[varuna]

Lori, No you do not have my permission to post a private exchange, but you already stated part of it, so why do you pretend that you are asking permission?  You do not have my permission to even post what you already wrote about my private conversation, but you will not remove it, so why pretend you care about privacy?

Read the 7th message in our exchange of 8 total messages and ask yourself if that is rude.  Perhaps you have a different mentality in what is considered rude.  I considered your 7th message extremely rude and the 8th message is where I stated something as a retort which you stated in public, and now you pretend you honor privacy?

I am not in a difficult position here – from my perspective, but you think you have some way to attack my person and continue.  Yet, you consider yourself to be following something spiritual?

You clearly lack an understanding of objective Truth, and logic fallacies of ad hominems.  Please look up the definition of ad hominem and desist.  Why do you continue to attack my persona as if it matters?  Your views of me do not matter, the truth matters.  I do not care what you think of me.  Please try to understand that my character is irrelevant to Truth.

To Lori’s teacher:  If you see this exchange, perhaps try to instruct your student the essence of the golden rule which is important, I think you will agree.

[varuna]

Lori, I will attempt a response here to the rest of your retorts before things go south.  When you accused me of BS, remember if you cannot see inside of another, then you ought to be careful in your judgments of others.  When you accused me of slander, remember you are slandering me too, and would be guilty of the same.  When you ridiculed me, you inflicted harm on another.  When you accused me of being an authority, remember I was relying on the authority of the ancient texts, not what I think.

When you stated you were going to send me a message in private, you should have followed your intuition, but it is apparently too late now.  When you capitalize ‘Truth’ and use that in the context of my name and ‘persona’ you are using an objective appellation with a subjective and irrelevant thing: namely my name, which was given to me by society and has no truth value whatsoever.  I am not sure why you are concerned with a name or title, both of these things are irrelevant to Truth.

You ask me for permission to post what I wrote in private after you already quoted parts of what I wrote in private without my permission.  Of course you cannot post what I wrote in private, that is why it is called ‘private’.  When you accused me of being “rude, mean, patronizing, indignant” you are confusing the logic fallacies of ad hominems with facts and truth.  My character is irrelevant to Truth, whether your accusations are correct or not.

You again state I am not an authority, but then later you admit I did not explain the verses and request me to explain them, yet, all I did was rely on the texts themselves to support my position.  If I am not an authority, then why do you ask me to explain the meaning of the scriptures?

I have no comments on the statements about your teacher’s work since the only part I am familiar with is the topic you sent me, which I read.

You again accused me of being “ignorant and arrogant”, however, ad hominems have no part in an intellectual exchange and my character has nothing to do with the scriptures quoted.

When you wrote that I was defending Sidereal astrology and nakshatras, you unconsciously stated the truth of the situation here: sidereal astrology and nakshatras were attacked and I responded.  I did not attack Tropical astrology initially, and I know this because I do not believe in attacking other systems.

You told me I am not an authority, then you ask me to explain scriptures, but if I am not an authority then why do you ask?  Furthermore, you told me I have no skill in explaining scripture, but I did not explain most of it, since I was relying on the scriptures themselves, not on myself.  Therefore, you are contradicting yourself several times.

Yes, I think I am sharing truth, have you ever met someone who thought they were wrong?  Someone will believe me, who can see the meanings of the verses without needing explaining – which is rare.  Again, my words and actions have no place in whether or not the verses indicate the truth of what I stated.

You then resorted to name-calling of ‘jackass’.

I followed your advice on coming here, and you then proceed to throw further accusations and subtly accuse me of lies for not caring what my names or titles may be – which are social phenomenon and have nothing to do with Truth.

Sometimes people act in ways that allow us to look in the mirror.  You are looking in the mirror when you accuse me of who knows what.  Try to accept yourself and the world will accept you.  Don’t carry around my alleged sins, or your own karma will have to repay them – this is an ancient law, inexorable.  Look at yourself and what you wrote to me, and you are supposed to be following spiritual things?

[varuna]

To whomever it may concern here, I am sure my time at this forum will be cut short, but if Lori cannot remove what she wrote about what I stated in an email, allow me to at least explain so there is no hurt to the people here in regards to the ‘fraud’ statement.  I was stating that in regards specifically to the notion that sidereal astrology zodiac is false which was stated by the teacher here, given that only one vedic verse was used to halfways support that statement and it was made categorically, in the meantime I presented many verses showing the progression of the signs and nakshatras through the 4 points of the year, demonstrating that both the signs and nakshatras were sidereal to the ancients of the vedic culture and the early western astrology system.  I did not mean that statement in regards to the work of your teacher in the main themes of her work.  I was incited by Lori who was quite rude unnecessarily so, and I gave her her own karma in return by stating ‘fraud’.

 

We get what we give – this is the ancient law, inexorable.

 

It is true I am not familiar with other work of the teacher here, outside of the forum topic Lori sent me.  Vengeance has no end, Lori, remember that next time and maybe try hold your tongue when it is appropriate.

[varuna]

Lori, I had the courtesy to write in a decent way and not offensively at this place; you encouraged me to write here and then when I do this you attack and bring up things that are offensive to your own teacher.  I feel that what you wrote just now will be harmful to your own teacher, and you are putting them into a difficult situation, publically – you think you are putting me into a difficult situation but it is really your own teacher you are harming with your previous message here.  I have nothing to lose here, it is your own teacher you are affecting with the previous message.  Is there a delete or modify button for posts here.  I strongly encourage you to remove that information on what I said when you incited me.  Then I will remove this reference to it.  Then let us start over like civilized humans with no motive of vengeance?

Try to put yourself into the shoes of another person, someone who has studied Jyotisha for years in the traditional manner, and try to understand what it would be like to read the forum topic you sent to me, stating that the traditional Jyotisha way is wrong and false, using only one verse to arbitrarily support that position.

[varuna]

Hi Arinaya,

Please do not be unnecessarily offended by me, a white serpent of the truth and peacekeeper of the 7 tribes.  I entered your realm of Gaia in peace.  I was sent to this earth realm for a certain purpose and part of that purpose brought me here.  Call it karma, if you will.

I have proven to you with the above information presented that the solstices and equinoxes were of supreme importance, however, I have demonstrated that the divisions ancient cultures used to locate these 4 points have a steady progression from Chitra nakshatra (Taittiriya Samhita 7.4.8) through the Phalguni nakshatras (various Brahmanas etc.) through Magha nakshatra, then Aslesha nakshatra and Punarvasu nakshatra (Vishnu Purana and Brhat Samhita 3.1).

In case you overlooked the supreme importance of the winter solstice as the beginning of the year in the vedic era, read the following link, which will only take a few minutes:

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

If the above link doesn’t work, do an internet search for ‘Antiquity of the Vedic Calendar’ by K.D. Abhyankar.  You will see evidence that the vedic era started the main ritual calendar at the full Moon of the winter solstice.  I would have thought you would be happy to see further evidence of the use of the solstice in the vedic era?

I happen to have studied Gnosticism from the Nag Hammadi texts, as well as the traditions in India and other ancient esoteric traditions.

I am proposing this inquiry to any mortals interested in the history of astrology, and the vedas.

I am posting this here because God sent me here to do this task.

The link above on the ‘Antiquity of the Vedic Calendar’ is directly related to the work that is done here at this site.

I do not know the orientation of every temple in India, but I will take your word for it.  It is likely because they are symbols of the natural order and the temples are likely located on minor earth chakras.  The winter solstice was the start of the ancient vedic rituals, and various other cultures, therefore I am unsure why you are protesting the work I presented which agrees with this.

The first verse of the Sankhya Karika starts with “life is tension”.  There are dualities and polarities in this realm.  Your responsibility is to accept the dualities of this realm including the duality of sidereal sign constellations marking the solstices and equinoxes in each era.  I gave you evidence of the early Western tradition when Aquarius was on the winter solstice and Leo was on the summer solstice and showed you how it has progressed from Taurus on the northern hemisphere vernal equinox through Aries to the 0 Aries of the era of Geminios and Ptolemy.  Your task is to develop the unity of the sidereal zodiac with the 4 points of the Solar Year.

If you investigate the Rishi’s one circle you will find they also sang of 3 naves…  You need to understand how the zodiac has been shifting through the cardinal points with these 3 naves…meaning the zodiac is stellar and the 4 cardinal points are marked with the stellar zodiac or nakshatras through time.  You saw the evidence of this already from India and the Western tradition.

You may not need to study epistemology, that portion was directed to so-called scientists.  However, I do believe any followers of any faith need to study epistemology.  If you are not in the realm of the rishis, then you ought to be careful of stating what you think they would think about my work here.

This earth is the realm of diversity and pluralism, and it is a school of sorts, or a training ground.  I wish you luck on your journey.

Regards

V

[varuna]

Hi Robert, I think I have read your website in the past?  Do you write at Aquarius Papers?

 

You may call me Varuna or ‘white serpent’ or whatever.  My points were various and sundry.  The primary purpose here was to correct misinformation about astrology in general and Jyotisha in particular.  I am not sure what “my position” is, the only point was to demonstrate the contradictions and hypocrisy of the establishment and their propaganda against astrology, while at the same time correct wrong assumptions about Jyotisha among the astrology community itself.  I have read far too much misinformation against astrology, Jyotisha, and sidereal astrology.

 

Here is an example of what I mean, which is excerpts from a recent message I sent to a tropical astrologer:

In an article you wrote on the philosophy of sign rulerships you included this quote from Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 1.17):

“Since the most productive of heat and warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, the luminaries, as houses. Leo, which is masculine, to the Sun and Cancer, which is feminine, to the Moon.”

Here is the full quote:

“Since of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, that is, to the luminaries, as houses, Leo, which is masculine, to the sun and Cancer, feminine, to the moon.”

Why did you omit the first part in bold?

The parts in bold are from ancient texts Ptolemy had access to, originally formulated when the summer solstice was at the beginning of Leo, this was also when the krittikas contained the full Moon at the autumnal equinox or alternatively the new moon at the vernal equinox depening on whether it was dawn or dusk, this era was around 2300 BCE, and the knowledge of those placements was passed down in various cultures, including the Persian, Egyptian (see Fagan), Chaldean- Hebrew, and Hindu.

“As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle” (Ezekiel 1:10).  2300 BCE

“And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle (Revelation 4:7).  2300 BCE

“One should consecrate the fire in the Krittikas; …the Krittikas are the mouth of the Nakshatras” (Taittiriya Brahmana 1.1.2.1)  2300 BCE

“The Krittikas do not swerve from the eastern direction, all the other constellations do” (Shatapatha Brahmana 2.1.2.3).  2300 BCE

“The Nakshatras are the houses of the Gods… the Nakshatras of the Gods begin with the Krittikas and end with Vishakha, whereas the Nakshatras of Yama begin with Anuradha and end with Apabharani” (Taittiriya Brahmana 1.5.2.7).  2300 BCE

Valens had the northern hemisphere vernal equinox set at 8 Aries, while earlier astrologers in the western tradition had the northern hemisphere vernal equinox set further into Aries.  See Babylonian System A, and Babylonian System B.

In another article by you on why there are 12 signs and not 13, you wrote:

“This would not be possible because constellations vary greatly in size whereas zodiac signs do not.

It is worth considering that when the Babylonians developed their zodiac they recognised seventeen visible constellations that lay in the area measured by the zodiac. The reduction of the number of their constellations was done over time to facilitate astronomical measurement, and in response to the increased importance of the zodiac. But note that the constellation boundaries were adjusted to ease association of constellations with zodiac signs, not vice versa. The twelve-fold design of the zodiac is never changed to reflect alterations of constellation boundaries”

Firstly, the veda (my use of the term ‘veda’ includes the brahmana and later texts) includes a 12-fold wheel and the signs were called Adityas in those days and many verses from the vedic era can be dated using archeoastronomy.  There were originally only 3 Vedas, then a 4th was added later, that 4th veda (Atharva) has astronomy that can be dated to 2500 BCE or around the time of the late Harappa era, but the AV also contains older verses.  Therefore, to call the zodiac a Babylonian thing, is false and narrow and possibly ethnocentric as well.  The Chaldeans were using a Sanskrit word for month (rtu).

Secondly, if we accept the premise that constellations have changed within a culture and between cultures, then to word the 12 constellation based sidereal signs as “constellation boundaries were adjusted to ease association of constellations with zodiac signs…the zodiac is never changed to reflect alterations of constellation boundaries“, is a logical contradiction.  If the boundaries of constellations are arbitrary, then it is impossible to state that those arbitrary and changing boundaries are not equal and not the same as equal zodiac signs, therefore it is impossible to frame the discussion as you have.

Try this premise: the constellation and sidereal zodiac signs are identical – see how everything changes with that premise?  I am unsure why the sidereal constellation signs are always treated as a sort of primitive connect the dots paradigm, is this intentional or merely lack of consideration?  Imagine the star groups and spaces between them, now if you want to argue that the spaces between them prove the constellations are not identical with sidereal signs, then zoom in on those empty regions of space until all you see is stars marking every one second of arc.  There are countless stars.  The truth is, any sidereal astrologer with any sense, would consider the sidereal signs to be those regions of spacecontaining the nature of that stellar energy groupings, and they would think of it inharmonic terms.  The harmonics can be divided into 12 or into any smaller division up to the Chandra Kali Nadi text division of 300 divisions per zodiac sign.

Why do Tropical astrologers feel obligated to attack and diminish and obscure facts in regards to sidereal astrology signs and the history of sidereal astrology whether Indian or Western?  I have been trying to understand why.  Are Tropical astrologers threatened by the existence of another paradigm?  Is it the same phenomenon of a cult?  What is it in the human mind that does this.  I have been trying to understand the censorship and lies by omission in the Tropical astrology world.

 

My main concern is that the scholarship in the astrology community uses omissions of facts concerning the sidereal issue.  I am not advocating sidereal astrology: my main purpose here is an appeal to tropical astrologers not to omit facts, and let students decide these issues for themselves with all facts on the table and nothing obscured from the discussions and presentations and articles etc.

I am requesting an open inquiry into the truth and history, and let the facts lay where they are.  Allow students to make up their own minds.

Please do not confuse my purpose or point.  I am not an evangelist.  I simply do not appreciate the obscuring of inconvenient facts, and it is upsetting when students follow the bad examples of their teachers in the astrology community and attack other schools of astrology.

No more astrology wars.  No more lies by omission.  These are my concerns with the astrology community of today.

Regards

V

[Author]

Posts