The Planets

[Robert_Schmidt]

I would like to start this forum with a discussion of the planets: their nomenclature, fundamental meanings, and classifications.

First, I would like to list the deities traditionally associated with the seven planets in Hellenistic astrology..

Hēlios (Sun)
Selēnē (Moon)
Kronos (Saturn)
Zeus (Jupiter)
Arēs (Mars)
Aphroditē (Venus)
Hermēs (Mercury)

In Greek, one does not use the definite article when referring to a deity in person, except in certain special circumstances, such as invoking a deity in an oath. When the definite article precedes the deific name, it is often appellative. Thus, ho Arēs can mean ‘war’, ‘slaughter’, and even ‘sword’. Similarly, hē Aphroditē can mean ‘sexual desire’.

The use of the definite article with a deific name can also refer to a shrine sacred to the corresponding deity.

Now, when referring to the seven visible planets, the Hellenistic astrologers do in fact use the gendered definite article with the name of the corresponding deity; for instance, ho Hēlios, hē Aphroditē. Since this does not appear to be an appellative usage, I believe that it is referring to the visible planet as a kind of shrine for the corresponding deity.

When the Hellenistic astrologers are being more formal, they will frequently use an expression such as ho astēr tou Kronou ‘the star of Kronos’. (However, this latter phraseology is not used for the Sun or the Moon, which I take to be highly significant.) The implication is that the Hellenistic astrologers do not wish to identify the seven visible planets with the corresponding deity from the Greek pantheon.

The Hellenistic astrologers do have names that refer directly to the planets, and these are the names of choice particularly in verse texts. Here is a list of them for the five planets exclusive of the lights, with a place-holder translation.

Phainōn (Saturn): Shining One
Phaethōn (Jupiter): Radiant One
Purodeis (Mars): Fiery One
Phōsophoros (Venus): Light-Bringer (or perhaps Torch-Bearer
Stilbōn (Mercury): Glistening One (or perhaps Twinkling One)

It is the nature of the genitive in expressions such as “the star of Hermēs” that is problematic. On the authority of a passage from Plato’s Timaeus, it is thought that it might be an ellipsis for an expression such as “the star sacred to Hermēs”, which would be consistent with my understanding it as a kind of shrine.

However, the issue is far from settled. I believe that is important to have an exact understanding of the relation of the visible planet to the corresponding traditional deities. One question that might arise, for example, is whether there are astrological techniques for locating the deity in a chart.

So I would like to ask my colleagues whether an analogous distinction is made in their own traditions, and if so, how is it accomplished grammatically.

Robert Schmidt

[Benjamin_Dykes]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for this, here is a first pass:

In the Latin, here is what I have found quickly below. Some of this is inconclusive because of the origins of Latin--we're talking about Greek colonists meeting lots of indigenous languages in Italy, whose cultures and full languages are only partly known:

Saturn: probably of Etruscan origin but unclear: Saeturni, Sateurnus. Many of the Satur- paronyms have to do with something that is full or complete (hence "saturate"), but I'm not sure if that's relevant. Another possibility is that it is related to the participle of sero, which has to do with sowing and planting. Satus is an adjective that refers to being sprung from a particular family or race. And Italy was sometimes known as the land of Saturn. This latter seems a bit more likely to me, if it is relevant at all.

Jupiter: the dictionary gives one possibility, that it is a version of Deus/Zeus + pater (father), so it is a vocative; but the genitive Iovis may also be based on Deus with the D dropped off.

Mars: originally related to both agriculture and war. Not sure of its origin, but variants are Mavors, Mamers (from the Oscan language), and Marspiter (this would be Mars + pater just like Jupiter).

Venus: related to words meaning religious respect and awe (whence the English "venerate"), soliciting goodwill from a deity, worshipping and adoring. The goddess was originally Italian.

Mercury: his name is related to all sorts of mercantile (!) words, like merx or mercor. Could be the mercantile stuff came first, as merx ("commodities, goods") comes from Oscan, a pre-Latin Italian language.


But I think what you are looking for is maybe found more clearly In Arabic and Persian (without using special fonts or character marks):

Saturn: Zuhra, from the Ar. verb zahara, "to withdraw, move away." It does not have a definite article, so it seems like a proper name. Sahl uses a name I believe comes from Persian, Kaywan, but I'm not sure what it means.

Jupiter: al-Mushtari, from Ar. shara, "to sell, buy, acquire by commercial transaction"; also "to lay out in the Sun to dry" (I suppose it's like drying fruit for market). It is also related to words for certain rashes and arteries and arteriosclerosis. Since the prefix al- means "the," it is a descriptive name, something like "the Seller" or else "what is gained." The form of the word is identical to al-mubtazz (a.k.a. almuten), which means "the winner" or "the one who has won [a contest]".

Mars: al-Mirrikh, from Ar. marakha, "to anoint, rub with oil." The name must mean "The Anointed One." I imagine there may be a royal connection here (anointing the coronated king with oil, that sort of thing). Sahl uses the name Bahram, which must be from Ar. bahara, "to glitter, shine, dazzle, overwhelm"; can have to do with being smitten or struck blind; is also related to the word for “spice.”

Venus: al-Zuhrah, from Ar. to shine, give light, be radiant; also to blossom and be in bloom; also to flourish, prosper, thrive. Related adjectives are cheerful, merry. So it means something like "The Blossoming One," "The Radiant One," "The Cheerful One."

Mercury: al-'Utarid, probably from 'atara, "to perfume," and adjectives like fragrant, sweet-smelling. So, "The Fragrant One."

There may very well be a rich vocabulary in Arabic and Persian poetry and literature that mirrors the Greek poetic names you are talking about (after all, there was a long Babylonian and Persian history of omen-astrology), but I do not know enough about that to make any comments.

Ben

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Hi Robert and Ben,
as it appears to be done in the Hellenistic tradition, the Hindu tradition does not call the planets by the dieties, though it does relate the dieties to them. The reason for this is that it is thought that more than one deity operates through each planet since deities themselves work on different levels - just as do the planets. Before I get into that, however, I think it is important to explain the Hindu view of how the divine is linked to the planets.

Vishnu is a prime deity considered by the Hindu astrologers for it is Vishnu who is thought to have manifested himself as everything in the world. Amongst these many things there are the conscious things and the unconcious things. Amongst the conscious things there are those of Divine consciousness and those of Jeeva, or individual consciousness. Jeeva conscious beings are the living kingdoms of animals as well as humans - though Humans also possess some divine consciousness, with a few humans thought to have more divine consciousness than jeeva consciousness - making them an avatar. The planets are thought to have divine consciousness and to be the manifestation of Vishnu (as compared to the signs which are thought to be the unconscious manifestion of Vishnu). The various deities of the Hindu world act through the planets and through the nakshatras. In acting through the planets the deities have two roles: The role of creators and the role of spiritualizers.
Creator Deities and Planets which create the world of events that we live in:
Sun Agni (fire)
Moon Ambu (water)
Mars Kartikeya
Mercury Vishnu
Jupiter Indra
Venus Sachi
Saturn Brahma
Rahu none
Ketu none

Spiritualizing Deities and Planets which help us develop our consciousness and indicate the spiritual path of a person:
Sun Siva
Moon Shakti
Mars Kartikeya
Mercury Vishnu
Jupiter Siva
Venus Laksmi
Saturn Vishnu
Rahu Durgi
Ketu Ganesha (Ganesha being the patron deity of astrology)
In regards to names, the planets themselves have several, all of which simply explain some characteristic of the planet. Saturn, for instance is Manda, slow since he is the slowest planet. Jupiter is Guru, heavy, because he is the heaviest planet, which somehow the ancients knew. (A teacher is called Guru because he is heavier in knowledge than this students). One of the names of mars is “firebrand in the sky”, Moon is Chandra, shinning, as well as “hare marked” due to its varying relatively rapid changes in latitude making it jump across the heavens like a rabbit. The planets have several such names, all of which I have covered in my Graha Sutras book in great detail. But they are not called after the name of their associated deities, except for Sun as Agni and Moon is Ambu occasionally.
It would appear to me that the Creator deities of the planets would equate to the Hellenistic deites of the planets and that it could be useful to compare those deities with each other.


Best Wishes,
Ernst

[Robert_Schmidt]

Thank you for addressing my opening question, Ben and Ernst. I would like to continue on this subject.

First of all, I want to add something to my previous post. The genitive in the phrase “the star of…” is almost certainly not a appositive genitive (or genitive of explanation), as when we might say “the city of Cumberland”, for instance, when we are simply want to identify the city under discussion. Thus, to say “the star of…” is not likely a way of simply referring to a planet whose proper name is one of the traditional deities. Thus my concern about trying to establish the exact relationship in Hellenistic astrology between the planet and its corresponding deity.

I would still like to hear from you, Ben, as to whether you find a similar distinction made in the Medieval texts.

I am interested in Ernst’s remark that in the Hindu astrological tradition the planets are not themselves deities (even though they may possess divine consciousness?), but the deities work “through” them. This would be one way of interpreting the notorious Greek genitive I referred to above: “the star of…..”. It could be a kind of possessive genitive. The visible planets in some sense “belong” to the corresponding deity in the sense that they can be the vehicle for the work of the deities. Or am I not understanding you correctly?

However, in Plato’s Timaeus, which I take to be an important background text for the Hellenistic astrologers, there is a deliberate (and somewhat comical) attempt to degrade the traditional Greek pantheon and set up the planets and fixed stars as themselves gods of a higher order. The traditional deities are evidently lower in rank because they are “begotten”, whereas the planets and the fixed stars are higher in rank because they are created in an artistic sense by a divine artisan, the Demiurge.

If the Hellenistic astrologers are following Plato’s lead, they may be subtly changing the meaning of that genitive to give the planets a higher deific status. Later Hellenistic astrologers such as Valens evidently do regard the planets as deities themselves.

I am also intrigued by Ernst’s remark that it is only the two lights that are called by their associated deific name, because I suspect something similar is going on with the Hellenistic astrologers.

Robert Schmidt

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Hi RObert,
yes, the deities are considered to operate through the planets. The planets are thougth to possess consciousness the same way that an avatar possesses consciousness - an avatar has divine consciousness, but it is not a deity. Similiar are the planets. This is probably because the planets exist on a material and concrete form, they are embodied, just as is an avatar. The deities are found beyond the realm of the embodied solar system, they are found in the realm of the stars and so the stars themselves are almost always referred in the ancient texts to by names of deities and only rarely by thier common nakshatra names that we regularly use in english. While stars certainly do have concrete forms, they are lights, just like the sun and Moon, and so like the sun and moon, are referred to as deities. So from this we can interpret that it is the light that provides the deity, though non-luminscent bodies may also be possesed of divine consciousness.

Ernst

[Kenneth_Johnson]

Hi all,

While I agree with Ernst that one cannot regard planets as actual gods in the case of the adidevatas or "overlords" that he mentions in his posts, I am not so certain when it comes to the Puranic deities commonly mentioned with respect to the planets. In many cases the Puranic deity carries so many personified characteristics of the planet in question that such an identification seems inescapable -- though, as Ernst has pointed out, this is definitely NOT true when we speak of the association of a Vedic or classical Hindu deity with a planetary body.

For example, it cannot be said that Agni (Vedic) or Shiva (classical) has a quality of personification as regards the Sun. With the Puranic Ravi, however, the situation is different. The divine architect shaves away some of his light so that the world can bear to look upon him. Some aspects of the story of Sukra in the Mahabharata relate directly to the appearance and disappearance of Venus. Sani, the servant of the gods, has a limp, signifying the slow movement of Saturn.

While the Puranas themselves seem not to have been committed to writing until the first few centuries of the Common Era, they are obviously much older, and in fact some scholars, notably Asko Parpola of Helsinki, assign them to the Indus-Saraswati civilization. Certainly, the so-called Puranic planetary deities are common in the Mahabharata, which, at the most conservative estimate, began to be written down in the 5th century BCE. It is interesting to note that some texts, such as Sphujidvaja's Yavana Jataka and Minaraja's Vriddha Yavana Jataka, assign hybrid Indo-Greek names to the planets (e.g. Asphujit for Aphrodite, thus endowing our friend Sphujidvaja with a name which actually means "banner or standard of Aphrodite"). However, by the time of Varaha Mihira (c. 550 CE), these Indo-Greek names are regarded as archaic; Varaha Mihira lists them for the sake of completeness but almost always uses the Puranic names. While some Greek terms (e.g. panaphara and apoklima) managed to "stick," one finds that ancient terms such as the Puranic names for the planets inevitably re-assert themselves over the course of time. So while I agree with Ernst that the overlords are not deity personifications of the planets, I am not at all sure about the common Puranic deities.

Ken

[Robert_Schmidt]

Ernst & Ken, I see some interesting avenues for continuing this discussion.

First, you say the Hindu deities were associated in that tradition with the fixed stars, not embodied like the planets, but exhibiting their deific character by shining. This may relate to one possible etymology of the Greek word for a god, theos, which could be construed to have been formed from the Greek verb theō, which means “to shine”. However, it is worth noting that the Hellenistic astrologers also regard the planets as shining with their own light; see the poetic names I mentioned above. To the extent that light is the deciding factor for inclusion in deity, the Hellenistic astrologers could also understand the planets as deities. The only exception is the Moon, which is understood to reflect the solar light, having as Valens says “only a spurious light”.

Secondly, if the deities are understood to act “through” the planets, is there an astrological link between the planets and the fixed stars in the Hindu tradition? In the Hellenistic, there are certain deities evidently associated with each of the 36 extra-zodiacal constellations. These also appear to have been connected with the 36 decanates in some fashion that is not entirely clear. (In Greek a dekanos was someone having authority over ten of something, as a commander of ten men in the army.) One way of understanding the texts is that these deities effect some sort of transformation of each third of a zodiacal sign, the result being a face/mask/persona of one of the planets. The situation is a little more complicated because the decanic deities do not seem to bring about this transformation directly, but rather through the agency of certain of their servants called leitourgoi. (I have long speculated that these servants might be connected with fixed stars that are called amorphata—that is, they are not directly fixed to one of the constellations, but are “loose” and “floating”).Nevertheless, there is an astrological link between the planets and the fixed stars. Is there something conceptually analogous in Hindu?

Ken, the Puranic deities you refer to seem closer in nature to those of the Greek pantheon in their status. If so, what should we make of the fact that these Greek deities were in some sense terrestrial? This brings me right back to my original question: What is the connection between such deities and the corresponding planets up there?

Robert Schmidt

[Kenneth_Johnson]

In terms of Indo-European linguistics, we are on firm ground (or sky?) as regards the ultimate derivation of the word for "deity" in both cases. The common word for a deity in Sanskrit is deva. The root is "div," which literally means "to shine." This would seem to be a precise correspondence with the Greek.

The gods may indeed be found in other places around the sky rather than simply in the planets. This most definitely includes the fixed stars. I cannot comment much regarding the decanates or leitourgoi, since I regard the Hindu versions of these factors as probable borrowings from the Greek, and without deep mythological associations in Indian culture. In the case of the nakshatras, however, we find the gods -- including planetary gods -- romping all over the map of the fixed stars. Chandra or Soma may rule both the Moon and the nakshatra Rohini. Vishnu may be found associated with both Mercury and the star Altair. Brihaspati is Jupiter, as well as a group of rather dim stars in Cancer.

I have often wondered (though I have no way of proving) whether this constitutes some ancient primordial tradition. Though the nakshatras in their present form are all mentioned in the Atharva Veda as early as 800 BCE (at a fairly conservative academic estimate), their interpretations are remarkably similar to those of the Greek fixed stars.

A few examples:

Ptolemy merely remarks that Aldebaran is of the nature of Mars – which is unusual, since stars are almost always described in terms of two planets rather than one. Anonymous of 379 and the Liber Hermetis both list this important fixed star as being of the nature of Venus and Mars combined. It is said to render its natives fortunate and wealthy, with a talent for administration. It lends courage, eloquence, integrity and popularity to a horoscope. In keeping with its Mars-Venus association, the longitude of Aldebaran is listed by Anonymous of 379 as being among those “degrees which cause licentiousness.” The same author also declares that those born under its influence are “hot-headed” when it comes to their desires, as well as being “versatile in respect of sexual pleasures.” In the Hindu nakshatras, this star is known as Rohini, the Red Goddess, the literal dancing girl in the sky. As in the Hellenistic tradition, the Hindus recognize Aldebaran as an indicator of fortune, wealth, and administrative talent, and they retain a strong sense of this star’s erotic power.

The Greeks regarded Regulus as a mixture of Mars and Jupiter, and wrote that those who have this star prominent are esteemed, commanding, independent, outspoken, great-souled and honor-loving, often wealthy and born leaders of men. There is a certain amount of Martian contentiousness or quarrelsomeness involved.Similarly, the lunar mansion of Magha, marked primarily by Regulus, is said to produce natives who are kingly, proud, larger than life, restless, ambitious, wealthy, arrogant, and (once again) born leaders.

Spica has always been universally regarded as one of the most positive stars in the sky. The Hellenistic astrologers saw Spica as a mixture of Mercury and Venus; hence its natives are said to be learned, philosophical, eloquent, creative, clever, artistic, pleasure-loving, practical, high-minded and successful, but sometimes fickle or promiscuous. The lunar mansion of Chitra is centered on the star Spica, and Hindu tradition asserts that natives of Spica are elegant, charming, charismatic, sensual, seductive, creative, clever, and excellent conversationalists, though with a tendency to be self-centered or shallow.

The star Antares forms the center of Scorpio, the “heart of the scorpion.” A red star, it was regarded by the Greeks as a mixture of Mars and Jupiter: power, esteem, command, rashness, independence, blunt speech, wealth and leadership are all said to be characteristic of those born with Antares at the Midheaven, the Ascendant, or conjunct the luminaries. The interpretation given to Antares in India is similar: those with Antares conjunct the Moon or Ascendant are said to be crafty, subtle, analytical, wealthy, war-like, adventurous, and powerful, and at worst turbulent, arrogant, egotistical, secretive and combative.

If Hindu deities may be found among the planets as well as the nakshatra stars which chart the moon's path along the ecliptic (sometimes extremely loosely), they may also be found in other places in the sky. The purely astronomical (as opposed to astrological) texts give hints of stars far from the ecliptic which were associated with major deities, including some gods also linked with nakshatras and planets.

As to your final speculation -- whether the Puranic deities more closely resemble the Greek concept of planets = gods -- I am unable to say. I cannot assert that these Puranic planetary deities were worshiped with anything like the universality characteristic of important Greek deities throughout the Mediterranean. While India is vast, and there is a temple or shrine for almost everything imaginable, I cannot attest to a widespread worship of, for example, Sukra (the Puranic Venus) or Sani (Saturn). On the other hand, the god Skandha or Karttikeya, associated with Mars, is widely worshiped in south India. But to make things complicated and obscure, he is most often known there by his Dravidian name of Murugan, and not by his Sanskrit titles at all!

Ken Johnson

[Robert_Schmidt]

I have brought up the issue of the decanates because it seems to be characteristic of Greek cosmologies—at least those in the later Platonic traditions—to find some sort of tertium quid between proximate members in the hierarchy of manifestation of deity. Thus, the decanates appear to represent an astrological attempt to relate the realm of the fixed stars to the realm of the planets.

Similarly, the daimons are introduced to mediate between the planets and human beings in the sublunary sphere, as messengers of a sort. I have a conjecture as to how they may be found in a Hellenistic chart which I will not go into at the moment.

Now, if one role of the planets is to be creators of the world of events in the Hindu tradition, do the Hindu astrologers feel any need to account for how this happens; and if so, is it likewise done through any kind of mediating principle, deific or otherwise?

Or do you suppose that this obsession with organized and mediated hierarchy is simply more characteristic of Greek thinking than Eastern?

On a related issue: Does the Hindu tradition regard the fixed stars in ecliptic constellations to be of the same rank as extra-zodiacal ones, or of a lesser rank?

Robert Schmidt

[Kenneth_Johnson]

As to how Hindu astrologers account for the role of the planets as "creators of the world of events," I wish I could answer Mr. Schmidt's question! One of the most frustrating things about reading the classical Sanskrit texts is an almost complete absence of philosophical discussion. Since many of these texts date to the classical era of Hindu philosophy, the silence of the astrologers is all the more frustrating.

I hope to be able to answer your question someday. I have an untranslated work called the Prashna Vidya by a certain Badarayana which Pingree dates to c. 600 CE. The introduction seems to be a philosophical justification for astrology (or at least for horary astrology) written according to the principles of the Mimamsa philosophy (which disappeared a couple of hundred years later when Shankara's Vedanta came along and swept away everything in its path). If this is what it appears to be, it is the only early philosophical discussion of the rationale for astrology which comes from a formal school of Hindu philosophy. I hope to begin working on it soon, whenever time allows me to return to translating (I am doing a lot of lecturing this summer).

I doubt if Sanskrit thinking is any less hierarchical than the Greek! After all, every planet and every sign is given its place in the caste system! The Hellenistic astrologers appear to be wildly democratic in spirit by comparison. It's obvious that freed slaves -- or even slaves still trying to buy their freedom -- were among the clients of the astrologers. The same thing cannot be said for the Sanskrit works, which appear to be oriented only to the ruling class.

As to the primacy of stars nearer to or farther from the ecliptic, they clearly favored fixed stars that were close to the ecliptic. The references in astronomical writings to the stars of particular gods are so vague and infrequent that scholars are often uncertain as to their proper identification. The stars that run along the ecliptic are, of course, the nakshatras. Despite a great deal of contention about the etymology of that term, the most common is "the undying ones" or "the immortal ones." There is some evidence that the nakshatras once contained a number of stars that were quite some distance from the ecliptic, but that the identifications were changed to bring the nakshatra system into closer harmony with the imported zodiac. For example, the nakshatra Ardra was once marked by Sirius, but is now identified with Betelgeuse. Vega was tossed out altogether, though its nakshatra occupies pride of place in the most ancient writings. It is possible that the nakshatra Shatabhishak, now connected with "small stars in the center of Aquarius," was at one time marked by Fomalhaut.

So there is no question that stars close to the ecliptic were more important than those that were farther away.

Ken Johnson