16
To return to the original topic: It seems to be clear by now that, even in very old texts, there are sometimes 27 nakshatras and sometimes 28. The astronomer Achar argues in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies that 27 was the original number, while Asko Parpola in his "Deciphering the Indus Script" argues for 28.

I suggest that with so much debate continuing among academic specialists, we are unlikely to conclusively settle the issue here.

17
Kenneth Johnson wrote:
To return to the original topic: It seems to be clear by now that, even in very old texts, there are sometimes 27 nakshatras and sometimes 28. The astronomer Achar argues in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies that 27 was the original number, while Asko Parpola in his "Deciphering the Indus Script" argues for 28.

I suggest that with so much debate continuing among academic specialists, we are unlikely to conclusively settle the issue here.

Thanks Ken,

Is this variation in interpretation related to references with/without Abhijit?

We seem to see this ambiguity regarding the exclusively astrological texts on the Nakshatras that have been preserved (such as the ??rd?lakar??vad?na).

You have commented on this issue in your article on the ??rd?lakar??vad?na entitled: The Legend of the Southern Cross, Early Writings on the Nak?atras from the ??rd?lakar??vad?na

http://kennethjohnsonastrology.com/main ... ern-cross/

You state:
The work usually lists twenty-eight nak?atras rather than twenty-seven, for it usually (though not always) includes Abhijit, which is something of a mystery.

Abhijit is included in all the earliest lists of the nak?atras (including Atharva Veda 19.7); in the beginning, there were clearly twenty-eight lunar mansions rather than the current twenty-seven.

Abhijit?s importance to the early nak?atra tradition is critical. In the Mah?bh?rata, the great king and exemplar of the dharma, Yudhi??hira, is born in the muh?rta or hour of Abhijit. Why was Abhijit left out of the later nak?atra count? No one really knows. Mah?bh?rata 3.37.219.7-10 reads: ?The Goddess Abhijit, the younger sister of Rohi?? and her rival, has gone to the forest to mortify herself, for she wishes to be the eldest?. Now a constellation has dropped from heaven.? Abhijit is the star Vega, hence nowhere near the ecliptic and not on the path of the planets and the luminaries.
I assume you have revised your take on this subject in the light of more recent research by Achar which does seem to have muddied the waters somewhat. I take it you relying more on Asko Parpolo's interpretation of the ancient texts when you wrote that piece?

In any case, regarding the early astrological use of the Nakshatras we no longer need to rely on the ??rd?lakar??vad?na as our sole reference. Clearly one text could have had certain idiosyncracies due to later interpolation. However, Bill Mak's research on several Jyotisa texts preserved in China seems to support the view that 28 nakshatras (not 27) were used in astrological work. At least by the early centuries of the common era.

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

18
When I stay that we are unlikely to be able to settle the issue, I am simply acknowledging the fact that the historical record is, as you say, "muddied," and that it is hard to draw firm conclusions from the contradictory sources.

Personally, I still tend to lean toward 28. I haven't really revised my opinion, but, as you have pointed out, it's not just a question of a single text or a single scholar. Articles have been written supporting both positions. I do feel that the weight of the argument is somewhat stronger in favor of 28.

19
Varuna 2 wrote:
The reason I call Western versions of Indian history a myth is because this is what contemporary Western academics call everyone else's history (including oftentimes their own ancestor's history).

When I referred to the "fraudulent foundation" of Western versions of Indian history I did not mean it was necessarily motivated by malintent on everyone's part, only that zero evidence was used to establish the vedic period and that period has not moved since then, but when evidence is brought up suggesting a large error thet evidence is reviled as 'not evidence' or motivated by evil.

I would encourage people to read the Indian academic literature insofar as their own 'history of science', and Indian archeology, from Indian perspectives. There are discrepancies. Nevermind the traditional teachings.
I think your tendency to represent this debate as one between western scholarship vs Indian academics is deeply misleading.

Some of the strongest modern advocates of a modified migration theory from central Asia and opponents of the idea of a 'Vedic Harappan culture ' theory were Indian academics from the Hindu community.

In particular we have highly respected modern historians of the ancient period such as Romila Tharpar, Ram Sharan Sharma and Dwijendra Narayan Jha. All Indian and all originate from a Hindu religious background.

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

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

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

These Indian academics disputed the extremely ancient chronology for the Vedic era proposed by Hindutva activists. This would apply to the kind of timelines you have proposed here for the Vedic texts.

Equally, there are western writers like David Frawley that could be described as on the extreme end of a Hindutva position. Moreover, one of the leading scholars criticising the Aryan migration theory and supporting the indigenous Aryan hypothesis is the Belgian academic Koenraad Elst. Although it is true that his view is not representative of western scholarship as a whole.

Still, I hope I have demonstrated we need to avoid over simplistic generalizations based on ethnic background. This debate is not about a 'clash of cultures' as you typify it but rather competing theories of Indian history.

Having said that this debate has assumed a degree of politicization in India due to the way many Indians see these theories shaping a sense of national and religious identity.

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

20
Before Martin locks this thread I would like to publicly apologize to Ken for my rudeness and disrespectful reply which I deleted entirely and replaced with a better response. You misunderstood my intent Ken, I was not intentionally insulting you originally (but I worded it wrongly) and I was trying to keep you out of mine and Mark's neverending locking of horns. But when you stepped in the ring and suggested I insulted you I gave you the dosage meant for my fight with Mark.

I respect you as a gentle respectful Sanskrit scholar Ken, and I do not want to argue with you about anything, and my only problem with your presentation is that you suggest anyone who does not agree with the Western academic position is a far right nationalist (presumably evil, typically). I have noticed how offended certain people (from the greater bharata region) have been on this forum when this is how things are portrayed. Not to mention the UN mandate on Indigenous People's Rights.

This is not a black and white issue to me, of either the naksatras (and vedas) date to 3000 years ago or the vedas date to 12000 years ago.

To return to the topic of this thread and conveniently also illustrate that the Indian academic world allows very different portrayals from what we see in the West, allow me to quote one article that is relative to this thread and a theory from an Indian which acknowledges influences outside of India but nevertheless dates a text to older than the Western dating of the rg veda (said to be the oldest Hindu literature).

"The Vedanga Jyotisa of 1400 BC reduced the number of naksatras from 28 to 27 for mathematical reasons and gave the definition of naksatras as an arc of 13 1/3 degrees on the ecliptic. In doing so Abhijit naksatra was dropped, original Abhijit was called Sravana was called Dhanistha and other naksatras readjusted as shown by the author.

Jain astronomers used the principles of the Vedanga Jyotisa for making the calendar with the difference that they counted the naksatras from Sravana instead of Dhanistha of the Vedanga Jyotisa. The puts the epoch of Jain astronomy around 500 BC. In those days there was much exchange of ideas between the Indian and Babylonian astronomers. In particular Indians came to know of the Babylonian zodiacal constellations (sidereal rasis) and there was a need to lock the 12 rasis with the 27 naksatras prevalent in India
." - Abhyankar

Notice the attribution to another culture for an idea, but the dating of this astrology text is older than the alleged age of the rg veda! I have seen the Vedanga Jyotisha dated anywhere from 1800-1400 BCE based on the astronomy information it contains.

The above quote is from an article which is listed as the 7th article down at this link:

http://insaindia.org/comijhs2.php

Here is another article by the same author associated with further articles dealing with the astronomy and calendrical aspects of vedic astrology:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998BASI...26...61A

I still believe the Adityas are relevant here too, though.

Therefore, this argument is not as black and white to me personally, as it is portrayed in the Western academic world.

I still take Ken's position that it is premature to decide confidently that 27 or 28 is older than the other, rather there could have been parallel traditions.

21
Varuna 2
I take Ken's position that it is premature to state confidently that 27 or 28 is older than the other.
A wise move to now back our resident authority. After Ken's explanation of the current academic state of play I would have to agree too. My original view had been mostly based on Ken's article cited above anyway! So I suppose we have got to the point that title of this thread requires a question mark. :lol:

Still, I would remind you that all the existing astrological texts passed down to us (as opposed to ancient Vedic scriptures) seem to strongly favour 28 nakshatras rather than 27. I see no response on that issue.

Varuna 2 wrote:
The Vedanga Jyotisa of 1400 BC reduced the number of naksatras from 28 to 27 for mathematical reasons and gave the definition of naksatras as an arc of 13 1/3 degrees on the ecliptic. In doing so Abhijit naksatra was dropped, original Abhijit was called Sravana was called Dhanistha and other naksatras readjusted as shown by the author.


Ok good find. I think I was the one that highlighted this article a while back in a thread entitled the Jain Nakshatras here. Yes, the dating is very different from scholarship I have seen. There seems to be a current grouping of Indian researchers on Indian astronomy that go along with this dating too. You could add to this argument the research of Sajjan Singh Lishk and S.D. Sharma on Jaina astronomy. They follow a similar dating for The Vedanga Jyotisa.

I would suggest that the difference here can, at least in part, be explained by the fact that western scholarship tends to focus on what is the assumed date for the latest , formulation of the text passed down to us. In contrast these writers seem to focus on the earliest possible Vedic origin of the text. It is rather disconcerting though that all these writers uncritically assume the entire text we now know as the the Vedanga Jyotisa has passed down to us without any interpolations , accretion, or omission from 1400BCE!

I think there is genuine uncertainty in the dating of this text. I also think the dating of Vedic texts is open to some debate too. However, there is a qualitative difference between the ambiguity on the chronology of this text, or the idea some of the Vedas could be a few hundred yeas older, and the suggestion the Vedas date from several thousand years BCE or that they are concurrent with the high point of the Harappan culture. That kind of typical Hindutva argument raises problems of a completely different order of magnitude.

Continuing the theme of differing chronology I note Sajjan Singh Lishk and S.D. Sharma state in their article 'Post-Vedanga Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy' that the Siddhantic era of Indian astronomy dates from the 3rd-4th century. Conventionally, this is dated with Aryabhata in the late 5th century CE. Unfortunately, the authors of this article dont inform us how they reached this conclusion.

Varuna 2 wrote:
Jain astronomers used the principles of the Vedanga Jyotisa for making the calendar with the difference that they counted the naksatras from Sravana instead of Dhanistha of the Vedanga Jyotisa. The puts the epoch of Jain astronomy around 500 BC. In those days there was much exchange of ideas between the Indian and Babylonian astronomers. In particular Indians came to know of the Babylonian zodiacal constellations (sidereal rasis) and there was a need to lock the 12 rasis with the 27 naksatras prevalent in India." - Abhyankar
The second part of this quote seems to heavily reflect the ideas of David Pingree. He was a strong supporter of Babylonian influence around this time and the possibility of contacts between India and Persia/Babylonia.

Generally, this interpretation is rather out of favour amongst academics today and Pingree's suggestion of Babylonian influence has been criticised by current authorities such as Yukio Ohashi. Still, I note academics on Mesopotamian history still often support Pingree's theory on the dissemination of Babylonian astronomy to India in this period. The idea is certainly a possibility. This might explain why the rasi never had hellenistic root names in India unlike many of the house terms. It hints that the idea of rasi may have a slightly older pedigree in India than the period of hellenistic influence in India. This doesn't mean I am coming round to David Frawley's theory that the rasi originated in the ancient Vedas!

However, the idea that the 27 nakshatras were 'locked' to the 12 sidereal signs around 500BCE is certainly very different! :shock: With no disrespect to these authors I would say their suggested dating for this process has been overtaken by new research. In particular, their assumption of such an early date for the combination of nakshatras with rasi cakra seems very hard to reconcile with the discovery of dated Jyotisa texts in China. Exact datings have always been the plague of Indian astrological history. However, as Bill Mak suggests the preserved Jyotisa texts in China are a 'time capsule' of the development of Indian Jyotisa. We now know that early astrological texts seem to work with the 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi cakra. This trend carries on for hundreds of years into the common era.

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

23
Generally, this interpretation is rather out of favour amongst academics today and Pingree's suggestion of Babylonian influence has been criticised by current authorities such as Yukio Ohashi. Still, I note academics on Mesopotamian history still often support Pingree's theory on the dissemination of Babylonian astronomy to India in this period. The idea is certainly a possibility. This might explain why the rasi never had hellenistic root names in India unlike many of the house terms. It hints that the idea of rasi may have a slightly older pedigree in India than the period of hellenistic influence in India. This doesn't mean I am coming round to David Frawley's theory that the rasi originated in the ancient Vedas!
The question of origins may be more complex than we imagine. The Parpola brothers at U. of Helsinki are Simo (an Assyriologist) and Asko (a Sanskritist). They have drawn attention to the maritime trade between Sumer and the Indus Valley (called Meluhha in the Sumerian records and, according to Asko, probably derived from a Dravidian word meaning "elevated place," which rather nicely describes some of the important features of monumental architecture in the Indus).

Their contention is that ideas and mythologies as well as trade goods were exchanged between the two cultures, and that similar themes can be found in both mythologies, including themes that appear in both the mythology of the nakshatras and in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The thesis is set forth in Simo Parpola's "Garment of Sky," very difficult to find but perhaps available through abebooks or alibris.

In brief, the argument is that astronomical knowledge and associated myths were being exchanged at a very early period.

24
Mark wrote:
Still, I would remind you that all the existing astrological texts passed down to us (as opposed to ancient Vedic scriptures) seem to strongly favour 28 nakshatras rather than 27.
Martin Gansten wrote:
The other way around, surely?
No. I was discussing the earliest astrological texts featuring the nakshatras that have survived from the early centuries CE. Unless of course one wants to make a case that the ancient Vedic texts are indeed astrological and mainly focused on 27 nakshatras.

I did state that qualification a few times in the thread before so I didn't see the necessity to offer that caveat again. However, leaving that clarification out this time does seem to have created some confuision regarding my meaning.

As I have stated a few times already here I am deriving my view from Bill Mak's recent research of Jyotisa texts preserved in China.

Here is the thread where I highlighted this important research:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7645

Sadly, that thread doesn't seem to have generated much interest on the forum despite the profound significance of Bill Mak's ground breaking work on these texts.

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

25
Mark wrote: I think your tendency to represent this debate as one between western scholarship vs Indian academics is deeply misleading.

Some of the strongest modern advocates of a modified migration theory from central Asia and opponents of the idea of a 'Vedic Harappan culture ' theory were Indian academics from the Hindu community.
Those ones are Western indoctrinated Marxist-nihilists who cannot even be called hindus, and it somewhat contradicts the use of the term "hindutva," but I understand your point and there is a grey area here.

Anyhow, I am finished with that argument.
Mark wrote: Varuna 2 wrote:
Quote:
"I take Ken's position that it is premature to state confidently that 27 or 28 is older than the other."

A wise move to now back our resident authority. After Ken's explanation of the current academic state of play I would have to agree too.
I have always been unsure of this nakshatra business especially in regards to dating goes.
Mark wrote: Still, I would remind you that all the existing astrological texts passed down to us (as opposed to ancient Vedic scriptures) seem to strongly favour 28 nakshatras rather than 27. I see no response on that issue.
The key phrase here is: "down to us." We are like paleontologists here. "Look at that 3-toe footprint and the rock layer is underneath this rock layer with a 4-toe footprint. Therefore, 3-toes came first." Nevermind that 99% of the evidence below and above and around those miniscule pieces had been destroyed or not dug up, and the 3-toes were around at the same time as the 4-toes.

This is why I do not respond to it. How can I respond? I do not know. Almost all of the currently available astrology literature does not even contain information on the 28 nakshatras, which I would be extremely interested in. Trying to apply dates to many things in India is a crazy pastime, to me. I only apply dates to counter other crazy dating attempts and primarily because history is a weapon used to control people, but certainly some dating types are valid such as archeo-astronomy - but I have seriously taken thought into going into retirement and observing rather than countering.

We have the Kalachakra, Sarvotabhadra Chakra, Kota Chakra, Surya Kalanala, Chandra Kalanala, and Shoola as charts using the 28 nakshatras but I have yet to find really any information in classical texts teaching how to delineate these things. I would want to find the appropriate use of these 28 nakshatra astrology charts.
Mark wrote: It is rather disconcerting though that all these writers uncritically assume the entire text we now know as the the Vedanga Jyotisa has passed down to us without any interpolations , accretion, or omission from 1400BCE!
Err...the Vedanga Jyotisha is likely a very late appendage in its present form and consists of a few verses and is likely younger than whatever these few verses are attached to.
Mark wrote: I think there is genuine uncertainty in the dating of this text. I also think the dating of Vedic texts is open to some debate too. However, there is a qualitative difference between the ambiguity on the chronology of this text, or the idea some of the Vedas could be a few hundred yeas older, and the suggestion the Vedas date from several thousand years BCE or that they are concurrent with the high point of the Harappan culture. That kind of typical Hindutva argument raises problems of a completely different order of magnitude.
I agree they are open to debate (my mind is already fixed, just as others are fixed), and they always will be, because there are no recorded dates. So we can keep going until the eternal end with this. I have already mentioned that zero evidence was used to create a fictitious date and now your implication that different dates that actually have evidence is a "typical Hindutva" argument is meaningless and beyond absurd. Shall we keep on until the thread is locked?
Mark wrote: Generally, this interpretation is rather out of favour amongst academics today
:D :D :D Can I do that 3 times? We agree on something! What you wrote is my mantra. I intentionally took that quote out of its original context because it is how I look at all of this monkey business including but not limited to: this thing is that old (invent some reasons), and that thing came before this thing (invent some reasons). Then later the fashions and winds change and a new truth arrives and everyone (or at least 1/3 of the egos) believes that truth as certain as they were before, and in the meantime all of them were false but believed true while it was fashionable. Which brings me to my next point:
Mark wrote: However, as Bill Mak suggests the preserved Jyotisa texts in China are a 'time capsule' of the development of Indian Jyotisa. We now know that early astrological texts seem to work with the 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi cakra. This trend carries on for hundreds of years into the common era.
Here is an analogy: It would be like finding Buddhist texts from India in China and concluding that India equals Buddhism.

In other words, we do not know that so-called 'early' astrological texts work with 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi chakra. What we do know is that those particular texts work this way and they were transmitted to China at this or that date. That is the only thing we know.
Ken wrote: The question of origins may be more complex than we imagine.
Mark wrote: Sadly, that thread doesn't seem to have generated much interest on the forum despite the profound significance of Bill Mak's ground breaking work on these texts.
That is very interesting. I would like to take part of that, but how can I? I don't know anything about it. This is all I can say about it.

26
Varuna 2 wrote:
Those ones are Western indoctrinated Marxist-nihilists who cannot even be called hindus, and it somewhat contradicts the use of the term "hindutva," but I understand your point and there is a grey area here.
I see. So when you stated earlier in this thread:
''I would encourage people to read the Indian academic literature''


You quite clearly have a very selective reading list in mind. Your world of academic acceptability is vanishingly small. Not content with castigating nearly all western scholarship you now apparently dismiss, without any serious discussion, the leading Indian historians on the ancient period too!

Evidently, these academics are the wrong kind of Indians for you. It now becomes clear your idea of the ?Indian perspective? is confined to only Hindutva writers and their fellow travellers you choose to agree with.

With such a dismissive attitude it seems transparent that a rational evaluation of all academic opinion on this topic is impossible for you. You are clearly too emotionally involved in this topic to step back and consider both sides of the debate.

Incidentally, I am not using the term 'Hindutva' as a shorthand for all Hindus. It is rather a description of the more extremist, nationalistic elements in the Hindu community. In political terms it represents parties like the BJP but the movement is wider than this.

In terms of its view of history it is characterised by a Hindu supremacist , revisionist approach in all periods not just the ancient era. I also use the term to describe westerners who have adopted the Hindutva attitude to ancient India such as David Frawley.

Varuna 2 wrote:
Anyhow, I am finished with that argument.


I don?t see anything resembling a rational or logical ?argument? against these Indian scholars.

Varuna 2 wrote:
The key phrase here is: "down to us." We are like paleontologists here. "Look at that 3-toe footprint and the rock layer is underneath this rock layer with a 4-toe footprint. Therefore, 3-toes came first." Nevermind that 99% of the evidence below and above and around those miniscule pieces had been destroyed or not dug up, and the 3-toes were around at the same time as the 4-toes.

This is why I do not respond to it. How can I respond? I do not know. Almost all of the currently available astrology literature does not even contain information on the 28 nakshatras, which I would be extremely interested in. Trying to apply dates to many things in India is a crazy pastime, to me. I only apply dates to counter other crazy dating attempts and primarily because history is a weapon used to control people, but certainly some dating types are valid such as archeo-astronomy - but I have seriously taken thought into going into retirement and observing rather than countering.
I accept your point that academic areas do go through ?fashions? as rival theories rise and fall. However, academic debates are usually fairly narrowly focused. I already cited the example of potential Babylonian influence at the end of the Vedic period (Pingree?s dating was around 500-400BCE).

The idea of Babylonian influence on Indian astral sciences in this period was generally accepted up until quite recently. However, since David Pingree?s death it has been suggested that Pingree overemphasized the degree of such influence. However, the discussion here is more about how much weight one gives this influence not whether it actually occurred.

Precise dating of texts in India is extremely difficult. Noone is denying that. That is why I keep bringing up Bill Mak?s research. The Jyotisa texts in China are dated! So it gives us something firmer to work on.

As for dating the Vedas a series of things have been used. Linguists have estimated that the diffusion of the Indo-European language began to spread into Pakistan/NW India around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Intriguingly, genetic research of current Indian populations corroborates the notion of a new genetic infusion into India in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. There is a also strong genetic link between high caste Indians and Europeans and SW Asians. This link is much less apparent amongst lower caste or Dalit Indians. How else do we make sense of this remarkable fact without a migration of population from central Asia to Pakistan/North India?

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/10/2277.full

So while scholarship may disagree on exactly how old a text like the RgVeda is we do seem to have a historical window provided by the diffusion of language and genetic markers.

Certainly, the Rigveda is by far the most archaic testimony of Vedic Sanskrit. In his article The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Edwin Bryant (2001) suggests the culture reflected in the Rigveda was pastoral , nomadic, mobile and centered on the Indo-Iranian Soma cult and fire worship.

The religious beliefs and practices and rituals depicted in the Rig Veda bear a striking resemblance to Avestan texts of ancient Iran. In particular, the common deity Mitra, priests called hot? in the Rgveda and zaotar in the Avesta, and the use of a hallucinogenic compound that the Rgveda calls soma and the Avesta haoma.

Several linguistic scholars have identified a strong similarity between the Avestan language of the G?th?s the oldest part of the Avesta and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda. The two show such similarity that the dating of the life of Zarathustra or at least the Gathas has been reassessed closer to the conventional dating of the Rgveda of 1500?1200 BC, i.e. 1100 BC, possibly earlier. It has even been suggested the date of the Avesta could also indicate the original date of the Rgveda.

The early Vedic culture therefore appears to have more characteristics in common with central Asia than the Harappan culture. For example the extensive use of chariots and horses used in the Vedic /Avestan cultures were lacking in Harappan culture. The use of mobile fire altars as opposed to fixed altars used in the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC). Lastly, the extensive urbanisation found in the IVC seems to have been initially lacking in what appears to be a migratory, rural, culture described in the Rgveda.

Varuna 2 wrote:
Err...the Vedanga Jyotisha is likely a very late appendage in its present form and consists of a few verses and is likely younger than whatever these few verses are attached to.
Unfortunately the Indian astronomical researchers discussed earlier don?t really engage with the dating of their sources which one would think would be a key issue for them. Instead they simply cite 1400BCE as if it is a historical given without any serious discussion. David Pingree dated the text about a thousand years later than this which would place it at the very end of the Vedic era roughly contemporary with the time of Buddha and Mahavira.

Varuna 2 wrote:
I agree they are open to debate (my mind is already fixed, just as others are fixed), and they always will be, because there are no recorded dates. So we can keep going until the eternal end with this. I have already mentioned that zero evidence was used to create a fictitious date and now your implication that different dates that actually have evidence is a "typical Hindutva" argument is meaningless and beyond absurd. Shall we keep on until the thread is locked?
As I mentioned above we have linguistic and genetic evidence to go on and strong similarities between the Rgveda and the ancient Avestan texts of Persia.

The argument for an indigenous origin of the Vedas has to explain all these factors. For example, it has to explain the spread of Indo-European languages into Northern India. Hindutva proponents such as David Frawley try to make the evidence fit by supporting the ?out of India? theory for the dissemination of these languages into central and western Asia. In other words out of India proponents like Frawley promote the theory that these languages spread out from India and not vice versa.

However, language researchers give very little credence to this theory since the distribution patterns of Indo-European languages all indicate the direction going the other way. The idea therefore has hardly any support in the academic community.

Varuna 2 wrote:
Here is an analogy: It would be like finding Buddhist texts from India in China and concluding that India equals Buddhism.
This is a false analogy. There is seems to be minimal Chinese input into these texts. What there is can be clearly separated from the Indian components. Moreover, this would hardly be the first time that materials via the Silk Road has given us valuable information about ancient India itself. For example archealogical finds in central Asia have discovered ancient Buddhist texts from India. Some of these were collated in China too. These are a highly useful source of information on Buddhist developments in ancient Indian Buddhism. I assume you are not aware of any of this.

But your other suggestion seems to be because these texts are preserved in Buddhist texts in China they can tell us nothing reliable regarding Hindu Jyotisa of this period? First, off you have to recognise Buddhism was a much more significant player in Indian religious culture in this period than it is today. Numbers are hard to quantify but the Buddhists must have made up a sizeable proportion of the overall Indian population. In that respect the texts were a good cross section of Indian society and its astrological beliefs.

Moreover, as Bill Mak reports the Buddhists commentators in China seemed almost embarrassed at the presence of these Indian astrological texts in the early phase. Texts like the ??rd?lakar??vad? , while adopted by the Buddhists, seems to contain astrological ideas that were originally Hindu.

We can also compare the material with what we do have in India and according to Mak the material seems to closely mirror astrological texts we have preserved in India. You wanted dates? Here is some hard evidence at last that doesn?t rely on speculation.

Varuna 2 wrote:
In other words, we do not know that so-called 'early' astrological texts work with 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi chakra. What we do know is that those particular textswork this way and they were transmitted to China at this or that date. That is the only thing we know.
We do know that the earliest nakshatra material doesn?t involve rasi chakra and still uses Krittika as the starting point.

But your point here seems to be about praxis. In other words do the 28 nakshatra work astrologically without being integrated with the rasi chakra?

I agree we probably need more detail on these early texts before we can form a better view on that in practical astrological terms. I accept there is probably not enough information available yet to really work with the more ancient understanding of the 28 Nakshatras astrologically. Still, even in Jyotisa today we still have widespread use of 28 nakshatras in electional and horary astrology do we not? It seems that Abhijit never quite disappeared!

Mark wrote:
Sadly, that thread doesn't seem to have generated much interest on the forum despite the profound significance of Bill Mak's ground breaking work on these texts.
Varuna 2 wrote:
That is very interesting. I would like to take part of that, but how can I? I don't know anything about it. This is all I can say about it.
I gave a link to the article by Bill Mak on the Indian Jyotisa texts preserved in China in this thread where I summarised it: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7645

Did you miss the link to Mak?s article? I admit the article is only a short summary of his initial findings and it would be fascinating to read a much fuller account of his research.

Here it is again:

http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/daikokai/ ... 20Mark.pdf


Bill Mak has two forthcoming works that don?t seem to be published yet:

1.Silk Road Transmission of Astrological Lore to China ? Indian, Chinese and Central Asian elements in Mah?sa?nip?tas?tra (T397)

2. Indian Jyoti?a literature through the lens of Chinese Buddhist Canon (Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference Section: Scientific Literature. Jan 9, 2012)

- See more at: http://www.billmak.com/astronomy/#sthash.K2j3OMry.dpuf
Last edited by Mark on Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:55 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

27
Mark wrote:Varuna 2 wrote:
Those ones are Western indoctrinated Marxist-nihilists who cannot even be called hindus, and it somewhat contradicts the use of the term "hindutva," but I understand your point and there is a grey area here.
I see. So when you stated earlier in this thread:
''I would encourage people to read the Indian academic literature''


You quite clearly had a very selective reading list in mind. Your world of academic acceptability is vanishingly small. Not content with castigating nearly all western scholarship you now apparently dismiss, without any serious discussion, the leading Indian academics on the ancient period too!
I will not respond to you after this reply, because I wonder if you actually do not understand me or if you are intentionally trying to obscure by throwing meaningless words, and ad hominem insinuations, in the place of any argument in the hopes of associating my viewpoint with both ignorance and evil. This is hardly a fruitful debate tactic, but it is a very effective propaganda tactic - I will grant you that.

Those "leading Indian academics" are indoctrinated into a vast edifice that was invented using zero evidence by 19th century Western Orientalists, and those "leading Indian academics" are imitating those whose feet they grovel at. Of course they are going to agree with Western academics because everything they know about their own history was learned from Western academics. This is your debate tactic always, to throw the words 'academics' or 'leading' or such-like sophisticated seemingly authoritative terms in the hopes it actually has any meaning in an argument. Also, because something is popular does not mean it is true, and this is just as true of academia as it is of the general populace.
Mark wrote: Evidently, these academics are the wrong kind of Indians for you.
See the above explanation, besides this is an ad hominem attack.
Mark wrote: It now becomes clear your idea of the ?Indian perspective? is confined to only Hindutva writers and their fellow travellers you choose to agree with.
ad hominem
Mark wrote: With such a dismissive attitude it seems transparent that a rational evaluation of all academic opinion on this topic is impossible for you. You are clearly too emotionally involved in this topic to step back and consider both sides of the debate.
Another ad hominem attack. You do not know that I have studied the standard Western presentation and other presentations combined with my own thinking on these matters.
Mark wrote: Incidentally, I am not using the term 'Hindutva' as a shorthand for all Hindus. It is rather a description of the more extremist, nationalistic elements in the Hindu community. In political terms it represents parties like the BJP but the movement is wider than this.
This is another ad hominem attack. Label your opponents as extremists. This is also a violation of the UN Declaration on Indigenous People's Rights to their own culture and identity and history. All humans are indigenous to this earth, therefore all people have these natural human rights. Just to remind you, you are violating Natural Human Rights every time you use the term 'hindutva.' You certainly are free to deny people their Natural Human Rights, but don't be surprised when they someday return this ungenerosity.
Mark wrote: In terms of its view of history it is characterised by a Hindu supremacist , revisionist approach in all periods not just the ancient era.
This is another ad hominem attack to label opponents as supremacist. Then to label the evidence I presented in this thread as 'revisionist' is meaningless and another sly ad hominem attack (since revisionist is a negative label), in the hopes that both of these labels will stick in association with those who question the invention of Indian History in the West.
Mark wrote: I accept your point that academic areas do go through ?fashions? as rival theories rise and fall. However, academic debates are usually fairly narrowly focused. I already cited the example of potential Babylonian influence at the end of the Vedic period (Pingree?s dating was around 500-400BCE).
Pingree wanted to date the rg veda itself to 500 BCE that is why others rejected his entire Babylon theory, because it wrecked their own neat little story about Indian history and which none of them were present when things happened.
Mark wrote: As for dating the Vedas a series of things have been used. Linguists have estimated that the diffusion of the Indo-European language began to spread into Pakistan/NW India around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE.
No, that is not true. Only one reason was given for dating the vedas to about 1200 bc. The rest of that babble came later based on the fictitious date and to justify the fixed dates that had been decided upon and just assumed to be true since then.
Mark wrote: Intriguingly, genetic research of current Indian populations corroborates the notion of a new genetic infusion into India in the middle of the 2nd century BCE.
They have come a long way in genetic theory if they think they can isolate a century period of time. :D Yet, what does this have to do with the age of the vedas? Nothing.
Mark wrote: So while scholarship may disagree on exactly how old a text like the RgVeda is we do seem to have a historical window provided by the diffusion of language and genetic markers.
:D In your world, yes, you do have a neat historical window. None of which is able to "date" the rg veda.
Mark wrote: Several linguistic scholars have identified a strong similarity between the Avestan language of the G?th?s the oldest part of the Avesta and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda. The two show such similarity that the dating of the life of Zarathustra or at least the Gathas has been reassessed closer to the conventional dating of the Rgveda of 1500?1200 BC, i.e. 1100 BC, possibly earlier. It has even been suggested the date of the Avesta could also indicate the original date of the Rgveda.
:D That is your opinion, and I have my own opinion.
Mark wrote: The early Vedic culture therefore appears to have more characteristics in common with central Asia than the Harappan culture.
Do not forget to mention Mehrgarh at 7000 BCE. Anyhow, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct in this belief that the vedas were unfamiliar to the Mehrgarh culture: it still tells us nothing about the age of the vedas.
Mark wrote: Unfortunately the Indian astronomical researchers discussed earlier don?t really engage with the dating of their sources which one would think would be a key issue for them. Instead they simply cite 1400BCE as is it is a historical given without any serious discussion.
Actually they do, but you have to take the time to go through the academic papers in Indian academia in 2 specific areas: the departments of History of Science and Archeology, and I gave you two links with authors so if you search for those authors names you will continue finding information related to that subject and you can find Indian archeology easily enough. If you only read the Marxist-nihilist literature of the rulers of contemporary Indian thought, then yes, you will find the same beliefs as in Western academia because those Indians studied Western beliefs not their own.

Mark wrote: As I mentioned above we have linguistic and genetic evidence to go on and strong similarities between the Rgveda and the ancient Avestan texts of Persia.
We also have strong similarities with the earliest acknowledged Egyptian and Sumerian and Harappan cultures and similar timelines for them specifically. We also have older cities than these timelines throughout the regions below the last glaciation. We also have strong similarites with Western European peoples and Vedic culture. We also know or have strong reason to believe, most of Europe was covered with glaciers not very long ago.
Mark wrote: The argument for an indigenous origin of the Vedas has to explain all these factors. For example, it has to explain the spread of Indo-European languages into Northern India. Hindutva proponents such as David Frawley try to make the evidence fit by supporting the ?out of India? theory for the dissemination of these languages into central and western Asia. In other words out of India proponents like Frawley promote the theory that these languages spread out from India and not vice versa.

However, language researchers give very little credence to this theory since the distribution patterns of Indo-European languages all indicate the direction going the other way. The idea therefore has hardly any support in the academic community.
You misunderstand me. I am not suggesting Sanskrit is the mother tongue of Indo-European peoples which someone else thought, nor am I suggesting the supremacy and source of Indian culture for all other Indo-Europeans.

My theory is so rare that I do not know if I am the only one who has this theory. Most of the Indo-Europeans were clustered south of the last glaciation and ranging from Egypt to India, then some of them spread into Europe after the last glaciation period in Europe.

The linguist theory you mentioned of going the other way or either way into India is meaningless in regards my theory.
Mark wrote: Varuna 2 wrote:
Here is an analogy: It would be like finding Buddhist texts from India in China and concluding that India equals Buddhism.
This is a false analogy. First off the early texts found in China don?t seem to be Buddhist at all. As Bll Mak reports the Buddhists seemed almost embarrassed at the presence of these Indian astrological texts in the early phase. We can also compare the material with what we do have in India and according to Mak the material seems to closely mirror astrological developments in India. You wanted dates? Here is some hard evidence at last that doesn?t rely on speculation.
An analogy means I was comparing your presentation that the earliest astrology texts in India were 28 nakshatra things, with the idea that Buddhism was the only thing in India. The evidence of 28 nakshatra astrology with no rasis does not prove that other people in India were also using the same astrology, just as not everyone in India was Buddhist. I was not suggesting the astrology in Mak's work is Buddhist. I do not believe the same as you that 12 Aditya astrology was introduced by the Hellenists later than the Mak work timeline. I do not believe because some texts in China were of 28 therefore all astrology in India was 28 at that time.

Mark wrote: We do know that the earliest nakshatra material doesn?t involve rasi chakra and still uses Krittika as the starting point.
No. You may know that, but I do not know that. I do not believe the same history as you, that 12 house astrology was not in India until after this Mak timeframe.
Mark wrote: But your point here seems to be about praxis. In other words do the 28 nakshatra work astrologically without being integrated with the rasi chakra?
No, I was just confirming that I am interested in the nakshatras regardless of how many or when they are from. I do not care about the history as much as the things themselves.
Mark wrote: I agree we probably need more detail on these early texts before we can form a better view on that in practical astrological terms. I accept there is probably not enough information available yet to really work with the more ancient understanding of the 28 Nakshatras astrologically. Still, even in Jyotisa today we still have widespread use of 28 nakshatras in electional and horary astrology do we not? It seems that Abhijit never quite disappeared!
I do not know how widespread, but yes the 28 are sometimes found mentioned.


Yes, I remember the Mak presentation, but like I said I know nothing about it.
Last edited by varuna2 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.