Richard Vetter wrote:I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".

It also happens to contradict the orthodox position of most Hindu schools of thought (such as Vedanta), namely, that the Vedas are eternal and unauthored.

Richard Vetter wrote:Hi Varuna,

I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".
This is the end of every discussion, of human thought and science. We have to believe. Thus, myth is winning the victory over rationality.
It reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists, saying the Bible is not man-made but a revelation, God himself speaking - a justification for all kind of (a)morals.
Like Kepler - who said, "God is the most supreme geometer" - I think we should use our brains in order better to understand god's creation.

Richard

Richard,

Firstly, I stated: "The sama veda and the rg veda are not man-made, they are of the Cosmos/God"

I was very careful in my choice in wording and I will explain this in the next post in response to Martin.

Secondly, one needs faith in any matter of human endeavor, and this includes what you are proposing. For example, you have faith that it is possible to better understand the Creation, and that it is desirable to do so, and that you have tools and ways to do this. You have faith in the idea that the world exists, and in your relationship with this thing you call Creation.

I understand your frustration with people who believe in some text and who are unwilling to question it, e.g. the vedas or the bible. I have also experienced this frustration with these people at certain times in life. No discussions are allowed in this situation.

However, bhakti and faith are not of the intellect and they will never be of the intellect, but it seems like people need some basis or foundation for their position in this ephemeral dream-world. Faith provides that basis. Every person I have ever met, has some basis for their ideas on who they are and what the world is, and what their place in this world is.

Your temperament may not be one of a bhakti, and if so you will never agree with this attitude. Maybe you do not even understand it. Or maybe you do understand it but you look at it differently from others. Here is a rhetorical question:

Should everyone think exactly the same and live the way you think they should?

There are different qualities and levels of bhakti as well. Faith is of the heart and belief is of the mind - I don't believe in the vedas in the same way a Christian believes in the actual intellectual exercises/writings and stories in the Bible. The vedas do not have intellectual meaning.

I would encourage you to follow the path that has heart for you. If Kepler is an inspiration to you, then walk that path. I am not against trying to understand the Great Mystery like our scientists do. I am from a family of scientists. I grew up with scientific texts, e.g. I was studying geology and paleontology and evolutionary theory and such, before it was taught to us in grade school.

I have walked in those shoes.

Science didn't satisfy me as I became an adult, it was no longer a path of heart for me.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Richard Vetter wrote:I have problems with your statement, "the vedas come directly from God".

It also happens to contradict the orthodox position of most Hindu schools of thought (such as Vedanta), namely, that the Vedas are eternal and unauthored.

Martin,

I wrote: "The sama veda and the rg veda are not man-made, they are of the Cosmos/God"

We need to look at the term: 'of.' This term 'of' was meant to imply "sharing the same nature and identity as." This is opposed to 'from,' as in: "created by."

Also, we need to look into the slash mark: / This slash mark was intended to convey the idea that the Cosmos is God and God is the Cosmos. The Cosmos was written with the idea that the definition of cosmos is: the all. In other words, everything that has ever existed and that ever will exist and everything that has never existed and will never exist and everything in between all of these things and outside all of these things and inside all of these things.

It is difficult to put this concept into words, but you know what I meant.

You know vedanta and so do I. We both understand these things, therefore, I meant it the same way you wrote it.

Also, the reason the wording was so awkward is because I edited that statement after I posted it by deleting part of it, because I wrote something more revealing and I decided not to do so.

Part of this post was immature, so it was deleted.

The problem with religious scripture is the intermediate person holding the pencil.

It reminds me of a dialogue between lawyer and witness in a criminal trial in which the witness, a security guard, tells about his guard dog which was said to have recognised a criminal by smell.

Witness: My guard dog is never mistaken, that's for sure.
Lawyer: Are you mistaken sometimes?
Witness: Yes sure, I'm human and humans make mistakes from time to time.
Witness: If you are mistaken sometimes, how can you be sure that your guard dog is never mistaken?

Eddy,

Thank you for responding. I needed a break and I still do, which may have been clear based on my previous post, part of which was deleted because it was immature and not called for.

We are in a situation where we are going to be going around in circles now.

I don't mean to dismiss your post, but I don't feel like writing anything now, and I don't even know if you were trying to start a debate, or if you were making a reply on how you believe and leaving it at that?

How far do you take this epistemic stance, concerning human fallibility? Do you place all types of human second-hand (eg book) knowledge in this? Do you place knowledge based on the senses (eg sight, sound) in this? Since you are presumably a human, do you trust your own mind? Do you trust your senses? Do you consider the news media as a valid source? Do you trust history books? What is your opinion of biology and other science textbooks? What about the decisions of law courts? And so on and so forth.

Can you teach me how to discern epistemological-sound knowledge, from your perspective?

Are you suggesting there is some untruth in all scriptures? Are you suggesting that all scriptures are full of untruth from top to bottom?

Divine inspiration may exist but scriptures that were wrtitten down after preceding centuries of oral passing through of stories should not be taken litteraly as directly of god.

Richard,

Koch has revised that article:

http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm

I would also revise this statement I made: "Koch cannot be a seeker or student of [hindu thought]."

I am not qualified to say there are no other errors in his article, but two of them still stand out.

Koch: "But in Vedic texts, lists of the lunar mansions always start with K?ttik?"
This is an error, and here are some examples, from Frawley's work:

?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 I.19).

?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 a circle unite, so these two ends of the year are connected?? (Kaushitaki Brahmana V.1).

?Chitra is the head of Prajapati [the God of sacrifice or the year], Swati the heart, Hasta the hand, Vishakha the thighs, and Anuradha the foot? (Taittiriya Brahmana I.5.2.2).

I am not suggesting that these different order schemes are based on the same reasoning, but Koch's Krittika statement is misleading in light of the above quotes.

One other part which stands out as an error is the first citation at the end of the article:


"1 An impressive example is the interpretation of ChUp 6.8.7: tat satyam sa ?tm? tat tvam asi, "this is the true, this is the Self, this art thou". The Dvaitaved?nta tradition of Madhv?c?rya, which teaches the difference between the individual and God, reads the same text: tat satyam sa ?tm?-atat tvam asi, "... this is the true, this is the (divine) Self, this thou art not". Such violent treatment of sacred texts are anything but rare. Although the Advaitaved?nta tradition of ?a?kar?c?rya, from a superficial level, seems to be more in tune with the meaning of quoted text, on a more subtle level it also twists the meaning of the text. As a result of the radical non-duality of all things taught by ?a?kara, the teaching of K???a, which is essentially focused on selfless deeds, understood as a constant sacrifice to God, is twisted into a doctrine of the unreality of all individual existence, within which selfless deeds and worship ultimately make no sense at all. Similar phenomena appear in the astrological tradition, as I will show below."

The mountain analogy is necessary to see why these teachings appear contradictory. Those different teachings are for people starting out at the bottom of the mountain, where the paths are different (due to differing temperaments), but at the top of the mountain the paths reach the same place. The difference is only a matter of perspective and level on the path. Scholars separate and classify things.

Martin,

It is difficult to communicate using words, so if I write something from the perspective of hindu thought and jyotish, and it appears contradictory to the teachings, it is good that you point it out, because if it appears wrong to you, that means it will be very misleading to someone who does not have a background in this area.

I would never have realized that my statement Richard and yourself pointed out, was read the way it was.

Here is another aspect of the Koch article, which should be rephrased, since the Indians do not consider the Mahabharata to be prehistory.

Koch: The situation is similar in later Vedic texts like the great Mah?bh?rata epic, which relates us the story of an apocalyptic war in Indian prehistory.

"These scholars have discounted the fact that two of the greatest epics of
the world, Ramayana and Mahabharata are traditionally regarded as itihasa s, i.e., historic texts and that there are in addition, a host of supporting texts in the form of Puranas. Ignoring the fact that Bharata has its own sense of history and the purpose of history, which differs
from their own concept of history, the scholars have systematically misrepresented the chronology of Bharata" - Astronomical dating of events from Indian history

Also, first the Western story:

Koch: "From about the second century AD on, astrologers and astronomers from Hellenistic Egypt brought their knowledge to India and triggered a development that took the Indian sciences of the sky to new heights."

Koch: "The oldest astrological work in Sanskrit that knows the zodiac is the Yavanaj?taka ("birth chart according to the Greeks") by Sphujidhvaja, a textbook of astrology in verse that, according to its own testimony, is based on a Sanskrit translation of a Greek original. David Pingree suggested that this text was written in the 2nd century BC in Alexandria and came to India around 150 AD."

Koch: "Other old works from the Greek-inspired era, the so-called Siddh?ntas..."

Koch: "As has been said already, the most ancient astrological text, the Yavanaj?takam, teaches that the zodiac is fixed at the cardinal points of the year and at the same time also at the lunar mansions. According to David Pingree, this text was written around the year 150 AD."


For those who are interested in the history of astronomy and astrology, should we also consider what 'hindu' scholars say?

Here are some excerpts from: Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard Thompson. I was not going to copy the entire chapter, but I took excerpts to illustrate the hindu viewpoint on this matter, in order to demonstrate that maybe we should reconsider history from the hindu perspective, before imposing the Western version onto them.

I don't know if this book is still in print, but for those who are interested in this history of astronomical science issue, it may be something worth finding and taking into consideration.

Now, the hindu story:

"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..." p. 182

"...Now, how does Pingree know that this is what Aryabhata did some 1,400 years ago? His key argument is that if we us Ptolemaic calculations to reproduce Aryabhata's supposed steps, then we obtain Aryabhata's parameters for mean planetary motion 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 by Greek sources without acknowledgement (PG, pp. 114-5).

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..." p. 184

"However, one can indeed find other ways by which Aryabhata could have arrived at his parameters. The Brahmapaksa parameters are expressed in revolutions per kalpa of 4,320,000,000 years, whereas Aryabhata wanted parameters in revolutions per yuga cycle of 4,320,000 years (See Table A2.3). What happens if we simply divide the Brahmapaksa parameters by 1,000 and then round them off to suitable integers of the form 4n or 4n + 2? Column (4) of Table A2.1 shows the differences between the parameters computed in this way and Aryabhata's original parameters..." p. 184

"...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..." p. 185

"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." p. 187

"We have also not been able to account for the discrepancies between the middle and rightmost columns of Table 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.)" p. 188-9

"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..." p. 189

"...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..." p. 193

"...Persia is the natural link between India and the West, but of this country Neugebauer says:

'We know of Pahlavi translations of such first and second century astrological writings as Teucer and Vettius Valens and the presence of 'Indian books' as well as of the 'Roman megesti' around A.D. 250 under Shapur I. Under Khosro I,... was revised, around A.D. 550, the famous Zij ash-Shah, which has been shown to be greatly dependent on Hindu sources (NG, p..'" p. 194

"...In the remaining part of this appendix, we will give two more examples of the process of speculative reconstruction. These examples deal with the theoretical ideas and mathematical methods of Indian astronomy, which Western historians of science say were derived entirely from Greeks or Babylonians via Greek intermediaries." p. 194

"...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 (TMI, p. 6). It is important to note that only one work of Hipparchus' has ever 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..." p. 195

"...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..." p. 196

"...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 Apollonius of Perge (VW, pp. 211-12). Van der Waerden's reasoning goes as follows:..." p. 197

"...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." p. 198

I am not trying to pick on Koch, but it just so happened I came across Pingree in three sources at the same time, and so I thought it should be mentioned that there is conflicting stories about Pingree and his research. And the story of Pingree's research is foundational to the current understanding of the history of astronomy.

Eddy referenced me to a paper by Pingree earlier in this thread:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972JHA.....3...27P

Richard referenced me to Koch's article at astro.com and that article was partly based on Pingree.

Then, I started reading more of Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy, and there was this Pingree again. Pingree is one of the main scholars whom is referenced to by others and it appears that his research is questionable.

Fate it seems...

Varuna,

thank you for your comments on my article (http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm), which I. I would like to answer to some of your points:

varuna wrote: Dieter Koch needs to revise his article to eradicate it of false statements concerning the origins and dates of jyotish.
"Some scholars have claimed that the Babylonians invented the zodiac of 360 degrees around 700 BCE. 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." ? Frawley

Frawley is wrong. The wheel of 12 spokes with ?720 sons in pairs? (Rigveda 1.164.11 and 48 ) refers to the twelve months (12 x 30 days and 30 nights). I discussed this in footnote No. 4 of my article. Please read here: http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic ... otnote4sym

I personally believe the 360 divided by twelve idea is far older than what our scholars believe.

I do not know what you mean by ?what our scholars believe?. However, 360 divided by twelve is no proof of a zodiac. It is much more likely that it refers to the twelve months. Kindly note, names of zodiac signs are not mentioned in the Vedas, month names are - many times!

varuna wrote: Koch: "But in Vedic texts, lists of the lunar mansions always start with K?ttik?"

This is an error, and here are some examples, from Frawley's work:

?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 I.19).

?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 a circle unite, so these two ends of the year are connected?? (Kaushitaki Brahmana V.1).

?Chitra is the head of Prajapati [the God of sacrifice or the year], Swati the heart, Hasta the hand, Vishakha the thighs, and Anuradha the foot? (Taittiriya Brahmana I.5.2.2).

I am not suggesting that these different order schemes are based on the same reasoning, but Koch's Krittika statement is misleading in light of the above quotes.

I am talking about nakshatra *lists*. Please show me a *list* of nakshatras that start with Uttaraphalguni.
Where the Brahmanas say that Uttaraphalguni or another nakshatra is the mouth of the year, this refers to a calendar in which this nakshatra marked the beginning of the year. But this is not a *list* of nakshatra names. If I overlooked one that starts with another nakshatra, I am willing to learn. Please give me a reference. The nakshatra Krittika is extremely important in the Vedic texts and the Mahabharata, much more than any other nakshatra.

As to Madhvacharya, Shankaracharya, you say:

The mountain analogy is necessary to see why these teachings appear contradictory. Those different teachings are for people starting out at the bottom of the mountain, where the paths are different (due to differing temperaments), but at the top of the mountain the paths reach the same place. The difference is only a matter of perspective and level on the path. Scholars separate and classify things.

I do not believe this, and I think that only Advaitavadis would agree with it, no other school of Vedanta would agree. Reading "tat" or "atat" is not the same! To me it seems obvious that the two teachings *are* and do not only "appear" in contradiction with each other. And from this it follows that one or both must be in contradiction with Vedic writings.

Koch: "After the 'Laws of Manu,' people who earn their living through astrology are not allowed to attend Vedic rituals. Bh??ma, the great hero of the Mah?bh?rata epic also counts astrologers among the 'most depraved of the Brahmins'. Not only does he consider it shameful 'to earn
one?s living from the stars' but even more generally the predicting of astrological dates or the performing of 'star sacrifices.'"

This is misleading, probably unintentionally by Koch, because the issue here isn't astrology, the issue is a brahmin (priest) becoming a vaishya (merchant). A Brahmin's karman was to perform sacrifices and other religious rituals, but in the source Koch cited, it lists even performing religious rituals (for money) as against the karman of a Brahmin.

Thanks for this clarification. Maybe I am going to far here. But please look at my 3rd quotation from the Mahabharata in footnote 16 (http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic ... otnote4sym). May be this is not only about money but at predicting in general.

I do not want to judge Hindu astrology based on this single verse. However, you agree with me in the following point:

Koch is also right about this: jyotish is not necessary for true seekers, and it is a distraction.

Kind regards

Dieter Koch

Hi Dieter,

You are very welcome. I salute you from one seeker to another.

Firstly, I would like to make a general statement, and state a premise, for the benefit of each of us and everyone else: History, from the standpoint of ordinary mortals, is a supposition and second-hand knowledge.

"Just as the accession of treasure in a dream is useless, so also is second-hand knowledge" (Tripura Rahasya XV.27).

Now then, to start...

" I discussed this in footnote No. 4 of my article."

footnote 4: "Vedic astrologers contradict this statement and claim that as a matter of fact the zodiac signs are mentioned in the Vedas. Waradpande in "New Light on the Date of the Rgveda", p.13-24, refers to the following places in ?gveda: Leo/Lion (si?ha?) in RV 5.83.3 and 9.89.3, Virgo/Virgin (kany?) in RV 6.49.7, Gemini/Twins (mithunau) in RV 3.39.3 and Taurus/Bull (v?shabha?) in RV 6.47.5 and 8.93.1.

None of these references is convincing. Let us first look at the last one, which, at a first glance, is most striking:

ud ghed abhi ?rut?magha? v??abha? nary?pasam | ast?ram e?i s?rya
(RV 8.93.1)

"Up, o Surya, you rise, to <Indra>, the Bull, who is known for his gifts, whose deeds are heroic, to the archer."

This verse allegedly refers to the zodiac sign of Taurus, and as a matter of fact, the word v??abha? used here is a common Sanskrit name of this zodiac sign. The mention of the "archer" (ast?), which would associate Sagittarius, is ignored, though. Why? Because the common name of Sagittarius is dhanu? or "bow"? However, it is completely impossible that the "bull" here be meant as the constellation or zodiac sign Taurus. In the Vedic scriptures, "bull" is a common title for great heroes, such as Arjuna or other great heroes of the Mah?bh?rata epic, but especially for the Vedic storm and rain god Indra, to whom this hymn is addressed. In other words: The word "bull" in our verse does not refer to a constellation, but is an often-used title of the hero Indra. Those who apply this verse to the constellation or zodiac sign of Taurus, are obviously not aware of the signification of the bull metaphor in ancient Indian warriorhood.

Waradpande also refers to the following verse taken from a hymn to the rain god Parjanya:

rath?va ka?ay??v?? abhik?ipann ?vir d?t?n k??ute var?y?? aha
d?r?t si?hasya stanath? ud ?rate yat parjanya? k??ute var?ya? nabha?
(RV 5.83.3)

"Like the charioteer driving the horses by the whip, he makes the messengers of rain appear. / From afar the roars of the lion arise declare, when Parjanya makes the rain clouds."

Interpreting the "lion" as the constellation Leo would be far-fetched. The verse is just comparing the thundering rain god with a roaring lion. Besides, "lion" was an often used title for heroes and heroic gods, similar to the title "bull". This explanation also holds for the following verse from a hymn to Soma:

si?ha? nasanta madhvo ay?sa? harim aru?a? divo asya patim
??ro yutsu prathama? p?cchate g? asya cak?as? pari p?ty uk?? (RV 9.89.3)

"The sweet (cows) approach the lion, the dexterous, yellowish, reddish Lord of this sky. The foremost hero in battles looks after the cows, the bull guards them with his eye."

"Lion" here is a title of Soma, addressed as a moon god, not as the constellation of Leo. Besides he is called the "foremost hero in battles" and "bull". The cows are probably the Pleiades or some other stars.

"Vedic" astrologers also refer to ?gveda 1.164.11 and 48. The twelve subdivisions of the year mentioned there allegedly prove that the zodiac was known. The text reads:

dv?da??ra? nahi taj jar?ya vavarti cakra? pari dy?m ?tasya
? putr? agne mithun?so atra sapta ?at?ni vi??ati? ca tasthu?

"This wheel of twelve spokes of divine order revolves around the sky without fatigue. Upon it, o Agni, stand in pairs 720 sons."

However, never do we find a name list of the twelve zodiac signs in Vedic texts, and not even one clear mentioning of a single zodiac sign. What we do find, though, are name lists of the twelve months. This verse therefore no doubt alludes to the twelve months of the year, and the "720" stands for the number of days and nights in an "ideal year" of 360 days. Such an "ideal year" still underlies today?s Indian lunar calendars. They consist of 12 months of 30 Tithis each, where one Tithi roughly corresponds to one day. The details of the calendar calculation in ?gvedic times are not exactly known. However, as the year is said to "revolve around the sky," we can surmise that a somewhat similar method was used as described in the cuneiform text Epinnu (mul.apin). This text also uses an ideal year of 360 days (12 months of 30 days each) and lists the ideal dates on which different stars or constellations had their heliacal risings. The correlation of heliacal risings with calendar dates served the purpose of timely insertion of leap months. In the Vedic calendar the positions of the full moons in the lunar mansions could have been used for this purpose. It is interesting that Epinnu does not correlate months and zodiac signs, and that it lists 17, not 12, ecliptic constellations. Among these are some of today?s zodiac, but some are missing or bear other names. E.g. Aries was called the "Hired Man" and Virgo was known as the "Furrow". The example of Epinnu impressively demonstrates that a twelve-spoke wheel in ?gveda not necessarily indicates the circle of the twelve zodiac signs."

(RV 8.93.1) It is also traditionally taught that Indra rides an elephant and one of the things he carries is a bow. Some people said that Indra represents the Sun, but then other people said Indra represents Jupiter/Brihaspati/Guru/Ganesha. So we see Indra associated with the Sun, but then we also see Indra associated with elephants and Jupiter. In the RV 8.93.1 quote you gave, we do see Surya (Sun and something else) mentioned in the hymn to Indra. Indra is also called the king of heaven, so is it the Sun or is it Jupiter or is it both? The nakshatra of Rohini (found in Taurus) is also symbolized by a red ox or ox-cart among other things. Karttikeya is the son of Shiva, and he was raised by the wives of the seven rshis who are represented by the Pleiades which are in Krittika nakshatra. There may not be mention of Karttikeya in the vedas, but it is not hard to see the similarity in the name of Karttikeya and Krittika nakshatra. Karttikeya is always pictured with his bow and arrows and he is a God of war and an archer, and is one of the representations of Mars to some; the krittika nakshatra being at the end of Aries and the beginning of Taurus. The arrow also represents dynamic movement in a certain direction, and is sometimes seen as a symbol of the spiritual urge, and the bow symbolizes the potential energy of the search. Mrigashira is halfways in Taurus and one of the descriptions of mrigashirsha is "the seeking star," and which we have seen, seeking can also be represented by a bow and arrow. Also, this may not be relevant to the issue: but it may be of interest that mrigashira, besides being called the "head of the deer," is also located in the bow of orion where sidereal Taurus meets Gemini.

So far I have only addressed the first quote in your 4th citation and it is not a complete job, but it illustrates that it should not be difficult to do this with each quote concerning the alleged zodiac signs in the vedas, used in this 4th citation. The symbolism is so varied. So now, we can look at these 3 nakshatras associated with Taurus the bull in jyotish, and we have found symbolism of either an archer or a bull, with each one of them, albeit in an indirect way, through the nakshatra symbolism. We have found some archer symbolism associated in jyotish with two of the nakshatras located in the area of Taurus the bull, by looking at the first quote (RV 8.93.1), and the third (or rather the second in order) nakshatra associated with an ox.

One could of course argue, that this symbolism I used just now, came after the vedas, and was passed down through the puranas and jyotish teachings; but on the other hand, one could also use those teachings to link them to the vedas as part of an unbroken oral tradition. It depends on what one wants to demonstrate. This is the trouble with second-hand knowledge.

The nakshatras are based on the stars, and various nakshatra-based dasha sequences (periods of timing) are based on the Moon's position in the nakshatras.

You may be correct that the 360 and 12 references to wheels in the sky, are only concerned with the calendar and not the sky as well. So the question becomes: How many units of measurement across the sky, were there in the original nakshatra sequence? Surely, the nakshatras reached around the entire sky and had a certain division to them, with a certain total number of units of measurement.

When I stated: "what our scholars believe," I meant that every paradigm of thought becomes a cult. The academic world is a cult, just as much as any religion. The academic world has its own set of dogma and it also practices excommunication of its members for heretical thoughts. The academic world either crucifies its paradigm-breakers and then later worships them, or some get "lucky" and get worshiped in their own lifetime. The truly lucky ones are the ones who don't get noticed. I was thinking of the yugas when I wrote that statement.

Scholars do know a lot about their specialized field of knowledge, this is true. So they have a right to consider others as more ignorant than themselves in whichever areas they have specialized in. But on the other hand, almost everything most scholars know, is second-hand knowledge.

I will concede to you that the 12 signs were not originally mentioned in the supposedly oldest texts of the vedic tradition. I do not feel compelled to state that the rg veda quotes are in reference to a sign just because it state 'bull' or 'lion.' I will also concede that the 360 divided by 12 is referring to a calendar, this seems very plausible. I will even concede that the list of nakshatras from krittika is different from those 3 other orders. I believe there is a deeper significance to the krttika starting point, than that it happened to be in a certain position at a certain time. I read another citation, where you claim that the krttika starting point is because it was at a certain place at a certain time. This I do not believe. You and Frawley are in agreement on this point, but I am not. I referenced a text early on in this thread about this issue.

I have only studied astrology a little bit for a handful of years. I believe you have studied astrology much longer and more intensively and you have accomplished things in this field. I saw your name at the swiss ephemeris at astro.com, for example. I will give you the same respect I give to a scholar who has done these kind of things. I am a nothing and a nobody, who from time to time, writes strange things on the internet for amusement and for other reasons.

I almost became a scholar as well, but fate had other plans.

I did not mean any disrespect towards you.

I will not concede our disagreement on the mountain analogy, and maybe I will write more in response to this later.

And I will look more closely at this rule against astrology practice, including your citation.

om tat sat