indian origin were calculated. Thus we see that the ancient Vedic Astrologers did have a concept of dividing the tropical movement of the Sun into 12 segments, although we have no evidence that they connected them with rams, bulls and so forth, or asigned elemental, modal and planetary rulership to these, nor that they used them in any interpretive or natal format.

—-

As a footnote, it is rationally consistent with the Vedic paradigm that the year should begin in connection with the winter solstice. The rationale: Vedanga Jyotish and all Vedic and supplimentary texts divide all significant periods of time (days, months and years, for example) into two halves: one half representing a “daytime” and the other representing a “night”. For example, every lunar month has two halves: the bright half (waxing moon) is the “daytime” for the hemigods, and the dark half (waning moon) is their “nighttime.” Thus one of our months is equivalent to one of their days. And further the year has two halves, one when the Sun is moving northward (“uttara-ayana”), the other when the Sun is moving southward (“dakshina-ayana”). The northern course of the Sun is the “daytime” for the main class of demigods, and the southern course is their night. Thus one of our years is equivalent to one of their days.

Now, it is rationale that things start at daybreak, when we wake up and get started. Thus it makes sense to start the month with the new moon – the beginning of the waxing parva – because it begins the day for many hemigods; and it makes most sense to start the year with the Sun beginning to move northward – because it begins the day for the demigods.

The Sun begins moving northward at the winter solstice, which 4,000 years ago was when the Sun entered Shravishtha.

There is an alternative “beginning” of the new year which is the spring equinox. The original name of Mrgashirsha was Agrahaayana – which means “new year.” And this would be from an even earlier period (about 4k B.C.) when the vernal equinox corresponded to Mrgashirsha. Thus from this older period many customs of starting years from the equinox would have persisted. Vedic culture spanned a very long period of time, it appears at least from 4k B.C. to about 1k B.C. During this time the equinox seems to have been NOTED to drift against the stars, and thus the stars associated with the “first” position and the solstices and equinoxes were updated, up till the relative decline of knowledge in Kali-Yuga around 0B.C. at which point we became locked into thinking that the tropical measurements and the stars were identical, and Asvini seems to have been forever deemed the “first star” and the center point of Mula (beginning of sidereal Capricorn) is forever deemed (erroneously) to be the beginning of the Sun moving northward (uttarayana). Thus it seems that ancient Vedic Indians were aware of equinotical precession, but later lost their knowledge of it with the general decline of culture that occurred entering the “A.D.” historical era.

~~~

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

~~~