Martin Gansten wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 6:28 am I have yet to see an actual historical example, in ancient or medieval sources, of regarding the MC as a floating 'sensitive point' falling in some other house than the 10th.

Hi Martin, Paul of Alexandria does mention the MC falling in a house other than the 10th

But it must be known that the culminating degree does not always fall in the 10th [house] from the ASC due to the inequality of the rising times of the signs, but sometimes in the ninth and sometimes in the eleventh....Section 30, trans. by James Holden

In a footnote, Holden also references Firmicus, Mathesis, ii. 15. & 19.12 "who notes that the MC degree is frequently found in the 11th house, but forgets to mention the 9th house."

It seems they didn't always use it as the cusp of the 10th but the scholia do discuss dividing the unequal degrees between the Asc and MC into 3rds; similar to Valens "vital sector" and Porphyry. And, as far as I can tell, Paul and Heliodorous, Firmicus, etc. counted profections as signs from the Ascendant and not by house divisions.

Personally, I find these discussions rather fascinating as I've always looked at the chart as a map capturing 3 perspectives with the local horizon quadrants being the specific perspective of the native, the zodiac as the general way the world see things and the equatorial as a mean between the two, connecting the zodiac and the specific through time (which is basically just motion in space) so I've never quite understood the problem people have with house divisions; the zodiac has its 12 divisions and local space has its 12 divisions and they bump up against each other as the earth rotates on its axis; the house argument appears to be about how they bump up against each other with the solutions being essentially specific perspectives, each with their adherents, it's no wonder the discussion has been going on since the 4th century or earlier!

AJ: I'm happy to discuss specific textual passages, but it is only meaningful to do so if you are actually able to read and understand them in the original. Otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges, me reading the actual Sanskrit text and you relying on someone else's translation. As the Sanskrit saying goes, vivāhaś ca vivādaś ca samayor eva śobhate: a wedding and a debate are beautiful only between those who are matched.

As for the idea of quadrant houses being a later innovation, do please read Valens' reference to Orion (probably 1st century BCE/CE) for so-called Porphyry houses, and also the paper by Greenbaum and Ross on 'The Role of Egypt in the Development of the Horoscope'.

The problem (or one of the problems) with arguments from authority, such as references to 'authentic Pundits', is that they become circular: if you found a paṇḍita who disagreed with your views (here I am!), you wouldn't consider him 'authentic', would you? Or is it skin colour or country of birth that defines a paṇḍita?

I do think oral tradition can be interesting and important, but I don't think it very rational to accept it axiomatically as a window into the past, no. The evidence against such assumptions, in all sorts of fields, is massive.

janegca wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 1:12 pm Hi Martin, Paul of Alexandria does mention the MC falling in a house other than the 10th
[...]
In a footnote, Holden also references Firmicus, Mathesis, ii. 15. & 19.12

I'm afraid Holden was wrong on both counts. I discuss those passages in fn 53 of the paper I've already referenced repeatedly. Paul and Firmicus both note that the MC doesn't always fall in the 10th sign from the ascendant; they don't speak of houses.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 1:38 pm I'm afraid Holden was wrong on both counts. I discuss those passages in fn 53 of the paper I've already referenced repeatedly. Paul and Firmicus both note that the MC doesn't always fall in the 10th sign from the ascendant; they don't speak of houses.

My apologies, I have read your paper, guess I should have re-read it before posting. In any case, the idea of a floating MC was 'floating' around in the early texts just as the idea of quadrant, degree based divisions were.

janegca wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 2:37 pm My apologies, I have read your paper, guess I should have re-read it before posting. In any case, the idea of a floating MC was 'floating' around in the early texts just as the idea of quadrant, degree based divisions were.

It really wasn't, not in the sense that modern advocates of 'MC as a sensitive point' mean. Noting that the MC sometimes falls in the 9th or 11th sign from the ascendant (or, at my latitudes, even in the 8th or 12th sign) is pure observation, nothing to do with defining the houses one way or another.

i just want to go on record as not wanting to confuse or represent a lot of astrologers who may not see it the same as me here, in saying the MC is a sensitive point.. that is incomplete.. it represents the culminating point, and it can land anywhere from the 8th to the 12th house - yes.. put as janegca points out - these are different systems of reference and used or emphasized differently by different astrologers.. there is no right way.. there are only different ways of processing the astronomy...

with regard to the astrological history - written, or oral - that is more complicated and i am ''out of my depth''.. i am reminded of the fighter who goes into the ring with those who aren't on the same level as them here.... it seems when a fighter arrives who is on the same level - there is no 'fight' lol... i am thinking of the exchange on the thread i bumped up recently in the news section which includes a long and detailed response to martin from levente lazlo around much the same topic.. obviously no one has to respond to a post or posts...

james_m wrote: Tue Jan 23, 2024 5:10 pm i am thinking of the exchange on the thread i bumped up recently in the news section which includes a long and detailed response to martin from levente lazlo around much the same topic.. obviously no one has to respond to a post or posts...

Perhaps you missed my reply earlier in this thread where I said that as an aside, it will probably take a long time before I have the mental energy to deal with the ins and outs of that again, but I still stand by my arguments and conclusions? For personal reasons of which you are already aware, I'm functioning at a very reduced level at present, and am likely to be for some time. Occasionally taking part in discussions at a popular level, as here, is one thing; serious academic work is another. In addition to which, the News forum is a suitable place for alerting people to new publications, not for conducting intricate scholarly arguments that will be beyond most people who aren't professional scholars. The right forums for such discussions are peer-reviewed academic journals. As you confess to being out of your depth (and I assume you don't read classical Greek or are familiar with the principles of producing critical editions?), I am not sure why you keep pushing for the continuation of a discussion that you would be unable fully to understand.

Martin: I understand and respect your emphasis on the direct study of Sanskrit for a nuanced understanding. While I acknowledge the importance of reading Sanskrit directly, I also believe that alternative perspectives based on reliable translations can offer valuable insights.

In the current era of knowledge democratization, translated texts play a significant role in making ancient wisdom accessible to a broader audience. This accessibility contributes to a more inclusive and diverse discourse, enriching our understanding of Sanskrit and other ancient language texts.

I would like to address the tone of your previous communication. The passive-aggressive application of the Sanskrit saying and the implication of intellectual inferiority felt condescending and disrespectful. It's important to recognize different approaches without discrediting any particular viewpoint.

Regarding the term 'authentic pundits,' I used it to indicate a high standard of vetting, not to undermine any perspective. I believe there might have been a misunderstanding on your part in this regard.
To suggest that I would disparage someone simply because they disagree with my viewpoint, regardless of their qualifications, is inappropriate and unwarranted. Authenticity is not defined by skin color or country of birth.

Let's consider our differing approaches as complementary lenses through which we view the same object. Both perspectives can offer unique insights, enriching the overall understanding and providing points for others to ponder.

I value your insights on arguments from authority and potential bias. However, the solution lies in a nuanced evaluation of the arguments presented.

Regarding the Porphyry system, I understand that it was invented during the Hellenistic era. The context was overlooked; my point about quadrant houses as a later innovation specifically applies to its injection into the Indian astrological timeline, as reflected in SriPati's work in the 11th century.

I'm glad to hear that you place importance on oral traditions. It's perfectly acceptable to have disagreements in our discussions. I believe in fostering a constructive dialogue where diverse viewpoints are acknowledged and respected.

I look forward to continued conversations on equal footing.

Be Well.

martin, aside from the condescension built into your response, there's ample hubris in it as well... i can't help you with any of that and no amount of scholarly knowledge, sanksrit and etc, will help you either....

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 4:46 pm
Perhaps you missed my reply earlier in this thread where I said that as an aside, it will probably take a long time before I have the mental energy to deal with the ins and outs of that again, but I still stand by my arguments and conclusions? For personal reasons of which you are already aware, I'm functioning at a very reduced level at present, and am likely to be for some time. Occasionally taking part in discussions at a popular level, as here, is one thing; serious academic work is another. In addition to which, the News forum is a suitable place for alerting people to new publications, not for conducting intricate scholarly arguments that will be beyond most people who aren't professional scholars. The right forums for such discussions are peer-reviewed academic journals. As you confess to being out of your depth (and I assume you don't read classical Greek or are familiar with the principles of producing critical editions?), I am not sure why you keep pushing for the continuation of a discussion that you would be unable fully to understand.

I am sincerely sorry my small post engendered these recent exchanges; please, please, cut each other some slack, there is enough animosity in the world without fanning its flames here.

AJ wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 5:14 pm Martin: I understand and respect your emphasis on the direct study of Sanskrit for a nuanced understanding. While I acknowledge the importance of reading Sanskrit directly, I also believe that alternative perspectives based on reliable translations can offer valuable insights.

But unless you know the source language, how will you determine which translations are reliable?

In the current era of knowledge democratization, translated texts play a significant role in making ancient wisdom accessible to a broader audience. This accessibility contributes to a more inclusive and diverse discourse, enriching our understanding of Sanskrit and other ancient language texts.

As a translator myself, I agree on the value of producing high-quality translations. But mistranslations, while certainly leading to a 'diverse discourse', are not helpful for enriching understanding. Unfortunately the quality of many available translations of Indian texts is very poor.

I would like to address the tone of your previous communication. The passive-aggressive application of the Sanskrit saying and the implication of intellectual inferiority felt condescending and disrespectful.

I'm sorry you felt that way, but I was making a simple and entirely valid point that was nothing to do with intellectual inferiority. I don't consider myself intellectually inferior to someone with a knowledge of, say, classical Hebrew; but I wouldn't presume to debate the correct interpretation of a passage in ibn Ezra's writings with him or her.

It's important to recognize different approaches without discrediting any particular viewpoint.

Do you mean that we can never say someone is wrong? Don't you think people are, quite often?

Regarding the term 'authentic pundits,' I used it to indicate a high standard of vetting, not to undermine any perspective. I believe there might have been a misunderstanding on your part in this regard.
To suggest that I would disparage someone simply because they disagree with my viewpoint, regardless of their qualifications, is inappropriate and unwarranted. Authenticity is not defined by skin color or country of birth.

Fair enough; I apologize if I misunderstood you. But what, then, constitutes the 'high standard of vetting' by which you determine whether someone is an authentic paṇḍita ('pundit')? I wasn't born in India or to Indian parents, but I have studied Sanskrit and Indian culture for more than 40 years, and astrology for 35. Do I count as an authentic paṇḍita, and if not, why?

Let's consider our differing approaches as complementary lenses through which we view the same object. Both perspectives can offer unique insights, enriching the overall understanding and providing points for others to ponder.

Some lenses can be distorting. You claim that particular verses from the Bṛhajjātaka and Sārāvalī state that signs and houses are the same. I know this not to be true, as I read them in the original and understand what they say. How is this a matter of different perspectives offering unique insights? By necessity, one of us is right and the other is wrong. Of course, anyone who doesn't read Sanskrit must choose to accept either claim on faith, so this is certainly something for them to ponder, but that doesn't mean we can both be correct.

Regarding the Porphyry system, I understand that it was invented during the Hellenistic era. The context was overlooked; my point about quadrant houses as a later innovation specifically applies to its injection into the Indian astrological timeline, as reflected in SriPati's work in the 11th century.

We don't know for certain when quadrant houses were introduced in India, but given their very early history, coupled with the fact that most concepts of horoscopic astrology found in the pre-Islamicate Sanskrit tradition were introduced into India in the early centuries CE, it seems a priori unlikely that quadrant houses should have found their way into that tradition as a separate concept, on its own, more than half a millennium later (long after the disappearance of the last remnants of Indo-Greek culture). The real problem is that astrological texts as a rule don't discuss astronomical procedures, such as how to establish the longitudes of the planets or, indeed, of the ascendant and other houses (by any system). Śrīpati wrote primarily on mathematical astronomy, and his Jātakakarmapaddhati on calculations relevant for astrologers became hugely popular, but that doesn't mean he was necessarily the first person to teach them.

I'm glad to hear that you place importance on oral traditions.

For some things, yes. Not for establishing historical facts.

I look forward to continued conversations on equal footing.

I'm happy to have them, but don't you think equal footing is sometimes a matter of factual knowledge? People who have access to the same facts (e.g., by being able to read texts in a given language) may still have different interpretations of them, but if that access isn't equal, there's not much use pretending it is. As I said, I wouldn't argue with a Hebrew scholar about ibn Ezra, although, if he/she said something radically different than, say, Shlomo Sela, I might ask for an explanation of why Sela's interpretation was wrong.

james_m wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 7:11 pm martin, aside from the condescension built into your response, there's ample hubris in it as well... i can't help you with any of that and no amount of scholarly knowledge, sanksrit and etc, will help you either....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem