Review of “Vedic Origins of the Zodiac: The Hymns of Dirghatamas in the Rig Veda” By David Frawley

English: Vishnu sahasranama manuscript, ca 1690. Vishnu being worshipped in his five forms, including Rama and Lakshmana. Opaque watercolour on paper, Mewar, India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In continuing response to my new video I’ve been asked to comment on  an article written by David Frawley entitled, Vedic Origins of the Zodiac: The Hymns of Dirghatamas in the Rig Veda.

I’ll quote relevant sections and then comment.

[In] the Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic text, there are clear references to a chakra or wheel of 360 spokes placed in the sky.

Mr. Frawley points out that the Rg Veda mentions a wheel in the sky with 360 spokes. The exact reference is Rg 1.164.11 and also 1.164.48. These state, “The wheel of time moves through the heavens with six spokes and 720 pegs grouped in pairs“

The immediately surrounding verses make it clear that this wheel belongs to the Sun, and that it’s circle through heavens is a year, which is also divided in other ways, including six seasons.

This clearly shows that ancient Indians divided the year into 12 months, 360 days, 720 days and nights, etc. Since the same lunisolar motion that creates 12 months of the year creates a zodiac of 12 equal signs it is not too far fetched to infer that the ancient Indian’s divided the Sun’s path over the course of the year (the ecliptic)  into 12 divisions.

This shows that the 12 Rg Vedic divisions of the ecliptic are sun-based, based on the movement of the Sun during the year – which is to say, they are tropical.

This doesn’t show

• that they used these 12 divisions for astrological prognostication
• that they symbolized them as we do, ram, bull, twins, etc.

The hymns of Dirghatamas speak clearly of a zodiac of 360 degrees, divided in various ways, including by three, six and twelve, as well as related numbers of five and seven. We must remember that the zodiac is first of all a mathematical division of the heavens such as this hymn outlines. This is defined mainly according to the elements, qualities and planetary rulerships of the twelve signs. The symbols we ascribe to these twelve divisions is a different factor that can vary to some degree.

Here, Mr. Frawley is admitting the points I made above. The 12 divisions of space/time in the Vedas…

• Are mathematical, not stellar
• Can not truly be called a “zodiac” because it is not invested with the mostly animal symbols that we ascribe to the 12 astrological divisions.

The actual stars making up the constellation that goes along with the sign is yet a third factor. For example, some constellations are less or more than thirty degrees, but the mathematical or harmonic division of each sign will only be thirty degrees. What is important about the hymns of Dirghatamas is that he shows the mathematical basis of such harmonic divisions of a zodiac of 360 degrees.

Thus, these references show that the twelve Vedic divisions of space/time are not  divisions of stars into constellations. In other words, the hymns show that they are not sidereal.

According to Dirghatamas Rig Veda I.155.6, “With four times ninety names (caturbhih sakam navatim ca namabhih), he (Vishnu) sets in motion moving forces like a turning wheel (cakra).” This suggests that even in Vedic times Vishnu had 360 names or forms, one for each degree of the zodiac. A fourfold division may correspond to the solstices and equinoxes.

This is brilliant. Vishnu causes time to turn on a wheel with 360 days/degrees, divided into four groups of ninty – and these four divisions are the solstices and equinoxes – further evidence that the Vedic 12-fold wheel is tropical.

The Surya Siddhanta gives a similar view of the zodiac originally divided in four parts.  My video explains this.

Elsewhere Dirghatamas states, I.164.36, “Seven half embryos form the seed of the world. They stand in the dharma by the direction of Vishnu.” This probably refers to the seven planets.

Very interesting, as is much of the article that immediately follows. Coming to…

Yet another verse (43) of this same hymn of Dirghatamas refers to the Vishuvat, the solstice or equinox, showing that such astronomical meanings are clearly possible.

Dr. Frawley, in my opinion, has made a brilliant presentation giving the most plausible demonstration I have ever heard that the ancient Vedic people of India conceived of the year (and thus the ecliptic) in 12 divisions, connected with seven planets. Perhaps unintentionally he has also brought to light that these divisions are relative to tropical anchors: solstices and equinoxes.

The zodiac in Vedic thought is the wheel of the Sun. It is the circle created by the Sun’s rays.

Indeed, the Vedic 12-fold division of space is tied to the Sun (tropical), not to stars (sidereal).

…in Astronomy Before the Telescope, C. Walker (ed.), St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1996, pps. 123-124, Pingree suggests that Mul. Apin, Babylonian tablets that date from 687 to 500 BC has “’an ideal calendar’ in which one year contains 12 months, each of which has 30 days, and consequently exactly 360 days; a late hymn of the Rgveda refers to the same ‘ideal calendar’. And Mul.Apin describes the oscillation of the rising-point of the sun along the eastern horizon between its extremities when it is at the solstices; the same oscillation is described in the Aitareya Brahmana.’” This ideal calendar is the basis for the zodiac and its twelve signs at a mathematical level. Clearly Pingree is referring to Rig Veda I.164 as his ‘late’ hymn of the Rig Veda.

This is exactly what I was saying about Mul.Apin in my video.

…a zodiac of 360 degrees and its twelvefold division are much older in India than any Greek or even Babylonian references…

This seems to be the main point of Mr. Frawley’s article, which is not really a debate that significantly thrills me. In my opinion the beautiful fundamental principles of astrology have a superhuman source and were comprehended by humans in the krta and treta yugas, well before any Greek, Babylonian or Rg Vedic culture existed.

Clearly the Vedas show the mathematics for an early date for the zodiac as well as the precessional points of these eras long before the Babylonians or the Greeks supposedly gave them the zodiac.

Mr. Frawley makes a significant point for the antiquity and indigenous status of 12 divisions of the ecliptic in Indian. He did not demonstrated that the 12-fold zodiac was used for prognostication (“foreknowledge”) prior to Babylonian and Greek influence. Nor is it really explicitly clear anywhere in the Veda, to my knowledge, that any form of astrology was used from prognostication. The records, so far as I have seen, only demonstrate calendrical usage. I would like to hear Mr. Frawley give evidence for the use of astrology as a means of prognostication in ancient India.

Please note that I am not embracing any side of the argument, merely asking for a discussion on the topic.

The Rig Veda has another cryptic verse that suggests its cosmic numerology. According to it the Cosmic Bull has four horns, three feet, two heads and seven hands (Rig Veda IV.58.3). This sounds like a symbolic way of presenting the great kalpa number of 4,320,000,000 years.

This is a very interesting note to end on, and raises a significant contention regarding the calculations of Swami Sri Yukteshwar.

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

What does “Jyotisha” mean?

Jyotiṣa is the Sanskrit word for ”Astrology.” There is a lot of speculation on what it means. Here is what it really means, in lieu of authentic Sanskrit dictionaries and linguistic rules.

It is made of two parts jyotis and the suffix ṣa. [It's not made by combining jyoti and iśa because (a) there is no such word as jytoi (it's jyotis), and (b) there is no such word as iśa (it's īśa), and (c) if you combined jyotis and īśa you don't get "jyotiṣa" (the closest you might get is jyotīśa, which is a cool word, for sure, but is not a pre-existing Sanskrit word, and most certainly is not the Sanskrit word for "Astrology.")]

Jyotis means:

• Light
• Brightness
• An illuminating object, for example:
  • Sun
  • Moon
  • Fire
  • Lightning
  • The stars and planets
• As the revealer of things, and thus
  • Consciousness
  • Enlightenment

The suffix ṣa has several possible meanings:

1. The best
2. Mastery (in the sense of learning or wisdom)
3. Loss
4. Duration

The most direct meaning of the word Jyotiṣa is: Astronomy / Astronomer / Astrology / Astrologer. Since these are the English words expressing learning in the movement of the heavenly lights.

The primary use of Jyotiṣa is to measure the duration of things… to tell the time. By knowing the time, Jyotiṣa indirectly gives us a glimpse of the all phases of time: past, present and future. So there is also good use of many of the other connotations inherent in the word Jyotiṣa , such as the ability to reveal things, and enlighten.

Jyotisha is not really the science of light – it is the science of time. Time, however is relative to light. For example, the movement of the Sun (the source of all local light) is the backbone of the measurement of time.

Thank you,

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

Reading a Tropical Horoscope With Indian (“Vedic”) Techniques.

I have come to embrace the conclusion that the 12 sidereal signs of modern Indian astrology are not in line with the classical Indian definitions of the 12 signs, and have therefore adopted a somewhat unique system of calculating the 12 signs tropically, but calculating the 27 stars (“nakshatra”) sidereally.

Many people have kindly read about my reasoning behind this and the vast majority of readers have expressed appreciation or at least respect for my conclusions. But almost everyone asks, “Can you show us how to do it? How do you read a chart with Tropical signs.”

I wonder if there is any need to show how, because there is no special new technique involved. You simply follow the classical principles. Using a classical principles with a classical (tropical) definition of the 12 signs just produces clearer, simpler results. You don’t have to do anything new or adopt any new techniques.

But now that I’ve said that, I feel like I should say a little bit more.

When you switch to classical, tropical signs, you will want to be more pure and simple about your techniques. You can stick with the fundamental basics and discard all the complicated fine-print that has developed over the centuries since the classical period ended. So you would probably really want to go back to “square 1″ for a moment and organize your system and approach to reading the horoscope again from the ground up. Kind of like a spring-cleaning.

Start by diving more deeply into how you understand the method of interpreting planets in signs. Reread the classical descriptions of planets in signs, and figure out what they are really talking about.

Next do the same for planets in houses. And follow that up by doing the same with lords in houses. Forget what you have accumulated in your mind over the years about planets in signs and houses, etc. and take a fresh new look at the classics. Glancing back from the classics to your sample horoscopes – you will gain much more clarity on the fundamentals. So much more that you will feel very confident to burn all the bookshelves full of astrological fine-print that has accumulated literally in your library and figuratively in your mind. You  will be liberated to stick with the simple basics!

After you refresh your conception of planets and lords in signs and houses, next revisit the second level of basics. Start with dignity. (Re)learn about how to calculate dignity, and then about how to calculate dignity not just for a sign, but for a specific degree in the sign (by way of the varga subdivisions, the amshas). This information is all right there in the classical literature. Try to figure out what dignity is really all about – how it affects the positivity or negativity of what a planet does in a sign and house. Check it out in action in your sample charts, and feel relieved that now you can forget about all kinds of madening concepts like exaltation in retrogression and neech-bhanga-yogas. Using simple degree-specific dignity alone, with tropical signs, you will be reading charts easier, more clearly and more confidently than you did before.

After degree-specific dignity, review degree-specific aspects.

Then you have pretty much taken your “second birth” as an astrologer. My congratulations.

PS – remember, for this to really work wonders, you need to let go of everything you think you know and you have read about, especially everything that sounds remotely complex. Take a fresh new look at the classics on the classical, fundamental basics… apply it to the tropical horoscope (case with whole sign houses, and classical planets only), and you’ll be transformed.

PPS – dont’ forget to keep the nakshatras sidereal, and therefore don’t let your vimshottari dasha dates change. If you want to go into interpreting planets in nakshatra, this is also a great time to start. =)

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