Claimed to be from Atharva veda!

[Rohiniranjan]

Could it be that the danger level of ganga evaluated before to after was driven by change in geography/circumstance?

RishiRahul

Let us take an even more concrete example. For instance small pox. It used to be fairly commonly seen in India decades ago. Its biggest aftereffect was blindness and as per WHO once every 8th blind person in the world used to be an Indian. Now let us say, there is an astrological combination that nearly 100% was associated with small pox.

Now move to 2013 when small pox has nearly (at least on the books since not every single indian household was possibly checked in a hugely populated nation where census too cannot capture 100%) completely been eradicated due to health measures and vaccination etc.

But, the astrological combination would still occur in charts, would it not? But no small pox!

Lots of things have changed in the world since jyotish was spoken and scribed God alone knows how long ago!

Should we reinterpret some of the things or remain parrots?

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Rishi ji, RR Ji,

I fully agree. If the astro combination for small-pox may need to be reinterpreted as XYZ defect. But if the astro combination was based on an approximate equal span Nakshatra system then if we were to evaluate the usefulness of the unequal system from an astrological perspective we have to formulate new rules and not expect the old ones (does not matter whether it is small pox as per classics or XYZ as per current social health state) to hold true.

But, but... CRS ji, the proponents of the atharva veda unequal nakshatra scheme are claiming that that was the older if not original system! Nearly everyone who uses jyotish uses the equal division nakshatra system in vogue and it works well, I suppose. So the *system and framework* must have already gotten changed, or it would not be working, right?


But this means that perhaps there was a different and ancient framework at one time (Atharva veda era). So, conceivably, there must have been a working framework for utilizing the unequal nakshatra scheme. But where is that??

CRS - Very right. Even if it is older or original, it would only be relevant to astrology only along with the rules/principles laid down alongside. Quite often we tend to take "Paramparas"/"Schools" lightly and end up using Rule A from Paramapara 1 and Rule B from Paramapara 2 making a mess of the whole thing.

Some folks think that at that time there was no astrology! At least not in Bharatvarsh where the Vedas were realized and written down.

Please understand that I am just interested in these matters, even though none of these changes my practice or way of doing astrology which to me is a continuing education. Even though I am curious about fossils, I have not become fossilized myself

CRS - I am curious too!
Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Absolutely.! My comments above in bold

That is not what I meant..., but its okay

RR