Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Lounge
Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Were Rahu and Ketu considered true planets in ancient times?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Ad VanderVen, post: 6854138, member: 669670"] [B]TL;DR Summary:[/B] Were Rahu and Ketu considered true planets in ancient times before 500 AD and is there any evidence for this in the ancient scriptures? Nowadays when people ask what Rahu and Ketu are, it is always said that those names refer to the lunar nodes. Now I thought that that interpretation only arose after the appearance of the Aryabhatiyam in about 500 AD, written by Aryabhata. I thought Aryabhata even emphasizes in the Aryabhatiyam that Rahu and Ketu are not true planets (or celstial bodies), but I'm not sure. But if Aryabhata has said that, then in his time and also before that there was apparently the idea that Rahu and Ketu were real planets or celestial bodies. My question now is whether there is any evidence for this in the scriptures before the Aryabhatiyam. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
The Lounge
Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Were Rahu and Ketu considered true planets in ancient times?
Back
Top