In response to my most recent video, someone sent me this article by G.K.GOEL of Vihar, New Delhi, asking for my comments…
Zodiac signs were visualized by ancient sages in the sky, along the path of the earth around the Sun.
Or is it the path of the Sun around the Earth? It’s not terribly important to the topic at hand – but ancient / classical astrology and the astronomy that it is built on is geocentric.
It is difficult to fix the era, when signs were named by Vedic sages,
If the signs were ever named by “Vedic sages” (Meaning Indian scientists of 3 to 4,000 years ago), why are these names not listed in any Vedic book (Meaning the 4 Vedas – Rg, Sama, Yajur, Atharva)?
but there are many references of sidereal signs based on Star formation in the in sky even in Rigveda .
Where? I have not seen a single definite reference to 12 zodiac signs in Rg Veda – the best I have seen is that the 360 days of the year are split (among other ways) into 12 divisions. There are no names of these divisions that I am aware of, and certainly no assertion that the divisions are not anchored to equinoxes.
They were become very popular and being extensively used in Indian Astrology at least before 2000 B.C.( since 4000 thousand years back).
If this is so why is there no mention of the 12 signs in the astrological text that still survives from arguably semi-Vedic antiquity – the Vedanga Jyotisha?
Rigveda says (6-55-3):
Rayoa dhara asi aaghrne vaso rashi ajaashv , dheevtodheevatah sakha.
This means: 0h Aja and ASHWA, YOU ARE A STREAM OF WEALTH, A SCINTILLATING HEAP OF GEMS YOU ARE FRIENDS OF WISE AND INTELLIGENT.
Is this supposed to have anything to do with 12 sidereal zodiac signs? Rg 6-55-3 is part of a prayer to Pushan. There is no evident astrological relevance whatsoever.
Rigveda richca 4-33-7 read with richa’s 3-9-4(referring to Leo), 3-39-3(referring to Gemini), 5-83-3 (again referring Leo), 6-47-5, 8-93-1, 7-55-7, 1-181-6
(referring Taurus) clearly indicated the change in seasonal cycles on the ingress of Sun in a particular sign in different era(s).
I am almost a little aggravated that the author doesn’t quote these texts and asks me to hunt them down.
4-33-7 is part of a prayer to the Ribhus. It says that they were the guests of “he who is never hidden” for twelve days, and during that time they constructed fields and irrigated them.
Am I supposed to believe that any mention of the number “12” refers to 12 sidereal zodiac signs?
3-9-4 is part of a prayer to Agni (fire), saying that even in water he is hidden, “like a lion in his lair.” Am I supposed to believe that any mention of a lion refers to “leo” and that this means the Vedic people had 12 sidereal sign?
3-39-3 is part of a prayer to Indra that mentions twins. So anytime the Veda mentions a twin it proves that they had 12 zodiac signs, sidereal, mind you, and that one of them was Gemini????
It’s too rediculous to continue. I’m starting to get irritated at the author for presenting such preposterous support for his claim.
These and similar other richa(s) should have been introduced in Rigveda in different eras, but it was much before the era of Ramayana and Mahabharata.Rigveda contains many references of sidereal signs along with star formations.
Really? Where are those references? Where does the Rg Veda define 12 zodiac divisions and tie them to stars? To the best of my knowledge this is a boldface lie.
Sign Aries should commence from the initial point of Nakshatra Aswani is the ancient Vedic concept. Zodiac signs were fixed and have permanent relationship with Nakshatras in sky (and also identified with physical constellations present in the sky).
If such a concept is in fact an “ancient Vedic” concept – where is the ancient Vedic text stating it??? Is it in the previous mentions of lions and twins spread here and there around the Rg Veda with no astrological context whatsoever?
This statement has no supporting evidence whatsoever. It is simply the authors favorite idea.
It was a late development, when Tropical signs were visualized to commence from
V.E.point, and given the same names as Sidereal signs. In ancient Vedic period only sidereal signs were referred.
If there is any reference to signs at all in the Vedic period, the author has failed to prove it. Much less has he proved that those signs are sidereal and not tropical.
The truth as best I understand it is that in the ancient Vedic period only sidereal NAKSHATRAS were conceived of. There is no record of them utilizing 12 divisions (rashi). Instead there is record of them utilizing 28 and 27 divisions (nakshatras)
No doubt, the days of Equinoxes ad Solstice were considered very auspicious for regulating seasonal/yearly cycles. But Makar Sankranti was always celebrated on the ingress of Sun in Sidereal Capricorn.
Makar Sankranti and winter Solstice were falling on different days and were having different significance. In distance past, there was no possibility to name tropical signs after the name of constellations, as tropical signs have no relationship with stars.
This is meaningless.
Stars are in sky and season cycle is only specific to Sun and revolution of earth round the Sun. In ancient past, it was not possible to pin point the location of V.E. point in the Zodiac and its presence on the Zodiac was recognized by full moon and new moon coinciding with the nearest day on which day and night were equal.
This is a preposterous statement and contradicts Surya Siddhanta (see my video
). One goes to an area near the equator and places a long pole into the ground, at a 90 degree angle. The day when the shadow of the pole completely dissapears is an equinox. In that day, the last star visible before the Sun rose is the approximate location of the heliacal equinox (“V.E. point.”).
As such, the concept of sidereal signs exists in the sky and synonym to the various shapes and configurations formed in the constellations, whereas Tropical signs are visualized on the path of earth around the Sun.
OK, if you say so…
As the longitudes and location of planets and stars are measured from the centre of earth, it is now convenient to measure Tropical co-ordinates. These are also required to formulate seasonal cycle , for introducing civil calendars and navigation purposes
From time immemorial, Indians were using their festivals and astrological predictions based on sidereal zodiac which was initially and originally observed by VEDIC SAGES in ancient past.
Really? Has the author ever read the most ancient text on Vedic astrology? It fixes festivals on sidereal nakshatra, not a “sidereal zodiac.”
If ancient Vedic literature is scanned, the seasons were identified by ingress of Sun in different sidereal signs and were occurring in different signs in different eras. This also helps to fix time frame for different eras in distance-past as seasons were not permanently linked with sidereal signs.
A most absurd statement, as it would cause the “frozen” season to be the hottest time of the year about 12,000 years ago. As far as my study of Vedic literature, I have not seen any reference to how to define seasons. I find it clearly defined in later Indian literature: Surya-Siddhanta and the Puranas (viz. Srimad Bhagavatam) and in those it is clearly and explicitly said to be equinotical (tropical) in nature. Please see my video
for more information.
a) There are references of Stars, Nakshatras and Sidereal signs in ancient Vedic literature.
The ancient Vedic literature references the stars (nakshatra), not the signs, and certainly not the sidereal signs.
b) Vishwamitra (third)-He gave tangible method to identify ingress of
V.E.point in constellations based on his observations during the period of 2382-2352 B.C. THIS PAVED THE way FOR NAMING THE TROPICAL SIGNS. These signs were named after sidereal signs prevalent and in use India.
The author provided no source material whatsoever to prove this. A claim as contentious as this, which would revolutionize the current scientific opinion of who discovered the precession of equinoxes certainly requires a reference to source material.
c) True longitudes of lunar nodes should be used. In ancient times, it was the tradition to use mean Rah, as it was not possible to calculate true RAHU. Now the longitudes of True Rahu are available, there is urgent necessity to replace the use of mean with True Rahu.
This has nothing at all to do with anything presented in the article. I happen to agree that true nodes are preferable to mean nodes, but not that it is “urgent” and certainly not that it has any relevance to the topic of the article.
d) True Citra Pakchha Ayanamsa should be adopted based on Tropical longitude of Star Citra. Sidereal longitude of Citra should always be 180 deg. This will help in checking the correctness of Ayanamsa.
This is another statement that is completely irrelevant to the main topic of the article. This statement itself is also meaningless. “180 degrees” from what?
e) Geocentric longitudes should always be used based on the measurements and observations of modern Astronomy. In fact Siddhantic principles paved the way for more
accurate observations in the modern era with the help of improved methods and instruments. Modern Astronomy provides improvement in Siddhantic parameters, it does not reject them.
Another statement that has nothing at all to do with the article’s main topic. I happen to agree that modern calculations are preferable to the classical ones.
Thought for the Day
WERE REFERENCES OF SIDREAL SIGNS and Planetary Positions IN Valmiki Ramayan regarding the birth of Lord Shri Rama introduced at a later date?
The answer is “absolutely not.”
Why? The fact that the lunar phase does not correlate with the location of Sun and Moon on the birth of Sri Rama as recorded in Ramayana at the date that it seems to have been written is “smoking gun” evidence that the statement was a later interpolation into the original text. Another “smoking gun” is that the reference only exists in the North Indian version of Ramayana. Probably this interpolation was made by an astrologer seeking to inflate the religious significance of astrology.
Sidereal signs were known even in early Rigvedic era.
The author claims that sidereal signs were known in Rg Veda, but he does not prove it to us. His best effort is to cite references scattered here and there in the Veda that talk about a lion, or a bull, or twins outside of any astrological context. The author failed to show that the Rg Veda even conceives of 12 signs, what to speak of establishing that they had a sidereal conception of those signs.
This author is speaking about topics that he does not clearly understand.