The key texts are basically Medieval-era Sanskrit astronomical and philosophical works that have been influenced by Greco-Roman astronomy essentially, right? That would be the main counterpoint to the textual argument? To me that seemed like the strongest counterargument that one could make at least. I tried to draw this out a little bit in my interview with Vic, but obviously I don't specialize in this area. I was mainly interested in it as a debate that is currently happening and apparently gaining more traction in the astrological community lately, and I plan to contrast it later this month with an interview with Kenneth Bowser to show the opposite, which is a western astrologer who argues that the zodiac should be sidereal.

Martin Gansten wrote:Thanks for the links, Mark.

I haven't the patience for videos, but I had a look at the DiCara website and read what he describes as 'the key texts'. There is (of course) nothing there that Indian astrologers haven't been aware of all along, and it doesn't change a thing; the only perspective from which any of this is a new discovery is that of the author's personal history. Once again it brings Pope's lines to my mind (... And drinking largely sobers us again). It is rather like those little sects springing up around a handful of isolated and over-interpreted scriptural passages.
... To give just one example, he translates m?ndya-?aighrya-sam?n?bhir gatibhir as 'in a cardinal, fixed, and dual manner'. What the phrase really means is 'by slow, fast and middling motions'.

Yes the mistranslations are important clues. And the use of Surya Siddantha to <prove> the zodiac is tropical doesnt hold water either.
Anyone interested in Surya Siddantha would have better study the material on Vinay Jha's website, instead of the Ernst Wilhelm's lone article which is impressive only to a newcomer.
I dont recall any ancient chart being tropical before the 4th or 5th century, the many charts in V. Valens, and the collection of charts in the CG (Im forgetting the title of the collections of ancient texts in Greek, used by Neugebauer,) were all sidereal charts. The earliest is dated 410 BCE.

To Chris Brennan: great book on Ancient Astrology. Very thorough, bravo !

Chris Brennan wrote:The key texts are basically Medieval-era Sanskrit astronomical and philosophical works that have been influenced by Greco-Roman astronomy essentially, right? That would be the main counterpoint to the textual argument? To me that seemed like the strongest counterargument that one could make at least. I tried to draw this out a little bit in my interview with Vic, but obviously I don't specialize in this area. I was mainly interested in it as a debate that is currently happening and apparently gaining more traction in the astrological community lately, and I plan to contrast it later this month with an interview with Kenneth Bowser to show the opposite, which is a western astrologer who argues that the zodiac should be sidereal.

And a third one with @Martin Gansten to put it in perspective.

PD

Pankajdubey wrote:

And a third one with Martin Gansten to put it in perspective.

Martin, would you be willing to share a podcast with Chris?

Kenneth Bowser isn't really familiar with Eastern texts. He may not even have been following recent translations of western texts. He will swear up and down that there is irrefutable evidence for the one and only TRUE ayanamsa (termed the SVP for synetic vernal point) discovered by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley. This ayanamsa is based on scholars writing in the last century before the popularity of computers.

But Ken has done all he can to keep western sidereal astrology alive amidst the competition from India's astrology and the tropical camp. He may be the only astrologer in recent times who has offered us books on modern western sidereal astrology.

Chris Brennan wrote:The key texts are basically Medieval-era Sanskrit astronomical and philosophical works that have been influenced by Greco-Roman astronomy essentially, right? That would be the main counterpoint to the textual argument? To me that seemed like the strongest counterargument that one could make at least.

To me, the strongest argument is the fact that, for more than 1500 years, the same people who authored, studied and commented on these texts have been casting horoscopes using a sidereal zodiac. Tropical parameters were used in some clearly defined contexts, where the seasons were the important thing, but for judicial astrology, sidereal parameters were used. (I say 'were', but of course this is still the case in 2017. We mustn't analogize this with the situation in the west, where astrological tradition has had to be revived following a 300-year lapse. Nothing of the kind happened in India.)

The choice of texts itself is rather amusing -- it looks like a random and rather eccentric selection, but speaks volumes about the background of the person who picked them (namely, a Hare Krishna background). In any case, yes, they are medieval (except possibly the excerpt from the BPH, which could be much later). Most Indian texts on astronomy/astrology are, and most show Graeco-Roman influence. But I'm not entirely sure where you want to go with that. The horoscopic astrology that entered India from the Hellenistic world seems to have been chiefly sidereal (as of course you know, and as Pier mentioned as well).

Incidentally, I too enjoyed your book!

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Kenneth Bowser isn't really familiar with Eastern texts. He may not even have been following recent translations of western texts. He will swear up and down that there is irrefutable evidence for the one and only TRUE ayanamsa (termed the SVP for synetic vernal point) discovered by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley. This ayanamsa is based on scholars writing in the last century before the popularity of computers.

I would have thought the Fagan/Bradley zodiac is very close to the zodiac that was used by Babylonian astrologers prior to the development of hellenistic horoscopic astrology. Statistical examinations of astronomical cuneiform tablets by Peter Huber in 1958 provided an ayanamsha that differs by less than an arc minute from the Fagan/Bradley ayanamsha. However, according to a more recent investigation by John P. Britton (2010), the difference could still amount to several arc minutes. Nevertheless , this is certainly much closer to the Babylonian ayanamsha than Indian ayanamsha such as Lahiri.

I certainly echo the idea of getting Martin interviewed too. Not just to discuss the tropical Vedic issue and relevant texts though. He obviously has many strings to his bow such as his research on Nadi and Perso-Arabic astrology in India, 18th century British astrology and primary directions. One subject I would personally like to hear him elucidate more on is the fundamental difference between the traditional Indian notion of Karma and the positivist New Age version of the idea so prevalent in modern western astrology today. Martin has written a very interesting article on this topic.

http://www.martingansten.com/pdf/ReshapingKarma2011.pdf

But it would be worth hearing Ken Bowser too. The last Tropical-Sidereal Radio blog chose a very laid back western Jyotishi who didn't really push the sidereal case that much. Noone could accuse Ken Bowser of that!

Mark

Chris Brennan wrote:The key texts are basically Medieval-era Sanskrit astronomical and philosophical works that have been influenced by Greco-Roman astronomy essentially, right? .

If I am allowed to quote Vinay Jha, the following disputes the belief that Greek astronomical theory and philosophy really informed Jyotish, in terms of astrology. He further shows how the equations of Surya Siddantha are a totally different theory from Almagest (Ptolemy), and he elucidates the 2 fundamental astronomical theories in SS, one physical for calculating eclipses, and planets as bodies, named DRIK, and one Divine for religious and astrological purposes. The later has been repeatedly claimed to be inacurrate by scientists, without them understanding its underlying philosophy, given the totally materialistic philosophy prevalent in the West. These texts (SS) show make people ponder what we are really doing when we calculate planets for astrology :

///A deferrent epicycle revolving round an equant is the most important Surya Siddhantic device used for accurate description of true planets, and it is same as that in Almagest. Hence Surya Siddhanta's date had to be placed subsequent to that of Ptolemy's, so that Indian astronomy could be proved to be a result of Greek teaching. No detailed examination of mathematical systems was undertaken. Equations of Surya Siddhantic true planet were a secret, and that was why modern commentators could not realize that Surya Siddhantic system was not only internally coherent but was vastly different from that of Almagest in crucial respects also. These peculiarities of Surya Siddhantic system could not have been innovations, because an internally coherent system cannot evolve as a result of haphazard patchworks of borrowings plus improvisations. Hence the causes behind superficial similarities between Surya Siddhanta and Almagest needed to be investigated more thoroughly. Important original facts had to be deliberately forgotten or distorted in order to prove posterity of Surya Siddhanta with respect to Almagest. Vinay Jha//

Pier wrote:

If I am allowed to quote Vinay Jha..

What source are you actually quoting from? Please provide a follow up reference for forum members.

Mark

Mark wrote:

Statistical examinations of astronomical cuneiform tablets by Peter Huber in 1958 provided an ayanamsha that differs by less than an arc minute from the Fagan/Bradley ayanamsha. However, according to a more recent investigation by John P. Britton (2010), the difference could still amount to several arc minutes. Nevertheless , this is certainly much closer to the Babylonian ayanamsha than Indian ayanamsha such as Lahiri.

Mark, you didn't give a full reference for this, but in Britton's "Studies in Babylonian lunar theory: part III, The introduction of the uniform zodiac," (2010) three stars are noted as marking the beginning of signs in the Babylonian zodiac. Two of these stars are some minutes from the Lahiri/Krishnamurti zodiacs, and one star is very close to the Fagan-Bradley (so called 'Babylonian') zodiac.

I suppose we can say that statistical analysis is one thing while the actual recorded positions of stars are another. There is no evidence that computations back then were precise to the minute. This precision is an artifact of scholarship of our modern times. In the ancient tablets so far deciphered there are no longitudes given for the prime marking stars in the Fagan zodiac: Aldebaran and Antares. Concern was apparently only for the boundary stars that marked the beginning of signs.

In an earlier book (Astronomy Before the Telescope, 1996, "Astronomy and Astrology in Mesopotamia" p. 49) Britton stated that "The sidereal zodiac appears to have been fixed so that the longitude of the bright star Beta Gemini was 90 degrees." This star is Pollux located in 29 Gemini 28 in the Krishnamurti zodiac and 59 minutes less in the Fagan-Bradley zodiac.

We can be sure of one fact, however. Both the Fagan-Bradley zodiac and the Lahiri/Krishnamurti values are well within the ball park of the ancient Babylonian values. But precision to the minute was not known then. I have tables of Babylonian planetary degrees from Francesca Rochberg (Babylonian Horoscopes, 1998) on my web site:

http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/arochberg.htm
"Planet Longitudes in Babylonian Horoscopes"

The Three Stars:
Beta Gemini, Pollux: K longitude: 29 Gem 28
Delta Capricorn, Deneb Algedi: K longitude: 29 Capricorn 47
Zeta Taurus, Al Hecka: F-B longitude: 0 Gem 02

(I believe that Britton's 2010 article was finalized for publication after his death.)

Mark wrote:Pier wrote:

If I am allowed to quote Vinay Jha..

What source are you actually quoting from? Please provide a follow up reference for forum members.

Mark

Here is the link to the whole article, Mark :

http://vedicastrology.wikidot.com/physi ... hanta#toc0

Martin Gansten wrote:It is rather like those little sects springing up around a handful of isolated and over-interpreted scriptural passages.

These are the only classical definitions of the zodiac that I know of. If you know of others please share. I have heard that there are one or two others but they also use equinoxes and solstices as the anchors of the zodiac.

A note of warning: DiCara claims to know Sanskrit and to read the texts in the original, but his translations are incorrect, sometimes a great deal so. I hope this is due to ignorance rather than a wish to deceive, but the result is the same. To give just one example, he translates m?ndya-?aighrya-sam?n?bhir gatibhir as 'in a cardinal, fixed, and dual manner'. What the phrase really means is 'by slow, fast and middling motions'.

Slow = fixed
Fast = cardinal
equal = dual

If there are other things you consider mistakes please share.

Middling and mutable .

I think equal is more related to ascension and dual to bodies.

PD