The 28 Ancient Nakshatras

1
I recently found the website of Indian calendar reformer Sri Mohan Krity Aarsh Tithi Patak. He is a leading campaigner for India to reform its calendar to a sayana (tropical) based calendar on orthodox Hindu grounds. This was the calendar that appears to have been used in Vedic times judging by texts like the Vedanga Jyotisa. Actually, this was the first choice of the Indian Calendar Reform Committee in the 1950's. The Lahiri calendar finally selected was apparently meant to be just a provisional compromise.

Sri Mohan Krity Aarsh Tithi Patak also advocates a system of unequal Nakshatra junction stars as described in the Atharva Veda.

Looking at your chart with these unequal Nakshatras certainly leads to interesting consequences as it may well change the Nakshatra position of your Moon and other planets.

Here is the list of nakshatras he gives on his site:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130317222 ... atras.html

http://www.reformedsanathancalendar.in/natchatras.html

I dont know if the list of junction stars here is definitely correct or not. According to a note on the link ''Main Nakshatras have been fixed as per recommendations of the Calendar Reform Committee 1952 , Government of India.'' (It would be really useful to have Kenneth Johnson's feedback here!)

According to Kenneth Johnson while there are also 27 Nakshatras
mentioned in the Rig Veda the names of many of these are unrecognisable today. He suggests the differing number of nakshatras listed possibly reflects rival spiritual traditions.

In any case the names of the Nakshatras used today seems to stem from the list in the Atharva Veda. Moreover, the oldest astrological texts discussing the Nakshatras preserved in China all utilise 28 nakshatra. The equal, 27 Nakshatra seems to be a later development after the infusion of hellenistic astrology and the combination of nakshatras with the rasi chakra or 12 sign zodiac.

So if you want your astrology to be genuinely 'Vedic' this is the way to go!

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

2
hi mark,

i thought you weren't a fan of using the word 'vedic' in reference to indian astrology.. you have me curious! maybe you're still not and this is a funny sort of way to address a particular crowd!!

i recall one point in the interview with chris brennan and kenneth johnson where ken said the nakshatras lined up with fixed stars..he might have even said something to the effect that they were the basis for the nakshatras, but as i wasn't always paying attention, i might have missed something!!! at any rate, that first comment was an interesting comment and i was unaware of that prior to him saying that.

i always thought since the nakshatras were so central to indian astrology that the navamsha chart which is also considered quite central to indian astrology was somehow directly connected in some way given the 27 mansions as opposed to 28.. things work out with that 9th harmonic with 27, but they don't with 28! anyway, i am very curious to know more and like you think it would be great if kenneth found a moment to share his wisdom on all this here with us!

3
James_M wrote:
i thought you weren't a fan of using the word 'vedic' in reference to indian astrology.. you have me curious! maybe you're still not and this is a funny sort of way to address a particular crowd!!
I'm not generally keen on the term 'Vedic' to describe Jyotish or Indian astrology. In fact a lot of people on this forum dont like it or use it. Very little Jyotish can be precisely traced back astrologically that far.

Plus I have other objections to the term such as the role of other religious groups in Indian astral development. Individuals from the Buddhist, Jain and Muslim faiths have had a role in the development of Jyotish in India.

Politically, the terms has rather unpleasant overtones in India too with Hindu supremacist parties like the BJP pushing the line that all Indians are basically Hindu or Vedic by default.

However,...this text is a real exception! The Vedic period ended around 500 BCE and this text is way before that. As Kenneth said in his interview its recently been dated as far back as 800BCE -1000BCE. So in the case of this text we really are (for once) discussing something that really is 'Vedic' in origin. The problem is that no Jyotish practitioners I know of work this way!

James_M wrote:
i recall one point in the interview with chris brennan and kenneth johnson where ken said the nakshatras lined up with fixed stars..he might have even said something to the effect that they were the basis for the nakshatras, but as i wasn't always paying attention, i might have missed something!!! at any rate, that first comment was an interesting comment and i was unaware of that prior to him saying that.
The Nakshatras is a sidereal system originally based on fixed stars as the boundary of each nakshatra in the ancient system. However, sometime around the 4th-6th century CE the system of 27 , equal mansions replaced the older system. So the system of Nakshatras used by Jyotish astrologers today developed about 1000 years after the end of the Vedic age in India.

James_M wrote:
i always thought since the nakshatras were so central to indian astrology that the navamsha chart which is also considered quite central to indian astrology was somehow directly connected in some way given the 27 mansions as opposed to 28.. things work out with that 9th harmonic with 27, but they don't with 28! anyway, i am very curious to know more and like you think it would be great if kenneth found a moment to share his wisdom on all this here with us!
Your quite right that the current system used in Jyotish or Indian astrology today utilises 27 equal mansions which integrate very well with the navamsha chart (9 fold divisional chart).

However, the vargas or divisional charts used with the 12 sign zodiac appears to have been a later development after the arrival of hellenistic astrology.

The move to a 27 mansion system had some definite astrological advantages. Firstly, the 27 equal mansions fits more closely with the sidereal or zodiacal monthly cycle of the Moon than the 28 mansion system did.

Secondly, it more closely approximates to the daily motion of the Moon through the zodiac and the length of the equal mansions is an approximation of that. So in the equal , 27 nakshatra system the Moon travels through approximately a nakshatra each day.

Thirdly, we have a more organised rulership system with each planet /node assigned three Nakshatra each. Again this fits into the numerology of 9.

When you take it all together its actually a beautiful piece of astrological synthesis to bring together these two completely different systems.

However, the contrary position is that the original Indian system of star lore was seriously compromised and distorted to fit into an equalitarian, ecliptic fixated system. Many of the ancient Indian myths are directly linked to fixed stars. Their rearrangement into the equal nakshatras has actually created an astrological dislocation in the placement of some stars by modern nakshatra. I personally, think there is evidence the original Indian system of nakshatras was equatorial (like the 28 Chinese Lunar Mansions) not ecliptical at all. This explains why stars way outside the ecliptic -Sirius, Canopus, Crux, Vega, Ursa Major (the Plough/Big Dipper) form such an important role in Indian mythology.

In one of his articles on the Indus Valley script the Finnish academic Asko Parpolo makes the following fascinating comment:
The Purana texts contain an interesting conception about the pole star... In reply to a question why the stars and planets do not not fall down from the sky, these heavenly bodies are said to be bound to the pole star with invisible 'ropes of wind'. These 'ropes' seem to refer to the air roots of the cosmic banyan tree, which god Varuna is said to hold up in the sky in the earliest Indian text dating from c1000 BCE'. Study of The Indus Script, Special Lecture, Asko Parpolo, 19.05.2005, Tokyo
'

Parpola uses these references as part of a wider argument that one of the seals in the ancient Harappan culture actually represents the pole star/cosmic tree of later Vedic texts. Whether, Parpola is right or not regarding that point the cosmology represented in the Puranas sounds far more like an equatorial view of the cosmos centred on the pole star rather than one based around the ecliptic. It would therefore seem more logical to assume that the ancient Nakshatras fitted into that kind of cosmology and astrological world view.

I suspect Nakshatra based dasa (time lord) systems like Vimsottari were actually designed for the 27 Nakshatras. The B?hat Par??ara Hor???stra (BPHS) was quite possibly the first text to pull all this together into a fully integrated system.

Earlier Jyotisha texts like the Brihat Jataka of Varahamihira discuss rasi (sign) based dasa such as the mula dasa. These seem to have predominated in the earlier period. No doubt mirroring the influence of hellenistic astrology which had several time lord systems based on planetary periods.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

4
This is an interesting new topic!

Mark wrote:
The Nakshatras is a sidereal system originally based on fixed stars as the boundary of each nakshatra in the ancient system. However, sometime around the 4th-6th century CE the system of 27 , equal mansions replaced the older system.
Just to clear up the term "junction star" that is used in the Burgess commentary in Surya Siddhanta:

"The stars of which the text thus accurately defines the positions do not, in most cases, by themselves alone, constitute the asterisms (nakshatras); they are only the principal members of the several groups of stars--each, in the calculation of conjunctions (yoga) between the planets and the asterisms...representing its group, and therefore called...the "junction-star: (yogat?r?) of the asterism."
Burgess translation of Surya Siddhanta (Of the Asterisms), p. 207

So a "junction star" is the representative star of its asterism which usually contains a number of stars. This makes precise definitions of the ancient 28 nakshatras more difficult. There probably were no precise boundaries to the nakshatras. The modern 27 Mansions of the Moon are something entirely different. It's a very interesting problem to work out exactly how the ancient asterisms apply to our modern mansions. I believe the most comprehensive historical notes on the nakshatras are in Surya Siddhanta (28-30 pages).
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

5
As I said above I think the evidence better supports an equatorial Nakshatra system in the ancient period. One clear example of this is the role of the Saptarishis in Ancient Indian astrology.

We know that the circumpolar stars overhead which never rise or set were very important in many ancient cultures. The Egyptians seem to have included certain circumpolar stars in their religious rituals around the burial of the Pharoah. Representations from the Temple site in Denderah in Egypt includes images of the northerly constellations such as Draco and Ursa Major. Even academically mainstream archeoastronomers are now proposing temple alignments to the circumpolar constellations and the pole star in Ancient Egypt.

The Chinese saw the circumpolar stars as the centre of the celestial Emperor's Palace. They derived their system of 28 lunar mansions equatorially from the north celestial pole. Could the nakshatras have a similar cosmological origin? Scholars have previously speculated regarding ancient cultural interaction influencing these two lunar mansion systems. However, if both systems were originally equatorial that argument sees to gain additional support.

The Constellation of Ursa Major known as the seven sages or Sapta Rishis (Big Dipper/Plough) seems to have had a significant place in ancient India. The astrologer-astronomer Varahamihira (circa 550 CE) in his Brihat-Samhita, dedicates the 13th chapter to SaptaRishis. The relevant verses provide following descriptions roughly translated as:
''We have on Vriddha Garga?s authority that in the Northern Sky, the SapthaRishi?s revolve around Dhruva Nayaka like a necklace.

From east to west the saptha muni's Marichi, Vasishtha, Angirasa, Athri, Pulasthya, Pulaaha and Krathu sit. Chaste Arundhathi accompanies sage Vasishtha. ''
Several authorities have identified these references to these Sapta Rishis as being the stars of Ursa major (the Plough/Big Dipper).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saptarishi

Dhruva Nayaka is of course a reference to the pole star. In the ancient past this would have been Thuban in the constellation of Draco rather than Polaris as it is today.

The Saptarishis were also fundamentall to a great astrological timing system known as the Saptarish cycle.

In the Brihat Samhita (ch13) Varahamihira discusses the great cycle of celestial movement by the Sapta Rishis :
?The Sages traverse through each lunar mansion for a period of 100 years (satam, satam varsah). Whichever constellation makes them conspicuous when they rise to the east of it, in that they are said to be situated? ?
The Saptarishis therefore appear to be a Yuga cycle lasting 2700 years.

The oldest reference to the Saptarshi cycle is in Vishnu Purana. The relevent Shloka states:
?Take those two stars of Saptarshi (seven sages) which are seen first after the rise. The nakshatra which is seen in the middle of it at equal distance at the night, is said to be residence of Saptarshi for 100 years of man?s life. Oh great brahmin they were in Magha (Regulus, Leo) at the time of Parikshit.? (Vishnu Purana, IV 4.105-106)
One interpretation is that the pointer star is passing through centre of the bowl would mean that the observation was done around 3200 ? 3100 BC.

Here is an interesting article on the subject by a group of astronomers:
http://www.tifr.res.in/~archaeo/papers/ ... 0paper.pdf

Unfortunately, they rather reveal their historical naivety by this statement regarding the ancient nakshatras:
We know that Indians designed 27 nakshatras along the ecliptic to denote approximate positions of the moon on each day of the month. This means each nakshatra should be placed at the intervals of roughly 13 degrees in the sky.
There is also a fascinating link between Krittika and the Sapta Rishis. The Satapatha-Brahmana (2,1,2,4) states that the six Pleiades were separated from their husbands on account of their infidelity; other texts specify that only one of the seven wives, Arundhati, remained faithful and was allowed to stay with her husband: she is the small star Alcor in the Great Bear, pointed out as a paradigm of marital virtue to the bride in the Vedic marriage ceremonies.

So clearly the mythology of the Pleiades is directly linked to Ursa Major. Why? Perhaps the ancients saw Krittika specially connected to the Sapta Rishis by a 'rope' from the pole star (Dhruva) aka the cosmic tree?

The theories of the Finnish scholar Asko Parpolo take such notions even further with his proposal that the Indus Valley seals represent astal themes so that the fundamental role of the Sapta Rishis and Pole star (Dhruva) pre-date Vedic India to the Dravidian Indus Valley civilisation. Parpola also argues an ancient calendar linked to Krittika which may have originally reflected its link then to the spring equinox.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

6
Therese Hamilton wrote:
Just to clear up the term "junction star" that is used in the Burgess commentary in Surya Siddhanta:

"The stars of which the text thus accurately defines the positions do not, in most cases, by themselves alone, constitute the asterisms (nakshatras); they are only the principal members of the several groups of stars--each, in the calculation of conjunctions (yoga) between the planets and the asterisms...representing its group, and therefore called...the "junction-star: (yogat?r?) of the asterism."
Burgess translation of Surya Siddhanta (Of the Asterisms), p. 207

So a "junction star" is the representative star of its asterism which usually contains a number of stars. This makes precise definitions of the ancient 28 nakshatras more difficult. There probably were no precise boundaries to the nakshatras. The modern 27 Mansions of the Moon are something entirely different. It's a very interesting problem to work out exactly how the ancient asterisms apply to our modern mansions. I believe the most comprehensive historical notes on the nakshatras are in Surya Siddhanta (28-30 pages).
Thanks. Yes I was a bit sceptical if we could literally take the list of stars in the Atharva Veda as simply boundary or junction stars. The consensus seems to be that the ancient nakshatras were named after the brightest star in the asterism. Going back to the ancient period they may indeed have been no strict boundaries in the mathematical sense.

Dr.S. Balakrishna has attempted to review the identity of the Nakshatra stars but acknowledges the difficulty cited above. Dr.S. Balakrishna proposes his own assignation of the key star in each nakshatra compared to the assignations in Richard Hinckley Allen?s book "Star names- Their lore and meaning". Strange he doesn't seem to even examine other sources such as the proposals of the Indian Government Calendar Reform Committee.

Here are links to his articles:

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/stars_history.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/stars.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_rh.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_ecliptic.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_mesha.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_vrishba.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_mithuna.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_karkataka.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_simha.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_kanyaa.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_tula.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_dhanu.htm

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_kumbha.htm

Here is the concluding table where Dr.S. Balakrishna sets out his conclusions of the key star in each ancient nakshatra compared to Richard Hinckley Allen list:

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/compare_conclusion.htm

Unfortunately, there is little or no attempt to link these associations to the mythology of India in the way Kenneth Johnson has done. I think this may well be one of our best ways of trying to recover the actual stars linked to the ancient nakshatras. Balakrishna also decides to seek to define the ancient nakshatras with a 27 Nakshatra approach despite the use of 28 being more likely. Yet he uses the names of the Nakshatras derived from the 28 mansions listed in the Atharva Veda!

I suppose that is because of the unrecognisable names of many of the Nakshatras listed in the Rig Veda make their identification an almost impossible task. I also think stars well outside the ecliptic were more widely used than Dr.S. Balakrishna's research allows.

It would be very interesting to study a translation of the Jyotish texts preserved in China. The oldest of these apparently, retain an unequal, 28 Nakshatra system starting with Krittika. Considering these texts are dated in some cases 1000-1200 years after the Atharva Veda I assume the astronomical and mathematical methodology is much more sophisticated.

Having said that the oldest extant text we have using the nakshatras astrologically is the Sardulakarnavadana from the beginning of the common era. It utilses 28 mansions, and has Kriitika as the first Nakshatra. I have seen a translation of this text. There is certainly a kind of electional astrology and also some basic horoscopy in the text. It actually reminds me a lot of older Bablylonian Omen texts in style. However, intriguing as it is the Sardulakarnavadana doesn't seem to offer us much help in actually pinpointing the stars involved in each Nakshatra.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

8
Mark wrote: According to Kenneth Johnson while there are also 27 Nakshatras
mentioned in the Rig Veda the names of many of these are unrecognisable today. He suggests the differing number of nakshatras listed possibly reflects rival spiritual traditions.
Ken's notion fits the evidence better than the belief that the 27 nakshatras are a later development. It appears that 27 and 28 are parallel traditions.

Ken, will you please cite the place where the 27 nakshatras are stated in the Rg Veda? I have not heard of that until now.
Mark wrote: The equal, 27 Nakshatra seems to be a later development after the infusion of hellenistic astrology and the combination of nakshatras with the rasi chakra or 12 sign zodiac.
This is why I did not acknowledge your Buddhist dating or any other Westernized mythological dating of India, even if some of it is correct, so if it annoys you now you know why. I thought I would at least explain myself since it seems like it annoys you. We both need to look at the other and chuckle and think 'that is what you think'.

We can count the number of nakshatras from the Krshna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Sanhita 4.4.10:

"(You are) Krttikas [1], 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
(You are) Rohini [2] the Naksatra, Prajapati the deity; Mrga?irsa [3] the Naksatra, Soma the deity; Ardra [4] the Naksatra, Rudra the deity; the two Punarvasus [5] the Naksatra, Aditi the deity; Tisya [6] the Naksatra, Brhaspati the deity; the A?resas [7] the Naksatra, the serpents the deity; the Maghas [8] the Naksatra, the fathers the deity; the two Phalgunis [9] the Naksatra, Aryaman the deity;

the two Phalgunis [10] the Naksatra, Bhaga the deity; Hasta [11] the Naksatra, Savitr the deity; Citra [12] the Naksatra, Indra the deity; Svati [13] the Naksatra, Vayu the deity; the two Vi?akhas [14] the Naksatra, Indra and Agni the deity; Anruradha [15] the Naksatra, Mitra the deity; Rohini [16] the Naksatra, Indra the deity; the two Vi?rts [17] the Naksatra; the fathers the deity;

the Asadhas [18] the Naksatra, the waters the deity; the Asadhas [19] the Naksatra, the All-gods the deity; ?rona [20] the Naksatra, Visnu the deity; ?ravistha [21] the Naksatra, the Vasus the, deity; ?atabhisaj [22] the Naksatra, Indra the deity; Prosthapadas [23] the Naksatra, the goat of one foot the deity; the Prosthapadas [24] the Naksatra, the serpent of the deep the deity; Revati [25] the Naksatra, Pusan the deity; the two A?vayujs [26] the Naksatra, the A?vins the deity; the Apabharanis [27] the Naksatra, Yama the deity.

Full on the west; what the gods placed."

The above text is from thousands of years before the usual dating of the Greek presence in India.
Mark wrote: However,...this text is a real exception! The Vedic period ended around 500 BCE and this text is way before that. As Kenneth said in his interview its recently been dated as far back as 800BCE -1000BCE. So in the case of this text we really are (for once) discussing something that really is 'Vedic' in origin.
This is a fairy tale to me.
Mark wrote: The Nakshatras is a sidereal system originally based on fixed stars as the boundary of each nakshatra in the ancient system. However, sometime around the 4th-6th century CE the system of 27 , equal mansions replaced the older system. So the system of Nakshatras used by Jyotish astrologers today developed about 1000 years after the end of the Vedic age in India.
This is also a fairy tale to me.
Mark wrote: The move to a 27 mansion system had some definite astrological advantages. Firstly, the 27 equal mansions fits more closely with the sidereal or zodiacal monthly cycle of the Moon than the 28 mansion system did.
ditto
Mark wrote: Thirdly, we have a more organised rulership system with each planet /node assigned three Nakshatra each. Again this fits into the numerology of 9.

When you take it all together its actually a beautiful piece of astrological synthesis to bring together these two completely different systems.
You may want to look at the principles of the Ashtottari Dasha which is said to be in use in South India.
Mark wrote: I suspect Nakshatra based dasa (time lord) systems like Vimsottari were actually designed for the 27 Nakshatras. The B?hat Par??ara Hor???stra (BPHS) was quite possibly the first text to pull all this together into a fully integrated system.

Earlier Jyotisha texts like the Brihat Jataka of Varahamihira discuss rasi (sign) based dasa such as the mula dasa. These seem to have predominated in the earlier period. No doubt mirroring the influence of hellenistic astrology which had several time lord systems based on planetary periods.
Study the Ashtottari Dasha in relation to these comments. The BPHS states the reason Vimshottari is most often used nowadays.
Mark wrote: Unfortunately, they rather reveal their historical naivety by this statement regarding the ancient nakshatras:
Here is where we both get to be mildly amused.
Mark wrote: Parpola also argues an ancient calendar linked to Krittika which may have originally reflected its link then to the spring equinox.
Parpola should have read the Taittiriya Sanhita 4.4.10 and 7.4.8 in conjunction.
Mark wrote: Thanks. Yes I was a bit sceptical if we could literally take the list of stars in the Atharva Veda as simply boundary or junction stars. The consensus seems to be that the ancient nakshatras were named after the brightest star in the asterism. Going back to the ancient period they may indeed have been no strict boundaries in the mathematical sense.
See the Muhurta Chintamani.

I cannot comment on your equatorial theory which sounds interesting, other than to state that I recall reading the idea that Rahu dates to the rg veda by another name. Also, I once saw a large circle of stones with 27 sections predating the indigenous persons whom existed there at the present and it was ancient and from a previous people according to them and so likely from thousands of years ago, in an unrelated part of the world.

9
Varuna writes: "Ken, will you please cite the place where the 27 nakshatras are stated in the Rg Veda? I have not heard of that until now."

I may have posted earlier in language that is confusing (cannot find it now). If so, I apologize. There is no complete list of the naksatras in the RV. Some would argue that the naksatras do not appear there at all.

RV 10.85.13 says: "When the sun is in Agha they kill the cattle, and when it is in Arjuni she is brought home." The cognate hymn in the AV (14.1.13) reads: "When the sun is in Magha they kill the cattle, and when it is in the Phalgunis the Goddess is married."

This suggests that there may have been different names for the naksatras in remote antiquity, as represented by separate traditions in the RV and AV. By the time of AV 19.7 (which I have posted in English), the current names are already present.

See also B.N. Achar's article in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies entitled "Searching for Naksatras in the Rgveda" at http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ej ... vs0602.txt

Achar draws attention to RV 5.51. He notes that in the Brahmanas, the names of the Vedic deities that rule the naksatras are often substituted for the names of the naskatras themselves. RV 5.51 contains all the deity names associated with the naksatras in a single list, which Achar takes to be a reference to the naksatras themselves.

He also discusses the issue of whether there were originally 27 or 28. He leans toward 27, but inconclusively. This is in contrast to Parpola, who believes that the original number was 28.

10
Mark wrote:
According to Kenneth Johnson while there are also 27 Nakshatras
mentioned in the Rig Veda the names of many of these are unrecognisable today. He suggests the differing number of nakshatras listed possibly reflects rival spiritual traditions.
Varuna2 wrote:
Ken's notion fits the evidence better than the belief that the 27 nakshatras are a later development. It appears that 27 and 28 are parallel traditions.
You have misunderstood me Varuna. I am open to the idea there was a parallel tradition on this in the ancient period. However, I was less clear the 27 Nakshatra references appear in the Rig Veda. This seems justified by Ken?s subsequent reply to you. However, I lack the necessary credentials to have a firm view on this and I am therefore taking my line from what Ken and other authorities have stated.

The key point though is which tradition influenced the later astrological use of the Nakshatras? From what I can see the available evidence supports the idea that 28 mansions originally dominated the use of the Nakshatras for astrology.
Mark wrote:
The equal, 27 Nakshatra seems to be a later development after the infusion of hellenistic astrology and the combination of nakshatras with the rasi chakra or 12 sign zodiac.
Varuna2 wrote:
This is why I did not acknowledge your Buddhist dating or any other Westernized mythological dating of India, even if some of it is correct, so if it annoys you now you know why. I thought I would at least explain myself since it seems like it annoys you.
It does frustrate me that you lump all western academics together as if they form an undifferentiated group. Your recurrent prejudice here on Skyscript against any scholarship from Europe or North America can only be described as suspiciously close to racism. At best it is xenophobic towards non-Indians.

Equally, Buddhist texts cannot be conflated with western research either. Like the Jain texts I referred to they are primary Indian sources on Indian history. Inconvenient truths for those seeking to present the traditional datings as a product of western chauvanism.

I would suggest this proposed dating of c1800BCE for the Buddha is more likely to be the real mythology here. Strange how you dismiss western scholars without any real examination yet any theory pushing back Indian history is accepted by you with minimal scrutiny.

Is there is any academic research to support this theory? From what I can see it is a purely web based meme relying on secondary sources. I accept there is some serious debate to be had on the dating of the Buddha but the intent behind this theory seems quite clear. Its another Hindutva piece of historical revisionism intended to create the necessary doubt and confusion amongst the average member of the public. The objective as with most Hindutva propaganda is to push back Indian history as far as possible to prop up the notion of India as the Mother of all human civilisation.

This dubious dating for the Buddha would coincide with the current dating for the end of the Indus Valley civilisation. One very obvious problem with this theory is the clear evidence of substantial urbanisation in the Ganges plain referred to in the ancient Buddhist texts. Archeological evidence simply doesn?t support the theory that many of the towns mentioned in the Buddhist texts could date as far back as 1800BCE. In particular the description of thriving, large cities.

I am not denying the existence of substantial urbanization much more ancient than this in the Indus Valley civilisation. However, this has little connection to the cities that had developed in North India by the time of the Buddha.

I could spend further space here seeking to refute this risible theory but this is supposed to be an astrological forum.

Varuna 2 wrote:
We can count the number of nakshatras from the Krshna Yajur Veda Taittiriya Sanhita 4.4.10:

"(You are) Krttikas [1], 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
(You are) Rohini [2] the Naksatra, Prajapati the deity; Mrga?irsa [3] the Naksatra, Soma the deity; Ardra [4]the Naksatra, Rudra the deity; the two Punarvasus [5] the Naksatra, Aditi the deity; Tisya [6] the Naksatra, Brhaspati the deity; the A?resas [7] the Naksatra, the serpents the deity; the Maghas [8] the Naksatra, the fathers the deity; the two Phalgunis [9] the Naksatra, Aryaman the deity;

the two Phalgunis [10] the Naksatra, Bhaga the deity; Hasta [11] the Naksatra, Savitr the deity; Citra [12]the Naksatra, Indra the deity; Svati [13] the Naksatra, Vayu the deity; the two Vi?akhas [14] the Naksatra, Indra and Agni the deity; Anruradha [15] the Naksatra, Mitra the deity; Rohini [16] the Naksatra, Indra the deity; the two Vi?rts [17] the Naksatra; the fathers the deity;

the Asadhas [18] the Naksatra, the waters the deity; the Asadhas [19] the Naksatra, the All-gods the deity;?rona [20] the Naksatra, Visnu the deity; ?ravistha [21] the Naksatra, the Vasus the, deity; ?atabhisaj [22]the Naksatra, Indra the deity; Prosthapadas [23] the Naksatra, the goat of one foot the deity; theProsthapadas [24] the Naksatra, the serpent of the deep the deity; Revati [25] the Naksatra, Pusan the deity; the two A?vayujs [26] the Naksatra, the A?vins the deity; the Apabharanis [27] the Naksatra, Yama the deity.

Full on the west; what the gods placed."

The above text is from thousands of years before the usual dating of the Greek presence in India.
Thousands of years? Based on what actual evidence?
Mark wrote:
However,...this text is a real exception! The Vedic period ended around 500 BCE and this text is way before that. As Kenneth said in his interview its recently been dated as far back as 800BCE -1000BCE. So in the case of this text we really are (for once) discussing something that really is 'Vedic' in origin.
Varuna 2 wrote:
This is a fairy tale to me.
I do find it ironic that you regard the academic view of Indian history a ?fairy tale?. Instead I think it is your Hindutva historical revisionism that regularly presents us with ? fairy tales? here based on religious dogma rather than empirical research.

Mark wrote:
The Nakshatras is a sidereal system originally based on fixed stars as the boundary of each nakshatra in the ancient system. However, sometime around the 4th-6th century CE the system of 27 , equal mansions replaced the older system. So the system of Nakshatras used by Jyotish astrologers today developed about 1000 years after the end of the Vedic age in India.
Varuna 2 wrote:
This is also a fairy tale to me.


Mark wrote:
The move to a 27 mansion system had some definite astrological advantages. Firstly, the 27 equal mansions fits more closely with the sidereal or zodiacal monthly cycle of the Moon than the 28 mansion system did.
Varuna 2 wrote:
ditto
My statement is at least based on some actual evidence. I refer you to Bill Mak?s research. We simply have no evidence of 27 nakshatras being used for horoscopic type astrology in the earliest astrological texts that have passed down to us. An inconvenient fact I leave you to wrestle with.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

11
Mark wrote: However,...this text is a real exception! The Vedic period ended around 500 BCE and this text is way before that. As Kenneth said in his interview its recently been dated as far back as 800BCE -1000BCE. So in the case of this text we really are (for once) discussing something that really is 'Vedic' in origin.
Mark wrote: Thousands of years? Based on what actual evidence?
Dear Mark,

First you show us the evidence that the Vedic period is from 500-1200 BCE. Show us the original basis for why the late 19th century Orientalists chose a time frame of around 1200 BCE. Show us the evidence that was used to determine that the rg veda is from 1200 BCE.

Since you made the first truth claim I want you to back up this truth claim first. Then I will show you the evidence for my claim. Show me the academic standards that went into choosing 1200 BCE give or take a few hundred years, rather than say 1000 CE or 10000 BCE or 100000 BCE.

Show us the quality of the academic standards that set the substratum of all other academic work on dating the vedic period and Indian civilization, and subsequently the nakshatras.

I already know the quality of it and what the evidence of it was. But since you are putting a burden of proof on me for my response to your truthclaim, first you show the burden of proof that the rg veda or atharva veda date to 1000 BCE, give or take some hundred years.

I urge you to show the world the academic work involved in this first. Then it will be my turn. Start digging. You will be astounded by what you find, of that I can promise you.

Do not give any evidence based on late 20th century research (because they had to work with what they were taught and make everything fit what they were taught), only show the evidence that was used by the 19th century scholars, that set the substratum against which all later scholars were forced to work with. When you see the evidence and reasoning they used, it will be very revealing as to how the academic world functions.

I don't want to pull Ken into this because he is only repeating what he has been taught and he has to do this because the academic world ridicules those who step out of line. So please don't try to pull Ken into this either. What you will do is refer to Ken and what Ken will do is refer back to so-and-so, who will refer back to so-and-so. Go to the original sources of these dates, the late 19th century Orientalists.

I actually had to work to find my evidence. Now you need to work to prove what you claim, rather than deferring to others and making platitudes about academic standards.

I should have asked you to prove this vedic date a long time ago, since you have shown me a far more effective way to demonstrate what I have been pointing at for so long here.

Ironically, I actually did not want to demand a burden of proof earlier because Ken was who you would refer to, but when you personally were demanding proof for my claim, I realized that you personally made a claim also and so you personally need to prove your claim. I already know that zero evidence was used to date the vedic period to 1200 BCE. So, I saved you from half of the work involved, now go and find the reasoning they used for this fictitious date.

What you will find is that almost everyone in academia just refers to their predecessors and almost no one looks at who came up with the original idea and what their basis was or motivations were, in these sort of matters. Martin has already warned caution about the difficulty of applying dates to the vedic era, but no one seemed to notice, except me. I do not know what Martin knows about this or what he meant, and I am not trying to pull him into this either. Let this be between you and I, Mark. That way the official Indologists do not have to risk their reputations as Indologists, in this matter.

The truth is that the entire edifice of the Western dating of Indian civilization is based on a fraudulent foundation.

I was actually hesitant whether I should point out various holes or weak spots in your presentation here, because it is not fun being wrong, but I have noticed that you yourself are always demanding high standards for skyscript, so I thought you would not mind if I kept that standard in regards to this thread based on the little I know, and besides you do not need to claim a reputation as an Indologist or a Jyotishi expert, so you can afford to be wrong in these matters of Jyotish and Indology.

After you, Mark.

Regards.

p.s. It may be a fruitful search for you in other matters as well, in regards to your equatorial theory in particular. You may find that you are not the first person to equate the Chinese lunar mansions with the Indian ones, except the 19th century Orientalist who thought this believed the nakshatras originated in China until someone else demonstrated otherwise.

12
The 19th century scholars to whom you refer derive their ideas, in large part, from the work of Grimm (same guy who collected fairy tales). His comparative study of languages in the Indo-European family, commonly known as "Grimm's Law," demonstrated that all these languages are connected, and established a time depth for these languages which shows how they change and differentiate over time.

While Vedic traditionalists are quick to accept the first half of Grimm's Law (the relatedness between languages), they firmly reject the second half, which deals with time depth, because this half of Grimm's Law does not regard Sanskrit as the origin of all world languages, which is part of the religious belief system of the traditionalists.

I shall ignore the hugely unpleasant and personally insulting assertion that I am only "repeating what I have been taught" like some trained monkey or puppet on a string, especially since my first exposure to these texts came from my friendship with Dr. David Frawley, a staunch traditionalist, and it was only much later that I came to question the traditionalist assumptions based on my own research -- i.e. reading both sides of the argument rather than just one.

I also feel that it is wildly unfair and inaccurate to characterize the commonly accepted dates for Sanskrit texts as an invention of "19th century Orientalists," since the traditionalist point of view -- which is based largely upon accepting mythology as literal history in much the same way that an evangelical Christian accepts every word of the Bible, despite obvious contradictions, as literally true -- is rejected by the majority of academic scholars in India itself, where it is recognized as the extreme right wing nationalist position that it is. The conventional dating is supported by such renowned historians and archaeologists as Romila Tharpar and Iravatham Mahadevan, though I suppose that a traditionalist would accuse them of betraying their culture by being seduced by Western ideas.

Finally, if one wishes to place these texts at some unimaginable age (10,000 BCE appears to be common), I would issue another challenge in return:

Show me any archaeological evidence of civilization on the Indian subcontinent which can be securely dated significantly earlier than the beginnings of Harappan civilization c. 3200 BCE.