All cultures, religious and other traditions are made of continuities, changes and discontinuities;  unities in diversities. To be able to grasp the whole picture with all the intricacy of relations in a cultural complex with a long history and a wide geographical spread that is outside the researcher's own culture needs a great amount of patience, empathy and delicate observation and fine understanding. In this difficult balance beam exercise, tight rope walk, it is easy to loose the balance and fall into discontinuities and diversities and miss to connect the continuities and unities.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Dagmar Wujastyk <d.wujastyk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Martin,

"Also, of course, Dagmar's reference to āyurveda, though I don't think anyone has yet decided to call that system 'Vedic medicine' (or have they?)."

So, in fact, the Maharishi people do call their medicine (and everything else they do, including astrology) Vedic. That is, they call medicine Maharishi Ayurved, and it's trademarked, but they insist it's Vedic.

On 16 November 2016 at 01:47, Martin Gansten <martin.gansten@pbhome.se> wrote:
Bill,

I have read and re-read that section, and searched for various phrases within the book as a whole (searchable PDF files are a boon), but I can't find any mention of 'Vedic astrology' or anything like it. Dikshit seems to have a western academic understanding of 'Vedic' as a historical period, and he claims that the 'seeds' of a predictive system are present in Atharvajyotiṣa, but he is also very clear that such a system is not the one based on the twelve-sign zodiac, although he thinks it 'probable' that the latter system, when it was imported into India, was influenced by the parallel, indigenous system. (Which undoubtedly it was, if perhaps not to the extent that Dikshit would have liked to think. The nakṣatras are used in horā, after all.) This is stated at the beginning of p. 100.

In my view this is quite different from the development that we have seen over the past few decades, where practitioners themselves label all Indian astrology (often including the Tājika school) as 'Vedic', typically without any idea of that label referring to a particular historical period -- if it is used in any historical sense, it is with reference to a vague, mythical past. 'Vedic' is used here simply in the sense of 'traditional Indian', the implied idea being a tradition that is not only ancient and unbroken, but essentially unchanged (and, as Robert has pointed out, sanctioned by Brahmanic authority).

Jean-Michel's mention of so-called Vedic mathematics in this context seems very relevant; does anyone know when that designation first appears? Also, of course, Dagmar's reference to āyurveda, though I don't think anyone has yet decided to call that system 'Vedic medicine' (or have they?).

Martin



Den 2016-11-15 kl. 21:45, skrev Bill Mak:
Martin, not exactly. This was precisely my point. Dikshit did refer to horoscopy under Vedic astrology. See “Jātaka branch of astrology” under “Atharva jyotiṣa” in the section Vedaṅga (Vol.1 p.97-98). Things might have come to the forefront in recent time, but such ideas have certainly been around.

Bill


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
 
Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )