Aeon Centre Of Cosmology

Monthly Archives

July 2022

mrvw-history-highlights-1996-2006

Cosmology in the Rig Veda

July 28, 2022

The Third Premise

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet Director, Aeon Centre of Cosmology

The recent articles of David Frawley and Michael Witzel concerning a possible historic content in the Rig Veda have opened up areas that need to be explored. It is an undeniable fact that the work of scholars such as Frawley has dealt a blow to the upholders of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), the colonial-inspired speculations on the origins of Indian civilisation. It was simply the product of a mindset that had to justify colonisation and wholesale destruction of ancient cultures. Finally it is being laid to rest and other voices are heard.

      However, in the effort to disprove the quasi-defunct theory of a civilisation imported from perhaps Central Asia, the defenders of the age and place of the Saraswati Civilisation have also missed the point. David Frawley’s conjectures regarding the numerous references to oceans and seas in the Rig Veda are a case in point. While offering suggestive evidence that the composers of the hymns did not descend into the subcontinent from a landlocked region, Frawley’s interpretation of the Rig Veda as a purely historic document fails to take into consideration that the text is the product of the vision of Rishis; ‘poets’, according to Witzel. We cannot overlook this fact in seeking to unravel its mysteries.

It is curious that apart from Sri Aurobindo (The Secrets of the Veda), few are willing to accept the Vedic symbols for what they are. Thus, the true character of the text is lost, and the true historic value the Rig Veda does indeed contain. But this historic content has to be discovered on the basis of the language the Rishis employed. In this regard, I find Witzel has been more faithful to the original sense and purpose than Frawley.

For example, let us consider the sea imagery. Frawley and others have used it to reinforce their theories. However, lacking the proper preparation, scholars cannot appreciate the cosmological character of the Rig Veda. In a cosmological context – and none will deny the cosmic moorings of Vedic culture – the sea is the cosmic ocean in which the galaxies and systems are immersed. In some cases it is the ecliptic of our particular solar system in which the planets (‘ships’, ‘golden boats’) navigate. This does not displace the theories of a more mundane interpretation because, similar to dream experiences, the images chosen by the subject as ‘symbols’ in the night time experience are usually taken from the physical world he or she knows in the waking state.

We find this cosmic intent corroborated by Witzel. His reading of the references to oceans and seas is closer to the mark than Frawley’s. He quotes Rig Vedic references to the ‘four oceans’, or the ‘eastern and western oceans’; or else the Atharvaveda ‘northern, upper ocean’.  All of these are clear and unmistakable pointers to the cosmological content of the Veda. They cannot be interpreted otherwise, as Frawley has sought to do. Specifically, they are references to the cardinal points on which the Earth is balanced as she voyages through the cosmic sea in orbit of the Sun. The Atharvaveda mention of the northern ocean is especially meaningful since that would refer to the Capricorn north cardinal point, precisely the ‘upper hemisphere’ in cosmic harmonies, which still today holds pride of place in Hindu culture. Witness the annual celebration of the Makar Sankranti, the Sun’s apparent entry into Capricorn (PNB, 1975, 1981, 2001, 2002).  This month/sign, Capricorn, is further honoured in the Veda itself since it is in that month of the twelve that the Aryan warrior is victorious.

      The ancient dictum of Hermes Trismegistos can be applied here: ‘As above, so below.’ The ‘above’ is the cosmic ocean that may well find its reflection in the physical ocean the Rishi knows so well in his experience of life in ancient Bharat. The sea, the river, the ocean were and remain such vibrant parts of the culture that their incorporation in the hymns does suggest that the Vedic people did not descend upon the subcontinent from some land-locked location; which in any case finds no mention in the Rig Veda, to my knowledge. But unless taken in its cosmic perspective, much of the true meaning is lost. Nor can the formulas involving cosmic energies (the Gods and Goddesses) of the Veda be applied today as they had been in the ancient past.

For instance, Frawley refers to the births of Agastya and Vashishta as ‘born in a pot or kumbha’, the Sanskrit word. He interprets this as ‘a vessel or a ship’ to reinforce his theory of a seafaring civilisation. To begin, I must indeed agree with Witzel that for a civilisation at home with the oceans as Frawley sustains, one fails to understand why the Rishi would need to make Agastya emerge from a pot if indeed he had been born at sea! A pot is a pot and a ship is a ship!

More to the point, in making this deduction Frawley misses an important clue. Kumbha in the Rig Veda is what it still is today, thousands of years after the hymns were recorded: the zodiacal sign Aquarius, the Water Carrier, who, from the jar he carries, dispenses upon the whole world the waters of a divine substance; it is known in Sanskrit as Kumbha. This is the same Kumbha that gives its name to the world-famous Mela we celebrate year after year during the very same zodiacal month of Kumbha (PNB, 1978, 1981, 2001, 2002).

A point needs to be made here. Myths evolve from the cosmic script, and not the reverse. In the Indian context regarding the Kumbha Mela, mythology tells us that the precious amrit from the Moon was taken in a jar back to Earth. Where drops of this immortalising substance fell, the ground was sanctified. Thereafter, celebrations were held in those locations according to specific planetary progressions. We can recognise here elements of the same cosmic script in the pictograph of the Aquarius Water Carrier.

      Indian scholars will contend that these zodiacal figures are equally ‘imports’, similar to an ‘imported civilisation’. Therefore, those who seek to support their theories of an indigenous culture will argue that the zodiac as we know it today was brought to India by the Greeks, long after the Rig Veda was penned; and that therefore its symbols cannot possibly be found in the Veda.

      These arguments are easily countered. A simple perusal of the praises to Vishnu (RV, I, 154) will prove that the so-called Western Zodiac was not only fully known in Vedic times but that it was a fundamental part of the culture (PNB, 1981).  Vishnu’s famous three strides (to measure the universe) cannot be more revealing. The first ‘step’ is like a lion (Leo), according to the Veda; the second is a bull (Taurus); the third, and most revealing of all, is the Friend. This is the same Aquarius of Agastya’s birth, which is also known as the sign of the Friend. More conclusively, they are given in their correct backward moving order, and are Vishnu’s own zodiacal domains because of their quality of PRESERVATION (‘Fixed’ in zodiacal terminology, stable, balancing). This is just one among many explicit references in the Rig Veda to the tropical zodiac with the same symbols still in use throughout the world, except in India.

      To further illustrate their universal reach, we find the very same images recorded in The Revelation of St John (Chapter 12, 7.), written on the Greek island, Patmos, around 70 AD (PNB, 1976). With respect to that same cosmic sea the visionary sees four ‘beasts’ therein: the first is a Lion, the second is a Calf, the third is a Man, and the fourth an Eagle. If the Eagle, the fourth sign, was left out of Vishnu’s measuring it is because this Eagle is Garuda, his own carrier. He begins his measuring from that point in the wheel, also known as Scorpio, and takes ‘three steps’. Scorpio, otherwise known as the zodiacal Eagle, would be the fourth in correct sequence, similar to John’s text.

      The stumbling block in discovering the tropical zodiac in the Rig Veda is another ‘lobby’ we have to contend with: vested interests of the ‘Vedic Astrologers’. Witzel begins his rejoinder to Frawley by providing us with the latter’s credentials as a prominent practitioner of this school, an ‘unacademic’ pursuit.

I must take the matter a step further by reminding both Frawley and Witzel that the composers of the hymns did not have credentials that would satisfy contemporary academia. Their method of discovery was through Yoga, which opened up vistas as wide and as deep as the cosmic oceans of which they sang. To fathom the meaning of such texts it is clear that academic credentials are simply not enough; others are demanded. To begin, since the hymns reveal an indisputable cosmic content, surely this would be the best approach. But this is where the various ‘lobbies’ come in with their vested interests.

      Frawley will not be able to make use of the zodiacal clues such as the births of Agastya and Vashishta from a ‘kumbha’ precisely because of his Vedic Astrology proficiency. Let it be clear that I make this point not to lend weight to Witzel’s contention that this lessens Frawley’s qualifications as a scholar, but rather that this involvement limits his perception.

Vedic Astrology is actually a misnomer. It has little to do with the Veda and should rather be called post-Vedic astrology (PNB, 2001, 2002).  Though this would be a lengthy discussion and cannot be treated in this brief space, it has to be mentioned since it is responsible for the very clear cosmological/zodiacal content of the Veda to be missed. The propagators of so-called Vedic Astrology ignore references to the tropical zodiac simply because they refuse to believe that this zodiac, with the same hieroglyphs and pictographs we use today, can form a part of the Veda. This is another un-Vedic ‘import’, it is believed, a foreign imposition of a much later date, and hence it cannot be found in the ancient Veda. What they fail to admit is that their so-called Vedic Astrology finds no place at all in that Veda!

      The Rig Veda is replete with references to what is now considered a tropical zodiac import and in no way related to the sidereal zodiac in vogue for the past 1000 years in India. This is another case in point to support Frawley’s closing statement, also quoted by Witzel but for different reasons. Frawley justifiably laments the fact that India, unlike any other nation on Earth, is so ‘negative’ regarding the ‘ancient glories of its land’. Following Frawley’s line, we must then question why India has such difficulty accepting the true origins of the zodiac used throughout the world today, clear traces of which are rooted in its own most ancient sacred text, thereby throwing an entirely new light on the subject of its origin as well as its age? This might well make India the originator of that cosmic script, and not Mesopotamia as currently believed. It would further clarify much of what is considered ‘history’, such as the kumbha of Agastya’s birth, mentioned above. Even more significantly, with this cosmological key, the Epics tell a very different story. Their ‘history’ is revealed.

      There can be no doubt that Witzel has dealt the knock-out punch, at least for this round. His reading of the text is closer to the original conception, though he has no cosmological foundation to interpret the images accurately. Nonetheless, by calling the Vedic ocean ‘mythical’, and the description of the night time sky as that ‘ocean’, he has pointed readers in the right direction. His reading of the text is certainly closer to the ancient spirit.

      I have given here only a few hints of the cosmological content of the Rig Veda (for further discussion, see www.aeongroup.com). However, I must close by stating that history is indeed recorded in the Veda, as well as in the Epics, but one has to use correct cosmic formulas to make this discovery, bearing in mind that the ancients were not at all concerned with keeping records for posterity as we do today. Their concern was the vast movement of consciousness and the oneness of micro and macrocosm; and the eternal character of the cosmos is what adds a timeless value to the language they used to compose the hymns. If we learn that language we can easily understand what appear to be cryptic phrases. However, we must also bear in mind that the Rig Veda is not a textbook or a manual. It is a collection of praises, hymns, in a free-flowing language whose multi-dimensions are largely ignored today. But in the Vedic Age, as the scripture reveals, this language was universal and required no elaboration. To make a connection with that ancient culture, we have to live the same inner experience, leaving aside the methods of scholarship for a while, as well as all our conditioned preferences and vested interests, if we want those symbols of another age to speak to us once again.

 

View more
Leave a comment
Share:
mrvw-history-highlights-1996-2006

Refutation of Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul’s

July 26, 2022

1 - Refutation of Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul’s ‘The Hoax called Vedic Rashichakra and Vedic Astrology!’

There was no time earlier to reply to Avtar Krishen Kaul’s (AKK hereinafter for brevity’s sake) recent paper, though we are all familiar with his basic premise: there are no symbols and signs of the zodiac (Rashis) in the Veda. Since these are widely found throughout the later texts such as the Puranas and works on Jyotish, his contention is that they are of Babylonian/Greek origin. They were then imported into India and widely adopted. This follows orthodox scholarship entirely and does not seek to probe deeper. In fact, no one really knows where and when these symbols arose. That the Rashis and their planetary rulers form the woof and warp of the entire Hindu Culture which we find preserved in myths, scriptures, and in temples across the land, to go by this orthodox non-conclusion would then appear to be a further proof of the loss of the earlier Vedic Knowledge in favour of an imported culture. But AKK has by no means furnished conclusive evidence of the precise origins of the Rashis. Therefore, his entire premise collapses since this is the pivotal argument sustaining his entire campaign against their use. How then can he be taken seriously? (In addition to the points I have made, please refer to the latest posting of Shri Jai Maharaj on the Forum, entitled ‘Astrology-Astronomy Origins’, dated 23.12.2006. what we learn from the evidence he presents further supports my objections to AKK’s statements.)

I would like to refute his long paper point by point, but firstly I am obliged to deal with his curious statements regarding the Supreme Master of our line of Knowledge, Sri Aurobindo. From what AKK writes one would have to believe that he has a profound understanding of Sri Aurobindo. Of course this is not so. Without any compunction he suggests that Sri Aurobindo is wrong in the translation of ‘mrigah’ as Lion in the Vishnu praises of Rig Veda I, 154. He mentions that ‘some astrologers’ interpret these epithets to be the Fixed Signs of the zodiac. To my knowledge no astrologer other than me has done so; this discovery is mine. However, it needs to be stated that a true astrologer, and I employ the title with reservations, cannot fail to grasp the meaning of these verses in which Mahavishnu is, precisely, measuring the universe. He is not engaged in some abstract exercise that we cannot follow. All we need to do is to accept what the Hymns themselves sustain, without any further ado. We need to use the same measuring rod Mahavishnu employed and which is made absolutely clear in the text – and that is the zodiac in use throughout the world in the Vedic Age until today, even in India. Moreover, these provide evidence that the Precession of the Equinoxes formed a solid part of Vedic Cosmology (see Jai Maharaj’s posting of 23.12.2006).

A competent astrologer, one who has earned this hallowed title, cannot fail to acknowledge that the astrological signs each ‘stride’ describes are precisely those of Vishnu’s own domain in that zodiac: the Fixed Signs which belong to the mode PRESERVATION. Anyone even minimally versed in the basics of Hinduism knows that this mode belongs to Vishnu of the sacred Trinity. Therefore, to deny bombastically, simply for the sake of denying, is not to refute my discovery at all. The members of the Hindu Calendar Forum may be taken in by this sort of ‘scholarship’, but the real savant is not. Who can shout the loudest will not do. AKK has not provided any evidence at all that my reading of the verses is inaccurate. Hence my discovery stands unchallenged to date.

Back to the question of mrigah. In his heated denials AKK does concede that Sayana has also translated mrigah as lion. In my library I have several translations other than Sri Aurobindo’s. The use of Lion is evenly divided between them; and since I know that the Rig Vedic path stood central to Sri Aurobindo’s own tapasya, I must state that his translation stems from depths that scholars, no matter how erudite, can never approach. If one is to truly follow the ancient Vedic way, then we must agree on one point: the Seer’s vision and perception stand above the scholar’s, whosoever he may be and regardless of the volumes he has penned to support his thesis, whatever that may be. The final word lies with the Sage of standing.

Having established the above, given the more or less even distribution of ‘Lion’ in the various interpretations, we have to concede that Sri Aurobindo’s choice was also academically correct and acceptable. In fact, in ancient times this seems to have been the accepted meaning of the word; Sayana’s translation would support this conclusion. Thus, Sri Aurobindo is not to be dismissed as an intruder; to do so simply reveals a mindset which reserves any right to interpret the Veda as the exclusive preserve of Sanskritists. Therefore, on this point too Avtar Krishen Kaul’s denials have been effectively countered and he should cease from disparaging a discovery which can only encourage the updating and spread of one of the most basic tenets of Hinduism, the Dasavatars of Sri Vishnu’s line. But, we realise, if he were to concede defeat on this one point, his entire tirade against the Rashichakra would fall flat.

What AKK does not realise is that Sri Aurobindo was an in-depth student of astrology. In unpublished documents which have surfaced after his departure, he is found to have written, ‘…I have faith in astrology – ten years experience confirmed. But also amongst a thousand [astrologers], nine hundred know nothing about it…’ The Sri Aurobindo Archives & Research editor adds to the above, ‘The letter is remarkable mainly for showing Sri Aurobindo’s interest in astrology, which, at this period of his life was profound. Around this time he went through and made notes on a large Sanskrit and Bengali astrological tome entitled Horabijan Rahasyam, by Narayan Chandra Jyotirbhusan Bhattacharya…’ (SA&R, Vol, 5, No.1, April 1981).

This was written in 1912 when Sri Aurobindo had settled in Pondicherry; it reveals that the Rashichakra was well known to him since that was the astrology widely in use then as now. It is also known that the Rig Veda constituted a central axis of his own tapasya. Furthermore, the Mother his co-worker, an advanced adept in occultism and the ancient paths of wisdom to no less a degree than Sri Aurobindo, designed a symbol for herself that precisely conveys the structure of the zodiac: 12 outer petals, 4 inner petals, enclosed by 3 concentric circles. I assume the members of this Forum are familiar enough with the basics of astrology and the threefold and fourfold division of the ecliptic to recognise what the Mother was conveying. Did she spell these out as Aries, Taurus, and so on? Of course not. That discovery was reserved for those disciples who understood and were able to penetrate these Mysteries more deeply. But she did transpose this entire structure to sacred architecture when she designed a chamber based on her Symbol and specifically stated that the twelve were ‘the months of the year’. (Visit www.matacom.com for further proof of the Mother’s credentials in this area.)

In like manner, as was the custom in those ancient times the Knowledge was passed on only after intense tapasya just as Sri Aurobindo himself underwent, the result of which can be gauged from his magnum opus, The Secret of the Veda. Ridiculing this traditional method for making oneself a vessel worthy of the Knowledge, as AKK does repeatedly, is certainly a terrible injustice and a disservice to the community he pretends to guide. In itself this attitude provides the proof we need to know that the real understanding of the Veda cannot arise in one who has not undergone the required tapasya.

Conclusions to Instalment 1:

AKK provides no evidence

1) as to the true origins of the Rashichakra;
2) to sustain his rejection of Lion as an academically acceptable translation of mridah;
3) that Vishnu’s three strides cannot to be equated with his Fixed signs of Preservation Leo, Taurus and Aquarius.

26 December 2006

2 - Refutation of Shri Avtar Krishen Kaul’s ‘The Hoax called Vedic Rashichakra and Vedic Astrology!’

My original intention was to dedicate time to an in-depth refutation of Avtar Krishen Kaul’s long paper which sets about ridiculing anybody and anything that does not conform to his views, changeful as they have been demonstrated to be over the years. But in going through his text – along with Subash Kak’s ‘Babylonian and Indian Astronomy’, since Kak and I are AKK’s latest targets – I realise that this is not the way I am permitted to use my time. I find nothing but obscurity in AKK’s text; and by this I mean no enlightening clarity. His research and accompanying texts will never lead a person to that luminescence of old. In other words, this is just the opposite result of what a Vedic tapasya must bring. Here we find only a deepening labyrinthine confusion. There is page after page of a jumble of ideas, conclusions that always turn out to be non-conclusions, thoughts jumping helter-skelter like monkeys trapped in a cage – this is the state one is driven into when reading such texts. Subash Kak’s is closer to the quality we seek when dealing with matters Vedic, but his deductions also stem from a mental preparation and discipline that is far removed from the consciousness of the Rishi and the pathways that led to the formulations we discover in the Vedic texts.

            However, there is one portion of Kak’s paper that I wish to comment on. This is on page 28, subtitled ‘On Observations in Indian Astronomy’. The point he makes is that there was ‘observational astronomy’ in the Vedic Age, contrary to ‘the falsity of the 19th century notion that India did not have observational astronomy’ and hence this has had ‘devastating consequences for the schoolbook histories of early astronomy’.

            I am not surprised that there is some confusion regarding the methods the Rishis used for their discoveries, and that after the split between science and the sacred there should be attempts made to demonstrate that India did possess observational astronomy, contrary to the conclusions reached by historians. I have pointed out in a number of books and articles – more recently in ‘The Origins and Nature of Hindu Decline’ – that the realisation of the Rishi was an inner-dimensional one, and not extended outward. The whole universe was within the Seer’s consciousness. There was indeed no ‘observational astronomy’ involved because the method is through the ancient Vedic system of CORRESPONDENCES and EQUIVALENCES, for which astronomical calculations and observations are not required. Just the contrary. Those observations might constitute a dilution of the experience. I realise this may not be comprehensible to anyone who has not experienced the same path as followed in those ancient times; but when the seeker is guided to follow the ancient way, an entire body of knowledge is uncovered, but exclusively within the innermost universe of the soul. I am not making vacuous statements since I myself, through the same pathways, have formulated and documented an entirely new Body of Knowledge, an Indo-centric cosmology that would itself appear to be the outcome of external observations but which was entirely the fruit of an inner exploration.

            Kak ends his paper with these prescient lines, ‘The observational protocols used in Indian astronomy has become an interesting question to be investigated further.’ But what if the evidence I am presenting here of a different direction (within not without) were taken into account as a part of that investigation by researchers? The conclusions reached would necessarily present an entirely different picture of the ancient methods; and the confusion would be cleared up by recognising that the wisdom we find in the Veda does not depend on external observation at all. Rather, those discoveries are the fruit of a rigorous tapasya which is fully described in the Vedic system itself.

            AKK debunks any reference made to tapasya – but more unacceptable is the fact that in his paper he jumps to conclusions by equating tapasya with meditation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But not having pursued the path as per the Veda, he can never know the difference. Thus his customary facetiousness drives him to make serious errors of judgement when he thrusts my yogic endeavour into a category where it does not belong. This endeavour has been fully reflected in my published works since 1972 to the present. In this Body of Knowledge there is not a trace of this confusion. Nor can I recommend that AKK read my work to prove this for himself because his mind cannot seem to rest and read what is written on the printed page. He would constantly impose his limitations on the text before him and these preconceptions would not allow any light they might contain to penetrate. And so, we can look forward to more and more confusion. Year after year AKK’s efforts have led farther away from the light. Since I have been strung up and quartered a number of times by him in what he has been writing over the past few years, it is certainly within my right, but above all my duty, as in dharma, to deal with what AKK misrepresents.

            His (latest) tirade against my work is found on pages 29 and 30 of this text. In Part 1 of this refutation I have explained the basis for Sri Aurobindo’s selection of words such as Lion for mrigah and how it must be considered academically correct, even if one dismisses the yogic aspect as AKK would like to do. But his statements to debunk my work through these supremely important verses reveal his lack of a knowledge that was an initiatic language the Rishis of former times knew so well. Since the Harmony from where this vision sprang is still with us intact, it is reasonable to believe that if one were similarly initiated into the methods employed then the result would be the same Language. But AKK does not have this knowledge; and so he brushes aside any serious penetration into these mysteries as gibberish – simply because he is not an astrologer. For instance, he ridicules my references to the three, Lion, Bull, Friend, of Sri Aurobindo’s translation, as the three FIXED SIGNS of the zodiac. It is not clear what he actually debunks – nor am I going to attempt to fathom the unfathomable that is his mindset. I will simply give the particulars and readers can consider their worth.

            The Veda usually refers to three elements that constitute the foundation of the wheel of time: 360 ‘bands’ (of the wheel) as in 12 parts, and ‘spokes’ of 360; but there are also three hubs.

 

                        One is the wheel; the bands are twelve;

                        three are the hubs – who can understand it?

                        Three hundred spokes and sixty in addition

                        have been hammered therein and firmly riveted.  (AV X, 8)

 

Similar to these verses to Skambha in the Atharvaveda we find the same 12 and 360 elsewhere. The 360 divided into 12 is understandable, the three hubs are not. Since their meaning is not clear, they are usually set aside; only what is recognisable is dealt with, 360 and 12. And yet this triadic arrangement is the key that leads us to unravel the mystery of the Vishnu verses; and through them to understand the greatest revelation of all, the Dashavatars of Hinduism. These ‘hubs’ would represent Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable signs of astrological lore. They describe energy flows; hence they are reflected in the Hindu transcription as rajas, sattva, tamas; or in another expression as Creation, Preservation, Destruction. In other words, they apply to the trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. It is a mark of the confusion amidst a deepening darkness that set in to note that this simple and obvious correlation was somehow lost sight of; yet it is entirely obvious to a real astrologer. AKK is excluded from this fold by the many demonstrations he has given of his ignorance of the art.

            The FIXED signs – Leo, Taurus, Aquarius, Scorpio/Eagle – are Vishnu’s ‘domain’; but this does not explain the full importance of the arrangement. The FIXED SIGNS point to the astrological ages when his emanations (the Line of Ten) will take birth, separated by 6480 years between each appearance. One of the Emanation’s tasks is to re-set the Cosmic Timepiece which, with the passage of 6000 years, is bound to have suffered what we see around us today: the tyranny of Phantom Ayanamshas. The Avatar of the Line of Ten does this by his own birth into our Earth time which becomes the lodestar, as it were, the philosopher’s stone that we can use to test our assumptions and deductions, and by which means we are led to the light. We are led out of the confusion and darkness that characterise any kaliyuga. This almost pitch darkness is the condition of a consciousness that approaches these mysteries in the pedestrian manner reflected in a text such as AKK’s. Nonetheless, when darkness is deepest the grace of Vishnu through his emanations has been revealed to be fully operative. Thus the cosmic harmonies are made new through the details of this descent, connected as they are to the former appearances – the 7th of the Age of Leo, and the 8th of the Age of Taurus (see The New Way, Aeon Books, 1981).

            AKK again reveals his lack of astrological preparation when he laughs at the ‘pitcher’ (Aquarius, the Water Carrier) as having anything to do with the Friend. The Avatar’s appearance in our present Age of the Friend, just as the Vedic verses to Vishnu indicate, indeed bear out the tradition in no uncertain terms when we know that the Friend (all astrologer know that the 11th sign/house refers to friends primarily in a horoscope) is located in the Uttarayana quarter of the wheel divided into four parts, resting on the solstices and equinoxes. Uttarayana is not just one point on the wheel, the highest or the Midday Cosmic Sun. The solstice indicates ENTRY into that quarter which covers, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. Of the three Aquarius is Vishnu’s sign/domain, and hence the Age in the precession of the equinoxes when his emanation will appear to re-set the Cosmic Clock.

            If one is ignorant of these details than one can only scoff at any of the metaphors the Rishi has used for these three ‘strides’, and especially his references to a MOUNTAIN in the imagery.  AKK exclaims, ‘There are no lions or bulls in the mountains!’, in his inimitable pedestrian manner. But in these verses the Rishi clearly places these strides as stages in a sequential progression that is represented as a mountain climb to the summit. And there we do find the Friend or Aquarius, our present Age. One who has not done the required tapasya (not meditation, please) can never understand the image of the Mountain as representing the successive stages along the way to the highest victory. AKK is ignorant of this Tradition, but sages of former times all concur in this symbolism, to the extent that it and it alone formed the basis of the sacred architecture of all Hindu temples. One need only approach any temple, large or small, to join the Rishi in his experience while standing before a Gopuram which in stone represents that very same Mountain. The summit is the 10th month/sign, the true sign of the Mountain. And this is Capricorn which begins at the December Solstice. Why do we wish to discard this wonderful tradition? Why do we waste our time arguing over where and when this tradition arose, or if it came into or went out from the subcontinent millennia ago, when all one needs to do is to explore the very same inner universe as the Rishi and make those very same discoveries today.

            Having stated this, due credit must be given to Subash Kak because he has provided conclusive evidence in his article, ‘Babylonian and Indian Astronomy’, that the astronomy/ astrology of Vedic India was firmly in place long before the Mesopotamian and Greek traditions came into being. This evidence should have sufficed to silence AKK: his declaration that the Rashichakra was imported from Babylon and Greece into India is revealed to be entirely unsubstantiated.

            To conclude with Kumbha, the friendly Water Carrier who dispenses the sacred waters from his pitcher throughout the universe, these are the inspirational rivers so often acclaimed in the Veda. They carry the seeker – and in this Aquarian Age the whole Earth – into the realm where the Cosmic Harmonies the Carrier embodies flow to the Earth since it is precisely the period when the last of Vishnu’s emanations of the Line of 10 will grace our planet (in this Line there is no place for the Buddha since Vishnu’s emanations can descend only in his FIXED periods, the signs of PRESERVATION like our own; the Buddha’s birth was 2000 years too early, though with the loss of the Knowledge he was erroneously added to the Line).

            I could provide hundreds of examples of this sacred Language employed throughout the Veda; but I realise that these examples are meaningless to anyone who is not open to the Vedic Wisdom as it truly is. But allow me to close this refutation by referring to Indra in order to demonstrate the way a planet or a luminary’s ‘Exaltation’ has been conveyed or made use of in the Veda. It may not be explicitly called Exaltation, but the manner in which the Godhead is eulogised reveals this ‘exalted’ status; and as such we find this essence captured by the tradition of cosmic harmonies and preserved in astrological lore to this day. This clear and concise symbolism related to the Gods indicates that it was a system of Knowledge so thoroughly widespread and accepted that explanations of the sort we demand today were not required. Thus, Indra is often eulogised as the Bull, and sometimes though to a lesser degree as the Ram. His eyes are the Bright Eyes of swar, – one the Sun, the other the Moon. We know that the Sun is exalted in Aries the Ram of the zodiac, while the Moon is exalted in Taurus the Bull. There was no need to spell these connections out explicitly since the entire population in those ancient times knew the one Language, the divine Cosmic Harmony which is all light and no darkness. Whereas today that cosmos has become the preserve of astronomers, such as AKK aspires to become. The separation of astronomy from astrology is complete, and so it must stay because astrology demands the exploration of an INNER universe where these Divine Harmonies exist eternally and by which we can experience the Hermetic aphorism, ‘As above, so below’. It is not the reverse. We cannot explore the heavens and then seek to impose our findings on the inner universe of Light.

 

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

4.1.2007

View more
Leave a comment
Share:
mrvw-history-highlights-1996-2006, Uncategorized

Movement for the Restoration of Vedic Wisdom – Message 1 from Thea 8 November 2006

July 25, 2022

Friends, we have been drawn together for a common purpose and with a common goal: concern for the fate of the Sanatan Dharma. There has been a deterioration setting in over the centuries, and its pace increases now. This must now be arrested. The time has come.

 

To assess the extent of the deterioration we need only observe the complete confusion that exists in Vedic Cosmology which has always played a central role in the culture of the subcontinent. We know this. We know that without the cosmos and its structure there is no Veda. For we can know God through the harmonies of this cosmos that is his Body, just as the Rishi had discovered and recorded in the praises to the Energies that constitute this grand harmony of the spheres. They are not found in a remote Beyond. The Harmonies through which the Divine speaks to us are a property of this Earth we inhabit, this beloved and exquisitely beautiful third planet from the Sun. And because it stands in the third orbit, the number 3 is one of the basic components of these harmonies.

The Veda provide us with an integral vision: Transcendent, Cosmic, Individual; or God, Nature and the human soul. These are the three principles that lie at the basis of our material creation which is like a sacred chalice replete to overflowing with the essences of all the subtle worlds this Physical supports. It is therefore not to be abandoned as a bothersome encumbrance but rather accepted as our precious vahana in our annual Sacrificial Journey.

Therefore, as the Veda instruct, we must not eschew the material dimension that is our birthright. Rather, we must use the formulas it hides in its structure to experience those more subtle realms. This is what the Veda instructs us to do and for which clues have been passed down through the ages to make these discoveries again today as the Rishis did in times so long gone by, the origins of which we have no memory. We cannot reach the Knowledge by extending our consciousness to a beyond that we believe will ‘liberate us’ from further birth on Earth. If we do so, it is an insult to the Maker of the exquisite Harmonies of our material world. The supreme gift of a Seeing Eye, with which the human species is equipped, will have been rendered inoperative by a wrong ‘observation point’ when we discard our human abode. We are born on Earth. It is from this position and this only that we can come to know the Divine through the harmonies of the surrounding cosmos.

Why do we seek a beyond when the cosmic harmonies are experienced only through the eyes of the Earth-born?

This question lies at the root of the deterioration. Nowhere is this made more evident than in the calendars in use throughout the Hindu world to determine when and how we must join our individual energies and those of the Hindu masses to the heartbeat of the Cosmos we know as the Divine Mother’s. There is a formula, a boon from the Supreme Mother herself.

It is her ‘measure’ we discover in the annual Sacrificial Journey as described in the Veda. It is a measure that comes into being in this solar system because in this great Round of many, thousands of years, evolution has brought us as a species to the point where we may now participate consciously in the unfolding of the new times that await us, – an era of re-establishment of the Dharma, of regeneration, of enhancement, of a brilliance never before known. For in this Age of Preservation of Vishnu, the Mother reveals to us her glorious Body in a manner that she has never done before: She unveils its INTEGRAL form.

 

View more
Leave a comment
Share:
mrvw-history-highlights-1996-2006

Why ‘Vedic Astrology’ Should NOT be Taught in Universities

July 22, 2022

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet Director, Aeon Centre of Cosmology

The question of including ‘Vedic Astrology’ in the curriculum of certain universities has become a ranging topic. The reasons are not difficult to comprehend. Given this fact, perhaps it is time to clear away some cobwebs for the benefit of both astology’s detractors and its adherents. After this, whether or not ‘Vedic Astrology’ should be included in university curricula can perhaps be dealt with in a more impartial manner. For the problem lies in the fact that both scientist and astrologer harbour serious misconceptions about the subject.

This debate brings to mind a similar situation that faced the scientist universally acclaimed as the father of contemporary cosmology. Sir Isaac Newton was brought before a commission for his continued practice of astrology (and alchemy), indeed a well-documented passion that lasted till the end of his life. When interrogated, and refusing to budge, Newton finally replied, ‘Sir, I have studied the subject, you have not.’

            This is the same reply we must give to astrology’s present-day detractors among the scientific community. That they have not studied the subject is evident in each argument they seek to use to uphold their theories of the ‘unscientific’ nature of astrology.  But astrologers themselves may be held responsible for the onslaughts they continuously face. They too ignore certain aspects of the art and its mechanics which should be clarified if a fair and truly scientific debate can ensue.

We are not against debate; but both sides should be given a forum and the opportunity to present their arguments; and these arguments must be based on the most thorough examination of the state of astrology (and science) today. This is not the place for such an in-depth discussion. Rather, seminars could be held where astrologers may be given the opportunity to face their detractors. But for now, in clarifying just a few points, by the end of this article the reader may come to the conclusion that including ‘Vedic Astrology’ in university curricula is not such a wise move.

 

The Basic Premise

Astrology has been called the Mother of all Sciences. Given the high esteem in which it has been held from very ancient times, certainly a more mature analysis of its worth is appropriate, indeed, a far more scientific approach.

To illustrate, let us begin by reference to one of the most common criticisms of the art from the scientific community. It is state that astrology continues to propagate the now scientifically demolished belief that the Earth is the centre of the solar system. However, this single criticism proves that its detractors, as Newton himself was forced to state, have not studied the subject.

Let us be clear on this point: astrology is not at all concerned with the mechanics of our solar system per se. When a horoscope is drawn up, the astrologer is not making a cosmological statement about the structure of the universe. He or she is simply fashioning a map of the circumscribing heavens as those configurations converge on a specific point on Earth, a particular location in time and space, or the longitude and latitude of an event. This may be the birth of an individual, or the beginning of any event, for that matter. It may even be the formation of a nation, such as the new independent India.

            This construct is not stating that the Earth is the centre of the solar system, as astrology’s detractors insist upon, but simply that at that particular point on the Earth a birth has occurred amidst a certain circumscribing configuration of cosmic harmonies.

Indeed, that point on the Earth is the ‘centre’ of the entire universe, as far a astrological calculations are concerned. This does not signify that astrologers believe the Earth is the centre around which all planets, the Sun and other galaxies revolve. It merely locates a central point on Earth for the purpose of establishing a map of the heavens as seen from that point. Yet astrology’s detractor would have us believe that this feature of horoscopic science proves the  ‘unscientific’ nature of astrology!

We are forced to ask, Is this a truly scientific critique, when assumptions are made based on ignorance of the topic under scrutiny? Criticisms are welcome, for that is one’s privilege; but in doing so, scientists lamentably reveal a bewildering unscientific temper.

            We find this attitude demonstrated in no less a scientific luminary that Dr Stephan Hawking, who hold the same chair at Cambridge that Newton held, by the way. In view of the above clarification regarding astrology’s so-called ‘geo-centricity’, when Dr Hawking seeks to add his weight to the debate, we realise how determined scientists are to destroy valid ancient belief systems. And we have to question their motives. In his main lecture in India during his visit this year, Hawking stated: ‘When it was discovered that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, astrology became impossible.’

            Here we have one of the most brilliant minds of the century making the same blunder. Yet if an astrologer would dare point out the illustrious mathematician’s misconception, no newspaper in the country would lend his argument space on its pages. This is what is so disturbing. A ‘conspiracy’ is a foot, and it has been developing for the past 2000 years.

            Dr Hawking has a total misconception about the subject. For him to make the above statement indicates that we too must state, as Newton did several centuries before Hawking appeared on the scene, Sir, you have not studied the subject; we have. It is pathetic to admit that science has not progressed much in eliminating its biases since Newton’s time. Astrology is not the only field to suffer from these rigid and unscientific postures. Within science itself ‘inquisitions’ are held to silence debate and control research. Witness the well-documented conspiracy to halt progress in cold fusion.

A horoscope is not geocentric. It is birth-centric. Thus, astrology is a valid today as it was many, many centuries before science caught up and realised that Earth and the other planets travel around the Sun.

 

Music of the Spheres

Together with the ‘sin of geo-centrism’, another argument against astrology from the scientific quarter concerns the question of ‘missing planets’. It is held that since the solar system presented an incomplete image in ancient times and was believed to consist of only six planets, no horoscope can be considered valid on this incomplete basis.

The earlier framework was valid in that it described the level of evolution of the human species until that point in time. As the System becomes enlarged, expands, is enhanced, it is an indication that similar changes are taking place in the evolution of consciousness from the point where that harmony is being measured.

In my book, The Gnostic Circle, I have discussed this phenomenon in depth. In addition, I have revealed a superb numeric pattern or harmony present in the discovery of the last three planets. The possibility of revealing that pattern is in itself a confirmation of this civilizational enhancement. And certainly none can deny that pari passu with their discovery, or unveiling to the eye of humanity, our global civilisation has bounded forward in an accelerated march never before experienced on Earth. The theory stands confirmed that the System’s enhancement by the three outer planets foretells a similar enhancement in many areas of life on Earth, each described by the newly-unveiled planet in question.

Let it be noted, however, that this expansion does not render invalid all horoscopes constructed on the basis of the former harmonies. It is simply a question of drawing a smaller boundary. It would be as if a cook would prefer to use a wood stove instead of a gas range while preparing a meal. The final results may be the same, but the more primitive method does entail certain limitations that may well reflect on the final product.

 

Time and Destiny

That India nonetheless uses a harmony of 9, which includes Rahu and Ketu, is another criticism which needs to be dealt with. The point sought to be made is that these are not at all planets, yet astrologers seem to be ignorant of this fact.

To understand the issues at stake, let me quote a verse from the most ancient Vedangajyotisha, dating back to the Vedic Age. It is stated, ‘I shall write on the lore of time, as enunciatged by sage Lagadha.’

Astrology, in its truest intent and value, is no concerned with ‘planetary influences’ but rather with Time. A sage versed in this lore does not really sustain that a planet emanates a certain influence. Of course we know that the entire System is a single unit and that each element therein perforce influences or is connected to every other element. But this is not the issue here. Astrology is concerned with Time and Destiny. As such the planets are similar to dials on a clock. They are pointers, measuring devices. What is of importance is the cycles they chart out in their revolutions around the luminary of our system. In this play of cycles, Rahu and Ketu (the lunar nodes) are of supreme importance. Regarding horoscopic analysis, Rahu and Ketu must be taken as the ‘axis’ of a horoscope.

Our solar system has to be visualised as a gigantic clock. Each planetary orbit is a number on this great Clock-Face; and the planets therein are the ‘hands’. Just as we read time from our clocks, similarly we can read Time and Destiny via these planetary orbits of the great Clock that is our solar system.

Without individualised, consolidated planets marking out these orbits/numbers we would have no means of deciphering these patterns. They would not exist. Nor would Time and Destiny be discernable for the individual born in an orbit-less system.

Planetary orbits are the issue and not any ‘influence’ therefrom. It is the position of that orbit, its distance from the Sun, the rate of movement of the planet around the luminary and its relationship to Earth that is the foundation of astrology. It is the ‘time’ the planet marks out for us that provides us with the ‘music of the spheres’, which so enthralled some of the greatest geniuses the world has known, from Pythagoras in the West, to more contemporary scientists like Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, and the great Chinese and Vedic Sag es of the East. That ‘music’, based on these orbits and the harmonies the describe, is the shruti an astrologer, if he is competent, hears.

Thus, if we listen to a system of only six planets plus the Sun and Moon, we will hear a harmony of that composition. If we add three more ‘notes’, the scale is enlarged and so is our ‘music’ enriched.

 

The Precession of the Equinoxes

We come now to the most important argument against astrology, insofar as it bears relevance to the so-called ‘Vedic Astrology’, and therefore directly to the present debate. This refers to the several rotations the Earth makes. One is on her axis, giving us our day of 24 hours; two is her rotation around the Sun, marking out our year of 365 days; three, the tilt of her axis north and south, describing the length of the days and the seasons; and fourth, a special ‘wobble’, if it may be so called, of her axis that, like a gyroscope, causes her Equatorial plane to trace a circle in the sky. If we measure this greater circle and the figure it traces on the backdrop of the constellations, we have what is called the Precession of the Equinoxes. For it is indeed a precessional movement. It is traced backwards through the constellations, or counter clockwise, unlike the Tropical Zodiac that is measured clockwise.

However, it has to be noted that this greater circle has no value for us if it is not combined with the smaller circle, or the Tropical Zodiac. In other words, we have to determine what the Zero Point of that larger circle is and measure that against the smaller. We need to know, with as great a precision as possible, when these two Zero Points of the Sidereal and the Tropical Zodiacs converged.

The latter is easily measured: each year we experience Earth’s days and night of equal measure and her shortest and longest days; that is, the Equinoxes and the Solstices. We know with split-second accuracy when these events occur. But the Zero Point of the greater circle is another matter. The circle that greater Equatorial plane traces takes almost 26,000 years to make one complete round. It takes 72 years to move through just one degree of the 360 of the celestial sphere. This means that if we are but one-half degree off in our calculations of that Zero Pint, we are 36 years out in our forecasts here on Earth when we use that greater circle as our measure. And we are discussing here astronomical distances and a Zero Point that has no specific location and only an approximation.

It is because of the near impossibility to determine the exact Zero Point of the circle that there are dozens of ayanamshas in the so-called Vedic Astrology. Each school will naturally have its own means of calculation this supremely important point in space. And none will agree because there is no way that we can determine with accuracy where that Zero Point truly lies. This constellational sphere is called the circle of Fixed Stars, or the Niryana zodiac. The smaller circle is the zodiac commonly used throughout the world, the Sayana. It is the latter that was used in the Vedic Age.

Not that the Precession of the Equinoxes (the greater circle) was not known in Vedic times. Indeed, it was. We have the few extant verses to Vishnu in the Rig Veda to prove that this knowledge was a part of the ‘lore of time’ in that distant Age. But those ancient sages were practical and sensible souls, and precise measurers. Furthermore, the calendar was a device to unite society in ancient times and not to divide. It would have been unthinkable in the Vedic Age to have a dozen ayanamshas to read the destiny of a society and its individuals, or to structure the life of a nation.

Returning to our debate, scientists claim that the zodiac astrologers use shifts at the slow rhythm of 72 years per degree of that greater sphere. They sustain that the so-called shortest day of the year, the December Solstice, is no longer the first degree of the zodiacal sign Capricorn, because that point out in space has shifted and is no longer ‘there’, where Sayana Astrologers throughout the world claim. Hence, they claim, astrology is using a false measure in its calculations, ‘unscientific’ in the extreme. Why astrologers in India and scientists throughout the world refuse to acknowledge that there are two circles that form the tools of the craft-Niryana (Sidereal) and Sayana (Tropical) – and not just the Sidereal is the question that begs an answer from both scientists and so-called ‘Vedic’ Astrologers alike.

This debate arose in India about the beginning of the first millennium. It was at that time that astrology and astronomy, which were always one and indivisible, parted ways. Science became a separate discipline, secular, and finally opposed to all that was held sacred. The result of this split is the question we are discussing now: the difference between Niryana and Sayana zodiacs. Science finally overpowered the pundits, who has by then lost direct touch with the Sacred Sciences, and imposed the idea that it could only be that fixed point in the heavens that was worthy to be considered the ayanamsha, or Zero Point. Based on that measurement, and that alone, all horoscopic calculations had to be done.

The reason why this argument took hold so easily is not the topic of this present study. It has been discussed elsewhere and need not detain us here. Suffice to state that all logic was thrown to the winds, and down the line of time the impossible situation arose where dozens of these ayanamshas have come into existence because accuracy is impossible to achieve. Errors of seconds translate into decades and centuries, to render the ‘music of the spheres’ a virtual cacophony.

 

Astrology’s Double Helix

For the full value of astrology to surface the astrologer must use both the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. And he or she must know WHEN to apply each on and how to use them in conjunction. The smaller circle, which we can easily measure by determining the Solstices and Equinoxes, is the measure of the individual, properly speaking, and all things of his world; the Sidereal Zodiac is the measure of the Astronomical/Astrological Ages, the horoscope of the Earth in toto, we may say. For example, the appearance of the Ten Avatars of Hinduism is recorded in the Sidereal or Niryana Zodiac, and can be read therein with considerable accuracy, particularly the nature of their contribution to the Earth’s evolution.

In the Vedic Age this distinction between the two was entirely accepted. There is no mention of any ayanamsha in the Vedas. Therein the only zodiac considered is the Tropical. Indeed, all the mathematics and astronomy of the Veda are concerned with establishing measurements relating to the Tropical Zodiac.

As an example, let us take the universally-celebrated Makar Sankranti. This was, and is still supposed to be, the yearly (apparent) entry of the Sun into the zodiacal sign Capricorn, or Makar. In the Veda, time and again there are references to this entry. Take, for example, the date of Bhisma’s passing, which Bhisma had the power to predetermine, He says to Yudhistir, ‘Come to me when the time of my death approaches, when the sun passes in his southern solstice and turns northward.’

Bhisma, this reveals, had chosen the solstice of 21/22 December, as the time of his passing. For it is only then that the Sun’s movement south appears to be suspended and turns northward. It is the shortest day of the year for this reason; it is the time when daylight begins to steadily increase from then onward, hence it has been known in all ancient civilisations as the Festival of Light, the most auspicious time of the year due to this increase of the Light.

When Yudhistir reaches Bhisma, the latter says, ‘I am fortunate. The sun has begun his journey north…’. It is time for Bhisma to leave on the date he had preordained, the Vedic Makar Sankranti.

Similarly, throughout the Epics and Puranas we find reference to this sacred event: the Sun’s solstice and its northward-bound journey. The Mahabharat itself begins on this auspicious day. There is only one day of the year when this solstice and increase can occur. And it can be easily measured. But today, given the split between astrology and astronomy in the first century of our era, science insists that we must find that obscure point in space, so very many light years away, and establish that, and only that, as our Zero Point (ayanamsha), from where all astrological reckonings are to be done. This imposition put the final nail in the coffin of ‘Vedic Astrology’.

We may safely call this a conspiracy. For nothing has served to undermine the ancient ‘lore to time’ as this single act of mis-measure. The sublime shruti of the Vedic Age was converted into the cacophony of ayanamshas of today.

 

The Age of Convergence

The detractors of astrology and the ancient Veda will claim that in the age of the Mahabharat the two circles coincided. Therefore, Bhisma was correct in stating that he was leaving this plane on the day the Sun’s motion turns northward. They claim that it was the Sidereal Zodiac he was referring to; and because the two circles coincided then, they speculate, he was able to make this statement and it was indeed the shortest day of the year of the Tropical Zodiac, or the Makar Sankranti, though he was referring to the Niryana zodiac!

These calculations are wrong. In around 3200 BC, the approximate era of the appearance of Sri Krishna and the Mahabharat War, two circles were almost 2000 years from their convergence. Bhisma selected that shortest day of the tropical year for his departure. There is no evidence at all to the contrary.

It is not that the Precession of the Equinoxes is unimportant. It is simply that it is irrelevant where the individual is concerned and the calendrical regulation of society. We can ignore the greater circle entirely and still integrate a people and regulate its social life. But we cannot do so if we use a nebulous point thousands of light years away as our Zero Point, giving rise therefore to dozens of opinions as to its accuracy, with no agreement possible on the subject. This is a true case of Divide and Rule. A civilisation thus undermined in its time measure can only experience very great confusion.

I repeat, nowhere in the Veda is this sidereal zero point proffered. All the mathematics and geometry of those ancient times centred on measurements of the Tropical (Sayana) Zodiac. Thus, to call today’s brand of astrology ‘Vedic’ is a grave error. To continue to celebrate the Sun’s entry into Capricorn 23 days late, is another grave error. To continue to sustain that we do so because that greater circle’s ayanamsha has ‘shifted’ that much in the outer reaches of space and that we MUST follow that distant point in our calculations, is a very grave error. If the ancients laid so much stress on the shortest and longest days of the year, they had a very good reason for doing so. To begin, it was a phenomenon easily measured and about which there could be no dispute. Unlike with today’s proliferation of ayanamshas.

The shortest day of the year is 21/22 December each year, the day Bhisma departed from this plane. It is not 15 January. The day  and night of equal measure is 21/22 March each year. It is not 14 April. But somehow this is beginning to resemble the tale of the Emperor and his new clothes!

The ancients were practical and wise. In their wisdom they understood the difference between these greater and smaller circles, and when to apply each. Yes, Vishnu did indeed measure out space by his three steps, and these steps did indeed mark out the precessional movement of the Equinoxes. They were aware of this great circle and its implications for the Earth. Just as all ancient civilisations were. But they never made the grave mistake astrologers are making today, while labelling that mismeasure ‘Vedic’.

 

Conclusion

It is for this reason that to institute courses in astrology of this brand in Indian universities would be simply another means of prolonging the confusion of Divide and Rule, and furthering the Conspiracy. It would be playing into the hands of those ‘scientists’ who seek to demolish the cultural foundations of this ancient civilisation by furthering their false notions of the art. This is a conspiracy that began approximately 1500 years ago. The question may be posed, Have these intervening centuries been India’s finest, or her worst?

We could prolong this discussion endlessly. The topic is a vast one and covers many areas of thought. We could, for instance, discuss the very nature of horoscopic analysis and throw some light on the reasons why astrologers are at times limited in their ability to interpret a chart, another criticism levelled at the art. More often than not this is because they ignore the two dimensions of a horoscope, horizontal and vertical.

Thousands may have the same (horizontal) birth chart by virtue of being born at the same time. But superimposed on this horizontal foundation, common to all these individuals, is a vertical ladder, as it were. Each occupies a different ‘rung’ on that ladder. And it is from these varying heights that the horizontal chart has to be analysed. According to one’s level of evolution a particular position on the ladder is attained. From a higher position it is understood that an enlarged scope is one’s life experience and a broader assessment is possible of the destiny of that individual. Seen from a lower ‘rung’, a far more limited area must be covered. The scope is proportionate to this vertical positioning. And that is where astrology becomes an art and departs from science. the intuitive faculties of the astrologer must be used to determine the vertical axis of each destiny. In addition, to do justice to any horoscope the astrologer must possess a capacity of synthesis rarely encountered today. It is to approach ‘the mind of God’.

Astrologers today have lost sight of just what it is they are intended to measure. This is indeed a Sanatan Dharma that concerns us. They must be concerned with the measure of the Earth. This is her rotation around the Sun of 365 days, and her own rotation on her axis of 24 hours. This measure is determined precisely by the Solstices and Equinoxes, today as it has been from ancient times. Let any astrologer come forward with proof that this is not and was not so. Let any astrologer prove that the sidereal zodiac was the zodiac used in the Vedic Age. If they can prove that non-speculatively, based on those ancient Scriptures themselves and their companion mathematical treatises, then by all means, Dr Murali Manohar Joshi, do institute classes in ‘Vedic Astrology’. But if they cannot, then, for the sake of the true ‘lore of time’, reconsider the move.

 

Aeon Centre of Cosmology

at ‘Skambha’, 17.4.2001

View more
Leave a comment
Share: