Jīva-Centricity

The culture holds man in the central position for a vision of his future from the outer world. The projection is inwardly out and is evident since early period in the form of the activities of the deities which are projections of human feelings, forms and actions. The Nakṣatras, the phases of the Moon and the position of the Sun are studied for practical purposes connected with sacrifices and later for Saṃskāras being instrumental for the fulfilment of human goals. Actions on part of man determined the future of man also they were believed to change the course of nature. Astrologer Garga connected the occurrence of earthquakes to human sins. The tithis which are astronomically angular measurements of time are expressed by Gobhila as to shorten and lengthen according to the Dharmādharma of man. Thereby human actions are primary or causal to bring a change in the individual or the cosmos. Prakṛti or Cosmos apart from being an effect also appears as a perceptive screen for the vision of the effects of actions. Gods are said to be the giver of fruits (Brahmasūtra 3.2.38) the concept of god in the correlation is sub served by the cosmic activity and the time bringing it forth formulating the concept of Daiva which is believed a fruit of human actions returned by the gods. Deities are rendered secondary as the fruit givers of the ritual actions as early in the Brāhmaṇas which promote sacrifices arranged on cosmic time serving as the joints of Prajāpati. Thereby human actions and equally the concept of time for the performance of the actions are primarily important in the culture and the centralization of human is chiefly evident in the process.

The calculations of time for the performance of actions and the cosmological equations constituting the growth of the branch of Astronomy or Gaṇita also appears secondary on account of the human orientation of the correlation. Astronomy cultivated in the culture due to Astrology is mentioned by Scholars as Weber. Cosmology in the Veda and most of the ancient cultures is based on the Geocentric theory is a view of the modern scholars. This is believed the reason of the downfall of Astrology post-Renaissance period which rear under the Helio-centric understanding of the world and which is proved scientifically. The internal evidence strengthen the above view-points with references such as the Sun moving from the highest point of the Northern hemisphere to the Southern hemisphere and back again is not factual the turning around of the Sun with a halt in between is thoroughly inconsistent with the present understanding of the system. The Earth being an immovable fixed sphere also appears to be an observation of Astrologers like Varāha. Such inconsistence also appears in statements of Astronomer Brahmagupta and only selected few as Āryabha a differed regarding Geocentricity and the Astrology-oriented-Astronomy prevalent then and who had perhaps coherence with the western view. Astrology reflected in Astronomy is evident in the statements of the Brāhmaṇas interpreting the Sun in the two hemispheres as being in the gods and the pitṛs and also later in the Siddhānta texts which mention the address of the gods on the North-pole, the Meru. (Sūrya Siddhānta I.13,12.35.67). Also is evident that such observations were made from a certain fixed point so as to record such mobility in the cosmos, the fixed point being Earth is an easy consideration. Though a possible quarter from the point of view of the correlation of Jyotiṣa and Karman and also of the human orientation with the importance of actions performed with the instrumentality of the cosmic activity which could provide an explanation to the difference of opinions arising over the two periods is that the fixed point of observation of the moving cosmos around is neither from the Earth nor the Sun but from the Individual or more correctly the Individual Soul. Jīva in Ṛgveda-saṃhitā I. 164.30 is ‘individual’ whereas in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI. 3.2. is the ‘individual soul’ thereby Astrology and Astronmy in the Veda and the later literature seemingly is neither Geocentric and not at all Heliocentric though on its association with the doctrine of Karma it could be termed as Jīva-centric. Jīva possesses knowledge and inheres the power of perception being a part of the Supreme Ātman. Thereby the point of observation can be termed as the point of perception from which the Jīva who is the seer, perceives the world, the seen and Knowledge is derived from the perceptible activity around. Also Ātman as believed to be the only reality or Satya it is immutable thereby the point of observation is a motionless point which could not be a concern with the Earth which itself possess motion. The mutable is considered unreal in the Culture the transformations in the cosmos thereby is metaphoric for the understanding regarding the Self by means of symbolism and negation on account of which instances as ‘Sūrya is the soul’ or ‘Sūrya being the Self of that which stands and moves’ or even ‘the Sun rising in the sky is an image of the Soul which lies within’ occur in the literature. Though vision as also reflection or image can be obtained only by a stable element as also with a power to reflect or visualize which the Jīva inherently possess. The study thereby could be termed as Jīva-Centric where an effort to give a concrete form to the abstract entity appears though with the perceptible cosmos considered as a reflection or illusionary the Philosophy of the culture is inwardly outer with Ātman as the only reality and the Jīvātman with the aid of the cosmos around making an effort to obtain Knowledge about his own self.