Vedic Astrology And Associated Studies

01-22-2009, 04:22 AM

Pandyan, Opinion noted. Care to post a response on points raised by author? Or should we rely on Elst's word?

Added later: See a later day addition to HH's name along with Elst. HH is welcome to trash the points raised by Sreenad and it's okay as in end individuals will read and make up their own minds - or learn something out of the whole exercise.
Can Elst can send in his opinion via hotmail?

Mudy,
QUOTEEverything including zero and knowledge of astronomy was credited to Greeks and everyone else , no mention of India
Visit any South American country and you'll hear claims going back to Mayan civilization.

~~Pandyan~~ · 01-22-2009, 04:45 AM

Yes, you can PM and request HH to share his opinion. As for Elst, I read his views on it in a yahoo group, which I'm unable to find. His reply to my email was very short, without going into too much detail. I'd rather trust his word on a subject I don't know anything about, except that it has screwed Hindus over and needs to be abandoned.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 01-22-2009, 07:47 AM

QUOTE(Pandyan @ Jan 21 2009, 06:15 PM)Yes, you can PM and request HH to share his opinion. As for Elst, I read his views on it in a yahoo group, which I'm unable to find. His reply to my email was very short, without going into too much detail. I'd rather trust his word on a subject I don't know anything about, except that it has screwed Hindus over and needs to be abandoned.


I am not afraid to state that I do hold the view "Vedic astrology" as practiced today is heavily influenced and inspired in large part by the Greek astrological tradition. For debating/trashing a counter-point made in this regard I however place some pre-condition. The person should be able to read and cite in original saMskR^ita a wide range of early Hindu texts. These include: 1) aushanasa adbhutAni 2) gR^ihya sUtra-s of different vedic traditions 3) atharva veda parishiShTa-s 4) yavana jAtaka of sphujidhvaja 5) bR^ihat saMhitA. I would also place a pre-condition that the person should actually be able to perform *vedic* rites of the nakShtra and graha variety by himself or at least know *all* operational details of these rites. And the person should know some basic Indo-European linguistics.

Anyone who has spent some time studying the saMskR^ita texts in the original will note that in the vedic period there was a major stellar rite known as the nakShatreShTi. There is no sign of predictive astrology in that text. The adbhuta texts of the AV parishiShTa and the one attributed to ushanA kAvya have a primitive astrology in the form of portents and omens but not of the predictive type seen in modern Indian astrology. If we look at the astrology in the itihAsa-s it is more consistent with the system of portents and omens of the adbhuta texts. In the gR^ihya sUtra-s and late shrauta traditions we find rites known as graheShTi-s and graha-homa-s. These rites are also related in their context to acquisition of various desires and freedom from the ill-effects of omens rather than their function in modern predictive astrology. An early Tamil text of the heroic Tamil age has an astrological reference, puranAnuru 229: Here the poet mentions that due a certain astrological omen in the form of a meteor the chera king kOchEramAn died.

From all this we can state that the early home grown astrology of the Hindus was mainly of an portentitious variety. The predictive version based on rAshI and hora is of Greek origin. It is this latter aspect that is marketed today as nADI jyotiSha and "vedic astrology". What the Indians/ Indo-Greeks did do is to merge their ancestral nakShatra system with a rashi based astrology coming in from the Greeks thus Indianizing it.

Some Greek words in India astrology:
hora
drekkANa
I would like to see if any "vedic astrologer" denies these.

01-22-2009, 09:30 AM

hora
drekkANa

Came much later. There are different branches.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 01-22-2009, 02:05 PM by Bodhi.)

^ HH's post on the "vedic astrology" ^

besides the original vedic sources, one should consider the post-vedic laukika literature such as artha-shAstra etc., to understand how people considered the subject of jyotiSha in social life, and whether it was predictive in nature (that is predicting the future outcome on basis of astral-configuration).

kauTalya describes at various places remedies for calamities etc., using mantra and specfic rites and so on. E.g. certain rites by king and his people on the nights of pUrNimA and amAvasyA to ward off the tigers striking the subjects; or, certain rites to make enemy blind; or certain rites to be performed to remedy the floods and cause rains. He also describes at places the ill-omens and outcomes. But nowhere does he talk about the science of predicting the future on basis of nakShatra-configuration. Surely he was himself learned in atharvan veda, and from which he derives much material. He also provides to some extent things which could be considered the vAstu-shAstra and many other things useful for statecraft. So why would he leave out the 'useful' art of vedic (predictive) astrology, and horoscope etc.?

Now, fast forward to chAlukya times. mAnasollAsa does mention in some detail the predictive stuff, e.g. matching the horoscope of boy and girl, girls born under which stars are better for princes etc.; so by this time predictive astrology had become popular in the realm of statecraft in pockets.

But even then not universally all across. In madhurAvijayam, princess ga~NgAdevI mentions the atharvan brAhmaNa-s presiding over the ceremonies and deciding muhUrta etc. for these, but even she does not provide anything like predictive astrology (e.g. invade the moslem under such and such astral configuration). muhUrta-s are apparently not of predictive context in this case.

bhojadeva commissioned many scholarly researches to be undertaken by his retinue of scholars (one of the largest intellectual assembly ever in the historic India, was in his city). No, predictive astrology is not one of those subjects he sponsored, as far as I have come across, though I might be wrong on this point.

In va~Nga country however, you find the chronicles relating to the sena kings describing in funny detail how "vedic astrologers", that is predictive astrologers, were very much entrenched in their court. One account mentions some related episodes. The first one relates to the birth of lakShamaNa sena. When the time of his birth approached, astrologers predicted a "good" time of birth for the child, and a horribly bad time just before it. His mother who was in labour insisted to prolong the labout by a few hours so that the child is born under good starts. While the lakShamaNa was born under desired configurations, the queen died during the labour. And, oh well, this lucky boy would later become the cause of the sword of islam making a successful entry in east India. Now, many years later, when Khalji invaded Bihar, sena's vedic astrologers predicted the invincibility of Khalji, and advised sena to abandon any plans of forward strike. Sena just waited in his capital and was wiped out. Hindus of Assam and Orissa were better who did not wait, and adopted an offensive policy, thereby ensuring they did not fall to Islam, in fact they routed Khalji. (Sena was chAlukya-derivation of sorts ...as noted on the other ICIH thread)

HareKrishna · (This post was last modified: 01-22-2009, 09:35 PM by HareKrishna.)

QUOTE(Pandyan @ Jan 21 2009, 04:49 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mudy @ Jan 20 2009, 04:57 PM)Astrology is not fraud but people miss use it and give bad name to Astrology.

AFAIK, there is no Hindu basis for astrology. Neither is there a scientific one.
[right][snapback]93538[/snapback][/right]
</div>
read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Celestial-Key-Vedas-...n/dp/0892817534
It shows that vedic indians know about subtle astronomical stuff like precesions,patterns of eclipses,moon phases.

From the book:"it was pointed out that Asvins represent the planets Venus and Mercury.It was mentioned that once this is recognised,several otherwise inexplicable passages become perfectly meaningful astronomically.The RG vedic statement that Asvins circle the sun ,shows that a heliocentric theory,at least as far as these planets are concerned....was further pointed out that the allusion in another rg vedic hymn(RV 3.54) to stars being at diferent distances...can be infered by observing anual paralax..."
The author ,in introduction,begin whit the theory that indians borowed astronomy from the greeks(as he first belives) but after he studied the vedic books reach the conclusion that vedic indians have advanced astronomical knowledge.

~~Pandyan~~ · 01-22-2009, 09:39 PM

IIRC, this thread is about astrology, not astronomy.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-23-2009, 06:48 PM by Husky.)

I don't know anything about astrology (though I'll admit to liking the Chinese Zodiac for drawing purposes <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />, and of course I also consider our Navagrahas to be Gods; but that's where it ends for me personally. <- Meaning: what other people do is none of my business as long as they don't make it my business).

But I do have questions of which I can't make out whether they were already covered somewhere above.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 22 2009, 09:36 AM)and whether it was predictive in nature (that is predicting the future outcome on basis of astral-configuration).[right][snapback]93601[/snapback][/right]The following from the translation of the Mahabharatam that Bodhi had found earlier seems to describe a sort of predictive astrology - but don't know whether it is similar to the other sort(s?) of predictive astrology mentioned in Bodhi's post above:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/maha...arata_05048.php
QUOTEThere are, with us, many aged Brahmanas, versed in various sciences, of amiable behaviour, well-born, acquainted with the cycle of the years, engaged in the study of astrology, capable of
understanding with certainty the motions of planets and the conjunctions of stars as also of explaining the mysteries of fate, and answering questions relating to the future, acquainted with the signs of the Zodiac, and versed with the occurrences of every hour, who are prophesying the great destruction of the Kurus and the Srinjayas, and the ultimate victory of the Pandavas, so that Yudhishthira, who never made an enemy, already regardeth his objects fulfilled in consequence of the slaughter of his foes.How accurate is the translation ("Zodiac")? And does Zodiac here refer to 12 signs?

And I've always had this other question, though it doesn't have much to do with the Indian situation, but it is related to the "12 signs of the Zodiac".

From what I read in an encyclopaedia in childhood, the Romans only had 10 months until they added 2 more months to it later. Yes, some confirmation:

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/cal...roman.html
QUOTEThe Romans borrowed parts of their earliest known calendar from the Greeks. The calendar consisted of 10 months in a year of 304 days. The Romans seem to have ignored the remaining 61 days, which fell in the middle of winter. The 10 months were named Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December. The last six names were taken from the words for five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Romulus, the legendary first ruler of Rome, is supposed to have introduced this calendar in the 700s B.C.E.
(So at 700 B.C.E -> 10 months cycle in Rome, which they got from Greece. So the Zodiac in Greece and Rome didn't yet correspond to the 12 months at that point in time?)

According to tradition, the Roman ruler Numa Pompilius added January and February to the calendar. This made the Roman year 355 days long. To make the calendar correspond approximately to the solar year, Numa also ordered the addition every other year of a month called Mercedinus. Mercedinus was inserted after February 23 or 24, and the last days of February were moved to the end of Mercedinus. In years when it was inserted, Mercedinus added 22 or 23 days to the year."Numa Pompilius" seems to have been the 2nd King of Rome or something (came right after Romulus) and is somewhat shrouded in mystery by time.

When do they say the Mahabharatam was composed? (I know they date Bhagavad Gita rather recently - something that is additionally helpful for them in 'proving' that Krishna was no more than a man who was the victim of apotheosis, as contended by many in the west - but don't know when the west dates the rest of the Mahabharatam.) Asking this in order to contrast it with respect to the 700 BCE mentioned above.

The following, besides explaining who Numa Pompilius was, has some other interesting things too:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/...052599.htm
QUOTENuma Pompilius (715-673 B.C.)

Information on the second of the 7 kings of Rome, Numa Pompilius.

Â Â There was living, in those days, at Cures, a Sabine city, a man of renowned justice and piety - Numa Pompilius. He was as conversant as any one in that age could be with all divine and human law. His master is given as Pythagoras of Samos, as tradition speaks of no other. But this is erroneous, for it is generally agreed that it was more than a century later, in the reign of Servius Tullius....
Â Â Livy

The reign of King Numa Pompilius, a Sabine and the second king of Rome, is shrouded in legend like his predecessor, Romulus (753-715), and Numa's successors:
673-642Â Tullus Hostilius
642-617Â Ancus Marcius
616-579Â L. Tarquinius Priscus
578-535Â Servius Tullius
534-510Â L. Tarquinius Superbus

During the legendary reign of the first king of Rome, Romulus, the bachelor Romans had forcibly taken Sabine women. In the interests of harmony, the Sabine women, now Roman wives, persuaded their husbands and fathers not to slaughter each other. When Romulus died, the Sabines refused to permit another Roman to exert power over them. Romans and Sabines reached a compromise. The Romans agreed to a Sabine king, but they would select him. The Romans picked the honorable Sabine Numa Pompilius. Numa, however, thought he'd have to be crazy to wear the crown.

[...]
He was unwilling to leave his happy life to take on the unpredictable politics of a warring nation.
[...]
Eventually Numa was persuaded it was his religious duty to rule, and so, at age 40, Numa Pompilius inaugurated his career as king of Rome. Numa's reign was marked by its piety and pacificism. It was Numa who erected the temple of Janus [the two-faced god of gates whose name we see in the first calendar month (January)].
(Janus <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> )

Â Â "[Numa Pompilius] built the temple of Janus at the foot of the Aventine as an index of peace and war, to signify when it was open that the State was under arms, and when it was shut that all the surrounding nations were at peace."
Â Â Livy I.19
Wacky on Sabines: "The Sabines (Latin Sabini, singular Sabinus) were an Italic tribe that lived in ancient Italy, inhabiting Latium before the founding of Rome"

Yes, we all knew the familiar traditio-history where Romans invaded Italy and played a role similar to the Oryans-kidnapping-Dravoodian women - but directed toward the local Sabines in this case. Bad Romans. (I keep seeing this pattern historically/traditionally attested in many European and related countries, but it is not something we have traditionally had in India. Hindoos are very grateful for the AIT fable to finally give us a similar legend too.)

Did the Romans bring Latin (develop it from their own original tongue), or was it mostly from the local languages that Latin was derived, with a few words contributed by the invaders. I don't know much about their own traditional history of their languages. Were the local languages more like the Iberian ones or whatever?

Links on the side at http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/...52599.htm:
QUOTEâ¢ Numa's Calendar Changes
â¢ Roman Calendar
To the 304 day calendar of ten months, Numa added February and January between December and March thereby increasing the calendar to between 354 and 355 days.


Wackypedia has curious things to say on the meaning of the Zodiac word - it's not too sure:
QUOTEZodiac

Zodiac denotes an annual cycle of twelve stations along the ecliptic, the apparent path of the Sun across the heavens through the constellations that divide the ecliptic into twelve equal zones of celestial longitude. The zodiac is recognized as the first known celestial coordinate system. Babylonian astronomers developed the zodiac of twelve signs.[citation needed] The term zodiac comes from the Latin zÅdiacus, from the Greek Î¶á¿³Î´Î¹Î±ÎºÏÏ [ÎºÏÎºÎ»Î¿Ï] (zodiakos kyklos), meaning "circle of animals", derived from Î¶á¿´Î´Î¹Î¿Î½ (zodion), the diminutive of Î¶á¿·Î¿Î½ (zoon) "animal". The American Heritage Dictionary(1970) derives the word further from Indo-European 'gwei-', 'to live'. 'zoe', 'life' is listed as the suffixed form of this Indo-European word. However, the classical Greek zodiac also includes signs (also constellations) that are not represented by animals (e.g., Aquarius, Virgo, Gemini, andâfor someâLibra). Another suggested etymology is that the Greek term is cognate with the Sanskrit sodi, denoting "a path", i.e., the path through which the Sun travels. [1]

The zodiac also means a region of the celestial sphere that includes a band of eight arc degrees above and below the ecliptic, and therefore encompasses the paths of the Moon and the naked eye planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The classical astronomers called these planets wandering stars to differentiate them from the fixed stars of the celestial sphere (Ptolemy). Astrologers understood the movement of the planets and the Sun through the zodiac as a means of explaining and predicting events on Earth.

Am a bit confused: in the following - as in most encyclopaedias - the Greeks get their Zodiac from Babylon (where Babylon is credited with innovating the 12 signs, see wacky above), but the Romans who had got their calendar from the Greeks only have 10 months when they finally get to Italy, and then they add two more months - a bit of a cyclical knot in history. Or perhaps the months in the ancient Greco-Roman world were not initially connected with the 12 signs of the Zodiac which the Greeks got from the Babylonians? That's a possibility, I suppose...
http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/cal...roman.html
QUOTEThe Roman republican calendar was a dating system that evolved in Rome prior to the Christian era. According to legend, Romulus, the founder of Rome, instituted the calendar in about 738 B.C.E. This dating system, however, was probably a product of evolution from the Greek lunar calendar, which in turn was derived from the Babylonian. The original Roman calendar appears to have consisted only of 10 months and of a year of 304 days. The remaining 61Â¼ days were apparently ignored, resulting in a gap during the winter season. The months bore the names Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Juniius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and Decemberâthe last six names correspond to the Latin words for the numbers 5 through 10. The Roman ruler Numa Pompilius is credited with adding January at the beginning and February at the end of the calendar to create the 12-month year. In 452 B.C.E., February was moved between January and March.

'Western' astrology has gone slightly askew apparently (everything Greco-Roman is credited to the "west", why is that by the way):
Wacky's Zodiac page again -
QUOTEZodiac in astrology

Astrologers use astronomical observations of the movements of the night sky for divinatory purposes. The zodiac remains in use in modern astrology, though the issue of tropical astrology (used mainly by Western astrologers) and sidereal astrology (used mainly by Indian astrologers) is central. At issue in the debate is whether the signs should be defined in terms of zones derived from nodal points defined by Earth's motion during a tropical year, or whether the signs should be defined in terms of signs roughly aligned with the constellations of the same name (for sidereal astrologers). This matters because of an astronomical phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes, whereby the position of the stars in the sky has changed over time. The axis of rotation of the Earth slowly changes direction, making one complete turn approximately every 26,000 years. Originally, Aries corresponded to the summer equinox for the Northern hemisphere, but after about 1/4 of a cycle since the zodiac was invented, Aries now corresponds to 1/4 of the year, roughly April. Likewise, over the centuries the twelve zodiacal signs in Western astrology no longer correspond to the same part of the sky as their original constellations, or their Indian counterparts. In effect, in Western astrology the link between sign and constellation has been broken, whereas in Indian astrology it remains of paramount importance.

It's all too confusing for me. But at least the Chinese Zodiac features animals (which includes the Long/Dragon). Come to think of it, the Chinese Zodiac is entirely made up of animals, unlike the Greek Zodiac (though "zoo" means animals in Greek, see first wacky quoteblock above. And they've derived zoo from some PIE word meaning "life", even if the Libra sign is not alive.)

If I knew the future, I would be playing the lottery or go to a casino (now, now, don't frown: it's not gambling if you know you're going to win). No other use for any predictive - or other - astrology in my own life comes to mind.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 01-23-2009, 04:46 PM by Bodhi.)

Husky, interesting and of course pertinent quote from bhArata.

the portion you referred to should correspond to these lines:

apyevaM no brAhmaNAH santi vR^iddhA
bahushrutAH shIlavantaH kulInAH
sA.nvatsarA jyotiShi chApi yuktA
nakShatrayogeShu cha nishchayaGYAH
uchchAvacha.n daivayukta.n rahasyaM
divyAH prashnA mR^igachakrA muhUrtA
kShayaM mahAnta.n kurusR^i~njayAnAM
nivedayante pANDavAnA.n jayaM cha
tathA hi no manyate.ajAtashatruH
sa.nsiddhArtho dviShatAM nigrahAya
(udyoga parvan)

It seems that the learned va~Nga paNDita has translated 'mR^igachakra' for 'zodiac', which is very interesting. literally mR^iga-chakra would mean "cycle/circle of animal" and in that sense, indeed the zodiac of zoo (jIva) sense.

And while the translation is fair enough, the sense in passage is not that it is the result of some planetary calculations etc., that these elderly brAhmaNa-s are suggesting (not "prophesying") the victory of pANDava-s and the decay of the kaurava-sR^i~njaya-s. Still, a good evidence of the predictive astrology in bhArata.

01-25-2009, 01:59 AM

Pandyan, A request for you: If you don't have point by point rebuttal to any of the articles, just say so, and not trash some else's sincere effort in presenting their views/opinions. Thanks

Moving on....

I thought hora for short for aHORAthri - half a division of a sign. Who knew it was greek. Well, you learn something new every day <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />.

I further thought, there are various divisions of sign and rest of them all have home grown names and soundings, including the first one - rasi. Besides, vargas are just a way of loking at the horoscope. Nothing more nothing less.

Anyways, reading some on this thread kicked off lot of questions and doubts in my head for the experts, linguists & astrology historians such as Elst. I'd appreciate if anyone can throw some light on these....

How many Sanskrit words are in Greek Astrological/astronomical literature? From what I am reading here, it appears there is none in greek literature, so it must logically follow that hindus borrowed not just the words, but the entire concepts, even when we had our own concepts of finer divisions navamshas etc. Much like Witzel argues.

Just because there are some greekish (2 or even 20) words, does it mean ancient Hindus were just incapable of "Observing and Predicting" process which is the fundamental basis of astrology? They showed such methodology in other sciences, didn't they?

Why couldn't the whole astrology field as it existed then - be it Indian or greek, have evolved over time independently and simultanesouly, perhaps each one borrowing from the other? Does yavana mean greek or anyone outside India? Before greeks, weren't persians called yavanas?

Why is it being assumed that "predictive astrology" - lock, stock and barrel, must be in vedas to be vedic or hindu? You cannot possibly find everything in Vedas. Like everything it must evolve, but inline with principles enunciated in vedas. One turns to vedas for something else, but definitely not to find material for predictive astrology. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Even then, there are some passages in Atharva veda, I believe, that have predictive portions. (I will find them, when time permits)

What does astrology historian Elst think about theory of Greeks getting astrology from Mesopotamia?

How many of the experts and astrology historians are practising astrologers, who have read all the well known treatises (of India I might add) of astrology and siddhantas (of India) and follow systematic methodology of observing and predicting & learning?

Also examples here are abound of very bad astrologers and their predictions, that is astrology's fault how?

HH, I have only translations of the Yavanajataka, and most likely not the entire works. What in Yavanajataka points to yavanacharya being a greek OR he copying from greeks OR what is the clinching evidence in this work that shows hindus were majorly influenced by greeks? What are your thoughts about various rishi horas such as "Skanda Hora" and also yavaneshwara hora? Also, what is your take on Nigama and Agama ways of astrology? I believe they were before Alexander came to India, am I mistaken? How much did yavaneshwara take from Indian side and contribute to nabhasa yogas of astrology? Yavanashwara claims all his astrological knowledge came from Brahma (prajapathi) - (I will find the source for this later on, when time permits) and if this is true, who really copied from whom? or did anyone copy at all? Or all these just various schools of thought and applications of fundamental principles in practise by different schools?

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-26-2009, 12:33 PM by Husky.)

Not entirely relevant other than that the following shows what one or more(?) thinkers from some centuries ago believed:
QUOTE" I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc."

Voltaire(Got this from those snippets on the right hand side of Haindava Keralam entries.)

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2009, 06:05 PM by Husky.)

The following doesn't have any bearing on astrology. Can skip.
Had earlier on raised some tangential (unrelated) questions in this thread. Since the real conversation has died down, thought now's not a bad time to post the stuff found.
QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 23 2009, 01:40 PM)When do they (the west) say the Mahabharatam was composed? (I know they date Bhagavad Gita rather recently - something that is additionally helpful for them in 'proving' that Krishna was no more than a man who was the victim of apotheosis, as contended by many in the west - but don't know when the west dates the rest of the Mahabharatam.) This is to contrast it with respect to the 700 BCE mentioned above (for when the Romans got their calendar from the greeks).[right][snapback]93652[/snapback][/right]
Both the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata are given very different dates in different sources.

Bhagavad Gita
- was dated to 2nd centry BCE to "2nd century AD" where I first read it dated in an encyclopaedia (not in my possession, high school library),
- whereas scribes for wacky have kindly found it to be dated to somewhere in 2nd century BCE latest, but "still after the MBh":
QUOTEScholars have opined that the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is between the fifth century B.C. and second century B.C[13][15][16]
Based on claims of differences in the poetic styles some scholars like Jinarajadasa have argued that the Bhagavad Gita was added to the Mahabharata at a later date.[17][18]

Now the Mahabharatam. This is more interesting:
1. Encarta: "probably" 300 BCE - 300 CE
"Hinduism", Microsoft Encarta 1996 - entry by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (Obviously married to an Irishman. She's an Austrian herself, isn't she? And Austria is a catholic nation, so she sounds catholic both ways - whether she can afford to publicly admit to it or not. Explains so much)
QUOTEAlthough it is therefore impossible to fix their dates, the main bodies of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana were probably composed between 300 BC and AD 300. Both, however, continued to grow even after they were translated into the vernacular languages of India (such as Tamil and Hindi) in the succeeding centuries.
2. Encyclopedia Columbia online: "probably" 200 BCE - 200 CE
(So in about 10 years, the range and age of the MBh has come down, courtesy of more nudging by christowest. Columbia can't be outdone by catholic Wendy after all)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/category/Liter...uages/elit.html
QUOTEMahabharata classical Sanskrit epic of India, probably composed between 200 BC and AD 200. The Mahabharata, comprising more than 90,000 couplets, usually of 32 syllables, is the longest single poem in world literature. The 18-book work is traditionally ascribed to the ancient sage Vyasa, but it was...
3. Wacky: 800 BCE - 400 CE
Wacky is not the most reliable, but slightly more generous in the reverse direction when it comes to the Mbh.
QUOTEThe earliest layers of the story probably date back to the late Vedic period (ca. 8th c. BC)[2] and it probably reached its final form by the time the Gupta period began (ca. 4th c. AD).[3]Interesting note on the wacky page:
QUOTEAs with the field of Homeric studies, research on the Mahabharata has put an enormous effort into recognizing and dating various layers within the text. The state of the text has been described by some early 20th century Indologists as "chaotic" or "unordered".[6]

The earliest known references to the Mahabharata and its core Bharata date back to the Ashtadhyayi (sutra 6.2.38) of PÄá¹ini (fl. 4th century BC), and in the Ashvalayana Grhyasutra (3.4.4). This may suggest that the core 24,000 verses, known as the Bharata, as well as an early version of the extended Mahabharata, were composed by the 4th century BC. Parts of the Jaya's original 8,800 verses possibly may date back as far as the 9th-8th century BC.[2]

The Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-120) reported, "it is said that Homer's poetry is sung even in India, where they have translated it into their own speech and tongue. The result is that...the people of India...are not unacquainted with the sufferings of Priam, the laments and wailings of Andromache and Hecuba, and the valor of both Achilles and Hector: so remarkable has been the spell of one man's poetry!"[7] Despite the passage's evident face-value meaningâthat the Iliad had been translated into Sanskritâsome scholars have supposed that the report reflects the existence of a Mahabharata at this date, whose episodes Dio or his sources syncretistically identify with the story of the Iliad. Christian Lassen, in his Indische Alterthumskunde, supposed that the reference is ultimately to Dhritarashtra's sorrows, the laments of Gandhari and Draupadi, and the valor of Arjuna and Duryodhana or Karna.[8] This interpretation, endorsed in such standard references as Albrecht Weber's History of Indian Literature, has often been repeated without specific reference to what Dio's text says.[9]Well, the dating for MBh given by Doniger/MS Encarta and the Columbia encyclopaedia are obviously accurate (let's not forget that they are as sure as "probably", which all may admit is certainty itself): as it means Alexander thankfully had time to visit the subcontinent so that the MBh can have been written thereafter.

Oh, but of course. Predictable.
Unrelated, but found among the same material. Need to rewind a bit to get back to:
"Hinduism", Microsoft Encarta 1996 - by Wendy Doniger O' Flaherty
In the article, she not only states that Yoga is part of the Indus Valley Civilisation and not part of the invading Oryan religion - that is, that "Yoga is not Vedic" - but she also does not disappoint and gives the old missionary entertainment in the section on the Hindu Gods:
QUOTE"Most popular by far are Rama (hero of the Ramayana) and Krishna (hero of the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata-Purana), both of whom are said to be avatars of Vishnu, although they were originally human heroes."The christowest always wrongly concludes that just because their gawd is invisible (non-existent) our Gods must be too and that "therefore" all they need to do to get us to relinquish our Religio/Gods is to "disprove our Gods" using some text-based heuristics.

But they don't seem to understand: Hindus do not 'believe'. They don't have 'faith'. <- When a Hindu (or Taoist) makes such statements - ones that the christowest *never* gets but which Hindus immediately understand - they're of course referring to how even today in Bharatam there are households (like in Tamizh families) where older members still see and converse with the Gods regularly. And that's exactly why it will ever be hard for Doniger and others to convince those Hindus who know better of such claims (which are based on what will have to remain incomplete data) - claims like "Rama and Krishna are (were) not Gods" or "Murugan is not Kumara". Hindus do not protest against such claims out of any 'obstinate belief', as the christowest imagines it to be (the way christos and islamists resort to "faith, faith!" because the christoislamic jehovallah is invisible out of non-existence's necessity). Nor do they merely refuse to accept them out of allegiance to 'tradition'. The reason Hindus tend to disregard such claims forever, with whatever power of reasonable even if limited public argument is in their reach, is because these claims are untrue and contrary to facts known to them. Where Hindus are not cornered into having these claims imposed on them as being 'undeniable facts', Hindus merely tend to humour the claimants (usually by silence).

But christowest need not lose heart. They should keep to parroting, it is the best of their methods for subverting Hindu Dharma and for conversion. Besides, "if at first you don't succeed, try try try again." I hear the next generations will believe/rationalise anything. Heck. Even the current ones do.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2009, 09:28 AM by Bodhi.)

MBh as it is, but certainly gItA, appears to be *at least* older than the birth of the bauddha mata -- tathAgata makes several mentions of themes and personages of itihAsa but reverse is not there. same holds for both pAlI and saMskR^ita jAtaka-s. in the oldest known jAtaka compendium, you have references to vidura, arjuna, and yudhiShThira.

By 400s, MBh was already translated into pehlavI, where the writer says he translated it from the hindI language (referring to devabhAShA, but this is the oldest known use of "hindI" as a name for a language).

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-20-2009, 05:33 AM by Husky.)

Bodhi, my original question was about the western dating of MBh and its Gita:
QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 23 2009, 01:40 PM)When do they (the west) say the Mahabharatam was composed? (I know they date Bhagavad Gita rather recently - something that is additionally helpful for them in 'proving' that Krishna was no more than a man who was the victim of apotheosis, as contended by many in the west - but don't know when the west dates the rest of the Mahabharatam.) This is to contrast it with respect to the 700 BCE mentioned above (for when the Romans got their calendar from the greeks).[right][snapback]93652[/snapback][/right]And this post is still going to stay on the same topic of christowestern dating of MBh and Gita.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM)By 400s, MBh was already translated into pehlavI, where the writer says he translated it from the hindI language (referring to devabhAShA, but this is the oldest known use of "hindI" as a name for a language).
[right][snapback]94712[/snapback][/right]400s fits in the western dating: in 400s MBh may well be in Hindi and hence Pahlavi. The estimated period given by the christowestern professional provides a 'suitable' time frame to allow for it. Repeat:
Doniger says: MBh "probably" composed between 300 bce - 300 ce
Columbia encyclopaedia says: MBh "probably" composed between 200 bce - 200 ce
As we see, there was sufficient time for people to translate the entire thing into Hindi and then again into Pahlavi in 400s ce.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 08:45 AM)MBh as it is, but certainly gItA, appears to be *at least* older than the birth of the bauddha mata -- tathAgata makes several mentions of themes and personages of itihAsa but reverse is not there. same holds for both pAlI and saMskR^ita jAtaka-s. in the oldest known jAtaka compendium, you have references to vidura, arjuna, and yudhiShThira.[right][snapback]94712[/snapback][/right]Am still talking of western scholarship, which:
1. States clearly that Bauddha Dharma originated much earlier than the Gita.
See just a little further below for an example of the western scholarship's statements on this.

2. West holds that Gita is younger than MBh and certainly that any references to Krishna as Bhagavan is younger than the relevant parts of MBh which are used to prove that he was not so originally. They've long made it a focal point that the Gita was one of the later added sections to the MBh. (This automatically disallows any Hindu's references to the Gita as argument that "Krishna is God since he declares himself paramaatman in the BG", since this text is supposed to have come later than MBh's origins where Krishna was 'but man'.)
Again, an example from western scholarship follows.

Now for the examples of the above. Let's pick the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Yes, the same encyclopaedia on whose faithful christoness Joseph McCabe has some entertaining revealing remarks! But he didn't know about Encarta or Wackypedia then, so who knows what he'd have said about them...)
Anyway, note Britannica's use of the word 'perhaps', which one may admit is far more substantial than the almost-dubious 'probably' that Doniger and Columbia were forced to use:

0. Britannica says decidedly: 'Gita perhaps composed 1st or 2nd century ce.' That is, entirely after jeebus.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...agavadgita
QUOTEBhagavadgita
Hindu scripture (Sanskrit: âSong of the Lordâ)
Main

an episode recorded in the great Sanskrit poem of the Hindus, the Mahabharata. It occupies chapters 23 to 40 of book 6 of the Mahabharata and is composed in the form of a dialogue between Prince Arjuna and Krishna, an incarnation or avatar of the god Vishnu. Composed perhaps in the 1st or 2nd century ce, it is commonly known as the Gita.

1. Britannica says: 'Bauddha Dharma arose 6th to early 4th century bce'. 
Therefore, hence, and ergo, Bauddha Dharma is older than Gita:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...4/Buddhism
QUOTEBuddhism
religion
Main

Reclining Buddha, Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka.[Credits : Richard Abeles]religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: âawakened oneâ), a teacher who lived in northern India between the mid-6th and the mid-4th centuries bce (before the Common Era or Christian era). Spreading from India to Central and Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, Buddhism has played a central role in the spiritual, cultural, and social life of Asia, and during the 20th century
[...]

The foundations of Buddhism Â» The cultural context
Buddhism arose in northeastern India sometime between the late 6th century and the early 4th century bce, a period of great social change and intense religious activity. There is disagreement among scholars about the dates of the Buddhaâs birth and death. Many modern scholars believe that the historical Buddha lived from about 563 to about 483 bce. Many others believe that he lived about 100 years later (from about 448 to 368 bce). At this time in India, there was much discontent with Brahmanic (Hindu high-caste) sacrifice and ritual. In northwestern India there were ascetics who tried to create a more personal and spiritual religious experience than that found in the Vedas (Hindu sacred scriptures). In the literature that grew out of this movement, the Upanishads, a new emphasis on renunciation and transcendental knowledge can be found. Northeastern India, which was less influenced by the Aryans who had developed the main tenets and practices of the Vedic Hindu faith, became the breeding ground of many new sects. Society in this area was troubled by the breakdown of tribal unity and the expansion of several petty kingdoms. Religiously, this was a time of doubt, turmoil, and experimentation.

2. To contrast Gita with the Mahabharata.
Britannica says: MBh is a 'source of info on Hinduism's development between 400 bce and 200 ce' and that its present form appeared 'about 400ce'.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...ahabharata
QUOTEMahabharata
Hindu literature (Sanskrit: âGreat Epic of the Bharata Dynastyâ)
Main

The armies of the Kauravas and Pandavas clashing, an Indian painting of a scene from the â¦[Credits : The Granger Collection, New York]one of the two Sanskrit great epic poems of ancient India (the other being the Ramayana). The Mahabharata is an important source of information on the development of Hinduism between 400 bce and 200 ce and is regarded by Hindus as both a text about dharma (Hindu moral law) and a history (itihasa, literally âthatâs what happenedâ). Appearing in its present form about 400 ce, the Mahabharata consists of a mass of mythological and didactic material arranged around a central heroic narrative that tells of the struggle for sovereignty between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra, the descendant of Kuru) and the Pandavas (sons of Pandu). The poem is made up of almost 100,000 coupletsâabout seven times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combinedâdivided into 18 parvans, or sections, plus a supplement titled Harivamsha (âGenealogy of the God Hariâ; i.e., of Vishnu). Although it is unlikely that any single person wrote the poem, its authorship is traditionally ascribed to the sage Vyasa, who appears in the work as the grandfather of the Kauravas and the Pandavas. The traditional date for the war that is the central event of the Mahabharata is 1302 bce, but most historians assign it a later date.Since they have managed to squeeze the text into being finished by 400ce (the way the Vedas and everything else has been squeezed into the christowestern timeframe), they still can say that MBh was well on time for translation into old Hindi and then Pahlavi.

Post-disclaimer: As I said, the above is the christowestern POV. It has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2009, 01:02 PM by Bodhi.)

OK. But on some parts I request you to not be sentimental when analyzing. E.g. the issue of viShNu-avatArahood to kR^iShNa. Indeed, after reading the life of kR^iShNa in MBh, and that in bhagavatpurANa, one can not escape realizing that this viShNu-avatAra status is a later addition to kR^iShNa with retrospect effect. kR^iShNa of mahAbhArata and rAmachandra of rAmAyaNa are God-like-Heroes and Hero-like-Gods independently in themselves, without depending upon viShNu to come in their form.

On revisions/redactions, mahAbhArata mentions internally about its own specific revisions and enlargement. some purANa-s, IIRC vAyu, mention of how MBh was revised on some occasions too. That is natural. MBh is supposed to be itihAsa, the history, therefore worth revising/appending.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-20-2009, 05:42 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 01:01 PM)OK.Â But on some parts I request you to not be sentimental when analyzing.Â E.g. the issue of viShNu-avatArahood to kR^iShNa.Â Indeed, after reading the life of kR^iShNa in MBh, and that in bhagavatpurANa, one can not escape realizing that this viShNu-avatAra status is a later addition to kR^iShNa with retrospect effect.Â kR^iShNa of mahAbhArata and rAmachandra of rAmAyaNa are God-like-Heroes and Hero-like-Gods independently in themselves, without depending upon viShNu to come in their form.[right][snapback]94721[/snapback][/right]Sentimentality has nothing to do with it. That would presuppose a merely emotional attachment to Religio. To me, it would be as void as belief.

But are you not rather being selectively sentimental in saying Rama and Krishna are still Gods ("Hero-like-Gods"), in spite of the textual data that you rely on to validate your chosen stance going to the contrary here, in the same manner that the textual data indicates that the Vishnu-Avatarahood was superimposed later? Others have shown - Elst has shown, with philological proof (though omitted) that Rama and Krishna were not originally Gods. He too wishes Hindus would just realise his findings on Hindu Dharma ('get it into their heads'):
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 9 2008, 09:17 PM)Koenraad Elst wrote on a list: [...]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE[...]
Worse, even in the Ramayana and Mahabharata, philological analysis has shown that Rama and Krishna were originally just humn beings, heroes alright, but human mortals nonetheless. Only in the latest-added parts do they start becoming divine incarnations. Vishnu's penchant for incarnating among us humans, now a core belief of the majority of Hindus, is a post-Vedic innovation.

The same tendency to reject historicity is in evidence in ...
[...]
Kind regards,
KE[right][snapback]86167[/snapback][/right]</div>He is the professional philologer. Since you work the same way with the same data and your understanding of the Hindu tradition is determined by the results you get from this, you have the option of either deferring to his views (as some others do), or referring to him to find out what the details of the philological analysis he mentioned are. And if you then wish to make an alternate case, you should exercise non-sentimentality in analyzing this issue of the Godhood of Rama and Krishna - in case the data-interpretation leads you to conclude different from what you've considered thus far (as I'm sure it will, since Elst would have diligently followed the established methods).

Whatever the conclusions for you may be, what I've always wanted out of all this collective brainstorming on the "Hindus' Problem" which seems to be going on among NRIs and Angelsk-speaking Indians, is not people explaining Hindu Dharma for Hindus, but rather trying for a solution on how Hindus may survive and continue to exist in whatever way they *already are*. The freedom to be. To be left alone, actually (since Hindus do no harm, including how they don't generally proselytise; most relevant: we don't ask others to 'believe'). And consequently, the freedom from being told what we ought to be/ought to hold/what Hindu Dharma 'actually' supposedly entails. That bit most Hindus already know for themselves - at least, the sort of Hindus whose survival I am interested in.
I am not a fan of people going out of their way to tell others what to believe/accept/follow/what conclusions to derive and how. It's for the same reason as why I don't believe in converting non-Indians to Hindu Dharma. It's not that I do not acknowledge the truth of my Religio, but see no reason why such an acknowledgment should take the form of going about telling people to convert to the 'True Religion'. (It's because IMO either people are led to Hindu Dharma on their own or there is something else for them out there.)
I merely want the world to always continue to allow the Hindu of tomorrow to be a natural product of the Hindu ancestry that gave rise to him (natural mental evolution), without external tampering (subversion, artificial insertion of thinking patterns). That is, without the west/western patterning trying to tell Hindus such things as what Gods are valid/not valid Gods, what is and is not Hindu Dharma.
All these intellectual discussions people have about preserving Indian civilisation or Hindu Dharma - I had always thought they were to serve that purpose alone: to ensure unsubverted continuity, as much as possible. Not to tell traditional Vaidikas what the Vedas are 'actually' about, nor to tell lay Hindus what is and isn't Sanatana Dharma. Hindus are not clueless about these things, they merely can't figure out how they are going to survive the way they are in this constantly beleaguered state. I am convinced continuity of harmless ways of life is a fundamental right, which is why I keep bringing up other Natural Traditionalists regularly too and make no claims to Hindu superiority. I do not know that our way is superior. I only know that it is - as it was - the right way for the general body of Hindus.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-20-2009, 05:46 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Husky @ Feb 19 2009, 11:31 AM)2. West holds that Gita is younger than MBh and certainly that any references to Krishna as Bhagavan is younger than the relevant parts of MBh which are used to prove that he was not so originally. They've long made it a focal point that the Gita was one of the later added sections to the MBh. (This automatically disallows any Hindu's references to the Gita as argument that "Krishna is God since he declares himself paramaatman in the BG", since this text is supposed to have come later than MBh's origins where Krishna was 'but man'.)
Again, an example from western scholarship follows.[right][snapback]94719[/snapback][/right]"This automatically disallows" is not me at all, I am referring to the drive of western scholarship: the *christowest* is what disallows Hindus referring to the Gita for support.

That was the point: Hindus' past and that of so many other Natural Traditional cultures are entirely at the mercy of christianism's history. Our ideas, our timeframes, everything has to fit into their view and their christian history, their convenience. *They* are the ones narrating history - not just their own any more, but world history - and it is they who determine that "probably" (used by Doniger for Encarta, and in Columbia encyclopaedia) and "perhaps" (used in Britannica Encyclopaedia) become "certainly".
They don't care that the texts you mentioned predate Bauddha Dharma or anything else. This is not data they are interested in or want pursued. Just like Ishwa's findings/discussion on Yavanas will be left to die the 'natural' death that proceeds from carefully-maintained silence (being ignored).

They have a reason for dating Gita after jeebus: so they can say non-existent jeebus' blatherings resulted in the Gita in India. Just as they have reasons for fitting every bit of Hindu literature in a small timeframe.

Here's an example of their modern history-writing (what passes for 'facts') - this is the christoarchive:
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/197...-wikipedia.html
QUOTE1975 Emergency in Wikipedia
Heh, check out the Wikipedia entry on the 1975 Emergency. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_%28India%29)
It gives a total whitewash to Madame and her coterie of fellow unfortunate victims. People weren't castrated, you see -- they were given vasectomies. (That's like the joke, "It's not rape -- it's surprise sex")
Madame was the poor victim in all this, it seems. She was framed for election-rigging by the evil monsters on the Supreme Court. This is like "being fired for a traffic ticket," we're told. (Reminds me of Musharraf's defense "I had to arrest the Prime Minister -- he was about to launch a coup against me!")
Posted by san at 2/18/2009 07:50:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: pseudo-history, Psychology

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2009, 05:03 PM by Bodhi.)

Husky, Please understand the difference in purpose of the two separate approaches to studying the itihAsa-purANa-s.

- For the orthodox/religious student, the historicity of any thing does not matter. itihAsa-purANa is a source of religious inspiration and practice for him.
- For the history/archaeology student, the religiousity matters little and the text is a source of understanding of old times.

Both are valid, as long as scope of the purpose of their study is clear in their minds. Confusion starts when either of them start meddling in the realm of the other. Like when the mlechCha indologists with their half-understanding and their own motivations, start "interpreting" the Hindu traditions. Equally likewise, when the religious ones start claiming their belief as practiced today to be the literal history of the bygone time.

Then there is a valid overlapping ground too -- religious Hindu using modern means to ALSO understanding the past of his practice and beleifs. For him are all these troubles you mention. But for him, the way out is to clearly understand the framework of the ancestors -- the difference between the 'Past' and 'History' has to be understood. This was so eloquently explained by Balagangadhara in context of rAmasetu in the article recently posted by dhu on some other thread.

Since I do not want you to get angry at me, let me illustrate with a rather less offensive example. Recently a discussion had come up, when orthodox ones claimed that the philosophy of vegetarianism, as prevalent today, had always been practiced like that in the Hindu society. To do this, a gentleman, very learned of course, had gone to lengths to prove the 'correct' interpretations of the texts. That is when the conflict starts. Yes, today's Hindu traditions largely teach vegetarianism, for a long time now. That should be good enough conclusion for the orthodox ones. But claiming that it has 'always' been so, this is nothing but ahistoric claim. So again, the religious/practicing Hindu, who also wants to study these sources for the sake of History, should understand that all practices, all beliefs, and traditions have evolved (or devolved as per some) over time. One should understand that there is this time factor that changes all human things including the practices in religious realm. The claim for sanAtana dharma in its present form to historically be "sanAtana", in literal sense of the term, becomes a major source of the confusion.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2009, 05:00 PM by Husky.)

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 19 2009, 04:07 PM)One should understand that there is this time factor that changes all human things including the practices in religious realm.
[right][snapback]94731[/snapback][/right]You are broaching an entirely different topic. (Actually, bringing in Vishnu's avataras earlier was also unanticipated.)
The topic I was led to was western scholarship on dating Hindu lit and consequently ordering Hindu history, and how it is used to silence Hindus. <- Using no more than "probablys" and "perhapses", what's more.

QUOTE- For the orthodox/religious student, the historicity of any thing does not matter. itihAsa-purANa is a source of religious inspiration and practice for him.
- For the historical/archaeological student, the religiousity matters little and the text is a source of understanding of old times.That part of your statement is not universal. I know (knew) Gurukula students. I also know traditional people who regularly perform Vedic rites. They are all very much convinced of the Itihasas being history and even most of the Puranas. The view that "the historicity of any thing does not matter" does not represent them.

QUOTESince I do not want you to get angry at me,?
Contrary to what you may think, I'm not 5 anymore Bodhi.
I have one word for you: Crayons.

Bodhi · 02-19-2009, 05:06 PM

QUOTE(Husky @ Feb 19 2009, 04:59 PM)I'm not 5 anymore Bodhi.
[right][snapback]94732[/snapback][/right]


<!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> Aaah! Looks like we missed the birthday treat recently! Belated greetings!

Login




Remember me Lost Password?