Thanks Martin - I will re-read your paper in more detail, particularly this section. Best wishes. Ed

your comment is fallacious...

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 7:30 pm

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

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 7:28 pm 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.

Martin: What is your opinion on the following translations of the Brihat Jataka?
The Ranjan edition by PS Sastri, and the Moltilal edition by BV Raman's grandfather, B Suryanarain Rao.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 7:28 pmDo I count as an authentic paṇḍita, and if not, why?

You have concluded that I have misgivings about your academic credentials. I do not.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2024 7:28 pm 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.

True enough, but before this, the silence in the older texts is deafening about the use of any quadrant system. They may have been introduced early in the Indian tradition but didn't gain any traction. You will more than likely disagree, but I was taught that what is now called the SriPati system was introduced with Muslim conquests and incursions in the 13th century. Even currently, the use of SriPati house division is mostly confined to the Tajika system in Indian astrology.

In closing, you are correct that I am not able to parry your argument in the original language, but other scholars, east and west, will come forward that can. I can say with confidence: stay tuned.

Be Well.

AJ wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:11 am Martin: What is your opinion on the following translations of the Brihat Jataka?
The Ranjan edition by PS Sastri, and the Moltilal edition by BV Raman's grandfather, B Suryanarain Rao.

I haven't seen the Sastri translation. Rao's, like many popular Indian translations, is often so loose as to be more of a paraphrase. The translated verses also contain a large number of (untranslated) Sanskrit words, which must present an obstacle for many non-Indian readers.

You have concluded that I have misgivings about your academic credentials. I do not.

No, that's not quite what I meant. You referred to 'authentic Pundits', by which you seemed to mean something different than academic scholars, and I was asking how you would identify someone as such a paṇḍita.

True enough, but before this, the silence in the older texts is deafening about the use of any quadrant system.

Astrological texts are typically entirely silent about any sort of mathematical-astronomical procedures. As I said, they don't explain how to derive the longitudes of the planets either, or the degree of the ascendant, necessary as those are for the practice of astrology.

You will more than likely disagree, but I was taught that what is now called the SriPati system was introduced with Muslim conquests and incursions in the 13th century.

As Śrīpati lived and wrote in present-day Maharashtra in the mid-11th century, some 300 years before the introduction of Muslim rule in that region, I do disagree, yes.

Even currently, the use of SriPati house division is mostly confined to the Tajika system in Indian astrology.

Even currently, this is simply wrong, as I know from personal encounters with many Indian astrologers. Also, if you actually read the Jātakakarmapaddhati you will see that there is no trace of Perso-Arabic (Tājika) astrology in it (it's about 250 years too early for that); the techniques it discusses (the aspects, the determination of good versus evil [iṣṭa/kaṣṭa] results, the longevity procedures, the daśās or planetary periods) are all pre-Islamic Indian stuff.

Similarly, if you read Tājika works, you will see that they do not, as a rule, discuss how to derive the houses. The main exception is Balabhadra's Hāyanaratna, which, as a nibandha, aims to be exhaustive; but the authorities it cites are Balabhadra's own guru Rāma Daivajña (who, in addition to mathematical astronomy, wrote works on non-Tājika astrology such as the Muhūrtacintāmaṇi), Keśavārka's Vivāhavṛndāvana, and Bhāskara II's Brahmatulya or Karaṇakutūhala (a purely astronomical work), all standard Indian (non-Tājika) texts. Incidentally, no Perso-Arabic author outside India that I'm aware of used the so-called Śrīpati system, where the ('Porphyry') house cusps function as the centres of houses rather than as their demarcations.

In closing, you are correct that I am not able to parry your argument in the original language, but other scholars, east and west, will come forward that can.

I'm not interested in jousting and parrying. I just made the rather obvious point that if you want to discuss what a piece of text means, being able to read it is a prerequisite. Of course you can read translations, but there is no getting away from the fact that you are then looking at the text through the filter of someone else's understanding/interpretation, which may or may not be correct.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pm I haven't seen the Sastri translation. Rao's, like many popular Indian translations, is often so loose as to be more of a paraphrase. The translated verses also contain a large number of (untranslated) Sanskrit words, which must present an obstacle for many non-Indian readers.

Martin: Thanks for your learned opinion here on at least the Rao translation. I was hoping you would have been more familiar with the most popular of the translations, such as the Sastri one.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pm No, that's not quite what I meant. You referred to 'authentic Pundits', by which you seemed to mean something different than academic scholars, and I was asking how you would identify someone as such a paṇḍita.

I believe I defined what I believed a pandit was or is in a previous post.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pm Astrological texts are typically entirely silent about any sort of mathematical-astronomical procedures. As I said, they don't explain how to derive the longitudes of the planets either, or the degree of the ascendant, necessary as those are for the practice of astrology.

There are some astronomical procedures mentioned in the ancient texts; in Brihat Jataka, Chapter 26, for example, Varāhamihira mentions the use of a gnomon to ascertain the birth ascendant. Varāhamihira must have thought this important enough to mention, which is why the silence on any other house system is inexplicable because they are so much more technical and unequal houses would affect the logic and technical execution of many of the explained astrological techniques.
SriPati Paddhatti from the 11th century is in about the middle of the Indian astrological timeline. This is a very thorough text on many of the complex calculations used in horoscopy regarding unequal houses, strength calculations, etc. Curious, isn't it that it is only at this juncture that unequal house method calculations are detailed? If unequal houses were used much earlier than the 11th century, it is strange that there is no contextual indication of their use at all in Brihat Jataka or Hora Sara since houses have dissimilar sizes versus signs. This would have raised trouble with the logic of how certain techniques were implemented; e.g., in the calculation of bindus for Ashtakavarga, nowhere is it asked to take the house positions. Aspects are from sign to sign. Another example of sign=houses in context. Just to name a few.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pmAs Śrīpati lived and wrote in present-day Maharashtra in the mid-11th century, some 300 years before the introduction of Muslim rule in that region, I do disagree, yes.

Thanks for the lesson. I stand corrected and misspoke. In a previous post, I did note that Sri Pati was in the 11th century, yet Muslim incursions did begin at about this time into India. Intellectual ideas would have been exchanged as well, even earlier through trade, so that does not refute the position that the SriPati unequal house division was brought in sometime later, after the 6th century Brihat Jataka.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pm Even currently, this is simply wrong, as I know from personal encounters with many Indian astrologers.

That’s a thoughtless and foolish statement.
My personal encounters are just different from yours; it is not wrong.
Consider broadening your contacts.
The Indian astrologers with whom I have interacted over the years who use SriPati use it mostly with the Tajika techniques of Varshaphala and Prasna. Most of their natal work is with Rasi, Chandra Lagna (Moon Houses), Bhava Indian Equal House, and, of course, Navamsa. I don’t doubt a few will look at a natal chart in unequal houses from time to time, but it is not their usual go-to for natal work.
There are quite a few Indian astrologers that I have interacted with who do not even use Bhava (house) charts. They do quite well with just the Rasi, Navamsa, Dasha, and transits.
Jyotish is vast and has many differing traditions of practice. Most Indian astrologers follow what their guru taught them—a few, not so much. One fella I know uses all three house systems, with a different take on each as it applies to the native, and will choose one system over another depending on where the focus of the reading is going.
Some Indian astrologers are very secretive about their methods. One I was talking with would not even share what ayanamsa they used!

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pmSimilarly, if you read Tājika works, you will see that they do not, as a rule, discuss how to derive the houses. The main exception is Balabhadra's Hāyanaratna, which, as a nibandha, aims to be exhaustive; but the authorities it cites are Balabhadra's own guru Rāma Daivajña (who, in addition to mathematical astronomy, wrote works on non-Tājika astrology such as the Muhūrtacintāmaṇi), Keśavārka's Vivāhavṛndāvana, and Bhāskara II's Brahmatulya or Karaṇakutūhala (a purely astronomical work), all standard Indian (non-Tājika) texts. Incidentally, no Perso-Arabic author outside India that I'm aware of used the so-called Śrīpati system, where the ('Porphyry') house cusps function as the centres of houses rather than as their demarcations.

I would say that the indigenous Indian astrologers modified concepts to suit themselves, as they did with many foreign infusions. Choosing udu dasas over Hellenistic time-lord systems, for instance. The Indian Equal House system was established before unequal houses, and the center of a house was the norm for them, which they in turn applied to modify the later introduced or reintroduced Porphyry houses. So it is no surprise that the cusp as the center of a house is not found outside of India.
The work you cite, the Hāyanaratna, is pretty late, is it not? A 17th-century treatise.

Varāhamihira in Brihat Jataka, centuries earlier than Hāyanaratna, also cites his authorities, especially in Chapter 7. Of the many hoary sages that had gone before him, whose works he is familiar with include but are not limited to: Parashara, Garga, Maya, Yavana, Manitha, Satyacarya, Visnugupta, Devasvami, Siddhasena, and Jivasharma. With such a wealth of astrological tradition to call upon, surely if unequal houses were used, it would have influenced his writings in the application of many techniques. Neither unequal nor equal houses are mentioned in this text.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pm I'm not interested in jousting and parrying. I just made the rather obvious point that if you want to discuss what a piece of text means, being able to read it is a prerequisite.

I have previously acknowledged your position about lacking a working knowledge of Sanskrit. This does not mean we have to agree on the sign=house issue. I choose to follow another opinion.

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:14 pmOf course you can read translations, but there is no getting away from the fact that you are then looking at the text through the filter of someone else's understanding/interpretation, which may or may not be correct.

According to your own statement above, any text you translate is also through the filter of your own understanding/interpretation which, like any other translator, may or may not be correct.

FIN

As always, be well.

AJ wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:20 am Martin: Thanks for your learned opinion here on at least the Rao translation. I was hoping you would have been more familiar with the most popular of the translations, such as the Sastri one.

Sorry not to be able to oblige, but as I don't really need to rely on translations from the Sanskrit, I tend not to keep abreast. I would recommend Vijnanananda's translation over Rao's, although neither is perfect.

I believe I defined what I believed a pandit was or is in a previous post.

If you did, I can't find it.

There are some astronomical procedures mentioned in the ancient texts; in Brihat Jataka, Chapter 26, for example, Varāhamihira mentions the use of a gnomon to ascertain the birth ascendant. Varāhamihira must have thought this important enough to mention, which is why the silence on any other house system is inexplicable because they are so much more technical and unequal houses would affect the logic and technical execution of many of the explained astrological techniques.

If you read what that verse actually says, you will find that it is not an astronomical procedure at all but a divinatory one, to determine the ascendant in a chart with an unknown birth time: multiply the longitude of a powerful planet by the length of the shadow of the gnomon, divide it by 12 and take the remainder. Even more interestingly, the verse goes on to say that the resulting figure may represent one of the four angles depending on whether the client is seated, lying down (!), rising, or standing at the time. This is at least suggestive of a separate use of the midheaven for determining the houses, and certainly not incompatible with it.

Curious, isn't it that it is only at this juncture that unequal house method calculations are detailed?

No, for reasons I have already explained, it is not curious. Astrological texts do not typically discuss astronomical procedures. It really is as simple as that.

Aspects are from sign to sign. Another example of sign=houses in context. Just to name a few.

You are assuming that there should be a connection between the aspect doctrine and house division, and then you use that imagined connection to argue against the historical use of quadrant houses, but perhaps your assumption is just wrong? We know that quadrant houses were known and used very early in the Greek-language tradition; we also know that, in that tradition, aspects were calculated by ecliptical division; and we know, thirdly, that Indian horoscopy is derived from Greek-language sources. Why, then, should Sanskrit authors have presumed aspects and houses to be conceptually related, and where is the textual evidence that they did?

In a previous post, I did note that Sri Pati was in the 11th century, yet Muslim incursions did begin at about this time into India.

They didn't take place at the same time over the whole subcontinent, though, which is why I mentioned Śrīpati's geographical location. Here is an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_co ... bcontinent

Intellectual ideas would have been exchanged as well, even earlier through trade, so that does not refute the position that the SriPati unequal house division was brought in sometime later, after the 6th century Brihat Jataka.

It is not an impossible scenario, no, but there is no real reason to assume it, other than wishful thinking, since (as I already pointed out) (1) there is no trace of Islamicate astrology in Śrīpati's work, and (2) nor is there, to my knowledge, any Islamicate astrological source that describes the Śrīpati system (with the cusps forming the centres of houses).

That’s a thoughtless and foolish statement.
My personal encounters are just different from yours; it is not wrong.
Consider broadening your contacts.

I might say the same. You had written: Even currently, the use of SriPati house division is mostly confined to the Tajika system in Indian astrology. That is wrong. I'm not saying that you haven't met more Indian astrologers who use signs for houses (so have I), but I do know that the use of quadrant/Śrīpati houses is not 'mostly confined to the Tajika system', because I have met a number of astrologers (in different parts of India) who used it without practising Tājika.

Incidentally, since you have criticized my tone, I will ask you not to use epithets like 'thoughtless and foolish'. They do not strengthen your argument.

I would say that the indigenous Indian astrologers modified concepts to suit themselves, as they did with many foreign infusions. Choosing udu dasas over Hellenistic time-lord systems, for instance.

That's rather tangential to our discussion, but I wonder what your point might be, as uḍudaśās (asterism-based periods) are demonstrably later than the Hellenistic-style systems found in early Sanskrit works.

The Indian Equal House system was established before unequal houses, and the center of a house was the norm for them, which they in turn applied to modify the later introduced or reintroduced Porphyry houses.

Now that is a statement for which I should genuinely like to see some solid textual evidence. So far I haven't seen a single Sanskrit work mention equal cusps as centres of houses; in fact, the earliest author I know to have propounded them is B.V. Raman, or perhaps his grandfather.

Varāhamihira in Brihat Jataka, centuries earlier than Hāyanaratna, also cites his authorities [...] Neither unequal nor equal houses are mentioned in this text.

I think you missed my point, which was not that 'there are Authorities', but rather that the authorities Balabhadra cites for using quadrant houses are all non-Tājika ones. As for the other point, let me just copy-paste that again: astrological texts do not typically discuss astronomical procedures.

I have previously acknowledged your position about lacking a working knowledge of Sanskrit. This does not mean we have to agree on the sign=house issue. I choose to follow another opinion.

Absolutely your prerogative to believe whatever you like. I only entered into this discussion with you because you wrote a post explicitly referencing two passages of Sanskrit text and claiming that they said something they don't.

According to your own statement above, any text you translate is also through the filter of your own understanding/interpretation which, like any other translator, may or may not be correct.

True, we are none of us infallible. So I have the filter of my understanding, which includes >40 years of Sanskrit study, and you have yours, which does not; in addition to which you have the filter of whichever translation you choose to use. It is possible, of course, to adopt a defeatist stance and say that we can never know anything for sure, but in that case, why bother (1) trying to understand things in the first place, and (2) defending one opinion against another?

Martin Gansten wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:41 pm I would recommend Vijnanananda's translation over Rao's, although neither is perfect.

Martin: Thanks for the recommendation; I will try to acquire a copy.

If you read what that verse actually says, you will find that it is not an astronomical procedure at all but a divinatory one, to determine the ascendant in a chart with an unknown birth time:

Yes, you are right now that I have read it more closely. I was going on memory and remembered that it mentioned a gnomon. It is similar to the later passage in chapter 26, sloka 15.
The rules for calculating the ascendant are found in Surya Siddhanta, which, for other readers to know, is not an astrological text.
I still thought there were some other references I missed. As I raked my memory and blew some dust off some books, I saw that the 13th century Phaladeepika Chapter 1, Sloka 3, does mention almost in passing using astronomical techniques and instruments. The use of a gnomon is mentioned as well. Sri Pati Paddhati, from the 11th century, is also mentioned in Chapter 1, and Sloka 2 also says much the same as Phaladeepika.
The 18th-century Sanketa Nidhi goes into some detail about using a shadow stick or gnomon for calculating the ascendant in Chapter 1, but this is pretty late. I mention it mostly for interest. These are but a few exceptions; overall, you are correct.

Why, then, should Sanskrit authors have presumed aspects and houses to be conceptually related, and where is the textual evidence that they did?

Aspects are reckoned from the signs; the bhava chart is not mentioned because it is not needed as signs and houses are conceptually related. The techniques mentioned previously would fail in accordance with the instructions given if signs and houses weren't synonymous.

I'm not saying that you haven't met more Indian astrologers who use signs for houses (so have I), but I do know that the use of quadrant/Śrīpati houses is not'mostly confined to the Tajika system', because I have met a number of astrologers (in different parts of India) who used it without practising Tājika. ...Incidentally, since you have criticized my tone, I will ask you not to use epithets like 'thoughtless and foolish'. They do not strengthen your argument.

I confronted your critique with the same directness with which you dismissed my comment as "simply wrong," echoing the dismissive tone prevalent in your previous posts. Despite this, you persist in branding it a universal error, painting it in absolute terms without acknowledging that a slight qualification could offer a more nuanced perspective. Your inclination seems more inclined towards tarnishing than enlightening. While we all make understatements from time to time, I am open to expanding them through an exchange of perspectives.
Undoubtedly, both Indian and Western astrology feature diverse approaches and applications. It would have been mutually beneficial if I had prompted clarification, but your initial response closed the door on that possibility. A greater degree of consideration on your part could have certainly enhanced the discourse.

That's rather tangential to our discussion, but I wonder what your point might be, as uḍudaśās (asterism-based periods) are demonstrably later than the Hellenistic-style systems found in early Sanskrit works.

Yes, that is better phrased.

So far I haven't seen a single Sanskrit work mention equal cusps as centres of houses; in fact, the earliest author I know to have propounded them is B.V. Raman, or perhaps his grandfather.

That is interesting; I would have thought at least some modern-period Indian texts would have mentioned them directly.
As an aside, in the BPHS (Sharma edition), Chapter 5, Slokas 20–24, the calculations for unequal houses, or SriPati, are taught.

Absolutely your prerogative to believe whatever you like. I only entered into this discussion with you because you wrote a post explicitly referencing two passages of Sanskrit text and claiming that they said something they don't.

I choose to follow a contrary opinion to yours for the reasons I have presented. I am not trying to pick the scab on that part of the discussion. I appreciate your comments. It has been thought-provoking. I am looking forward to further scholarship by others being published on this matter.

True, we are none of us infallible. So I have the filter of my understanding, which includes >40 years of Sanskrit study, and you have yours, which does not; in addition to which you have the filter of whichever translation you choose to use. It is possible, of course, to adopt a defeatist stance and say that we can never know anything for sure, but in that case, why bother (1) trying to understand things in the first place, and (2) defending one opinion against another?

Your central argument relies solely on your interpretation of the text, neglecting crucial contextual evidence. This approach, in my view, significantly constrains the strength of your logic. I maintain my position, drawing on the perspective of a highly regarded Indian scholar, specifically Professor PS Shastri, whose interpretation of those passages differs from yours.
This argument is also currently ongoing in the western tradition as well; you have pointed to your paper numerous times, and the discussion is by no means settled, even though you may consider the case closed.
Respecting your considerable experience in Sanskrit, it's important to avoid a supercilious tone that assumes superiority based on expertise. Knowledge is multifaceted, and diverse perspectives contribute to a holistic understanding. The assumption that expertise grants infallibility neglects the potential for bias and evolving knowledge. Embracing an inclusive and collaborative mindset, rather than dismissing alternative viewpoints, fosters a richer exchange of ideas.
Acknowledging uncertainty is not defeatist but a reminder of the continuous journey of learning. Engaging in healthy discourse involves presenting arguments without an air of superiority, promoting a culture of mutual understanding.

Be Well.

AJ wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:02 pm Aspects are reckoned from the signs; the bhava chart is not mentioned because it is not needed as signs and houses are conceptually related.

So you keep saying, but from the texts I have seen, Greek and Sanskrit, there is nothing to support that contention. Aspects are relations between parts of the zodiac (specifically, the ecliptic); they can be used without any reference to houses whatever, as indeed they are in some modern astrological schools that have abolished the use of houses.

The techniques mentioned previously would fail in accordance with the instructions given if signs and houses weren't synonymous.

What instructions, specifically?

I confronted your critique with the same directness with which you dismissed my comment [...]

I said you were wrong, you used the word 'foolish'. There's a difference. Moving on...

That is interesting; I would have thought at least some modern-period Indian texts would have mentioned [equal cusps as centres of houses] directly.

A very good reason for no Sanskrit texts mentioning them would, of course, be if they turned out to be a 19th- or 20th-century concept, borrowed from western astrology through the Theosophists. I don't know if that's the case, but from the current state of the evidence, I rather suspect it.

As an aside, in the BPHS (Sharma edition), Chapter 5, Slokas 20–24, the calculations for unequal houses, or SriPati, are taught.

So they are, and if that were an undisputed part of the former part (pūrvakhaṇḍa) of the BPH, it would strengthen my side of the argument considerably. But the BPH is a text of many recensions, so I chose not to bring it up.

Your central argument relies solely on your interpretation of the text, neglecting crucial contextual evidence.

Not at all: it relies on reading what is actually in the text(s), and I am entirely open to any form of actual evidence. To be clear, these are not obscure statements requiring interpretation, but rather extremely simple and straightforward. Here is the relevant line from the Bṛhajjātaka (the Sārāvalī, which is later, just restates the same idea in a different metre).

rāśi-kṣetra-gṛharkṣa-bhāni bhavanaṃ caikārthasampratyayāḥ
'Rāśi ("heap"), kṣetra ("field"), gṛha ("house"), ṛkṣa ("star"), bha ("star") and bhavana ("house") are concepts with a single meaning.'

That's all it says. There is no mention of houses in the modern sense, that is, places counted from the ascendant. Anything added to this will be an interpretation, but nobody who knows Sanskrit will dispute that the above is what the line in question actually says.

I maintain my position, drawing on the perspective of a highly regarded Indian scholar, specifically Professor PS Shastri, whose interpretation of those passages differs from yours.

In other words, you rely on an argument from authority. That's where we came in. Being 'highly regarded' (by whom?) really doesn't mean a thing.

Respecting your considerable experience in Sanskrit, it's important to avoid a supercilious tone that assumes superiority based on expertise.

I am not assuming anything, just pointing out the fact that I read and understand the language (and write it, and teach it). I can understand that that's irksome, even why you perceive it as supercilious, but really, I don't know how to get the point across in a way that wouldn't offend you. You want the text to be open to multiple interpretations: it isn't. Some texts/passages can be, but not all, and this isn't one of them.

Knowledge is multifaceted, and diverse perspectives contribute to a holistic understanding. The assumption that expertise grants infallibility neglects the potential for bias and evolving knowledge. Embracing an inclusive and collaborative mindset, rather than dismissing alternative viewpoints, fosters a richer exchange of ideas.

You said much the same before, and I asked you if you meant that we can never say that someone is wrong (you never answered that). To me it sounds like politician-speak. Of course knowledge is a collaborative effort, but that doesn't mean that every person's opinion is equally sound, correct or well-founded. A lot of people do in fact talk a lot of nonsense a lot of the time, and critical thinking has never been more important than in this so-called age of information.

On Translation
There are two levels to any work of art, including writing: the letter of what is produced, and the consciousness (spirit) of the author behind the written letter. I can’t remember where or when I read it, but Yogananda wrote that the consciousness of the creator is always present in any work of art. If we attune ourselves to this consciousness we can produce a similar work ourselves. To prove his point he immersed himself in art (paintings and words by artists?). He was then able to produce a respectable painting, he said by simply attuning himself to the author(s) of certain works.

This attunement applies especially to translations of Indian astrological texts. The consciousness of the translator is extremely important. With B. Suryanarain Rao’s books, it’s like sitting at the feet of a guru. Rao was intensely absorbed in what might be called “ancient India’s” astrology. This “vibration” comes through very clearly in his books. His translations include exhaustive notes and comments following each sloka.

Rao discusses the almost limitless intricacies of interpretation which can’t be understood by a simple reading of a sloka, no matter how precise the translation. Somehow this expansion solidifies concepts in the slokas. An “aura” of mental understanding is built up. Rao understands the spirit of translation. He uses a lot of Sanskrit words because he says there is no English equivalent. Then he might take several paragraphs expanding on the meaning of the Sanskrit term as a teacher might do in conversation with students.

Rao can make dogmatic statements about the source of astrology being India. He uses what today many view as a false ayanamsa. His charts can be wrong. He can have a biased attitude in various matters. But somehow in his translations the essence of India’s astrological teachings is there to be absorbed by the student.

I have Rao’s translations of Brihta Jataka and Sri Sarwarthachintamni., which I'm proud of as it was given to me in Bangalore by members of B.V. Raman's family. The latter book has no index and no table of contents. You have to leaf through the book to find a chapter. But the book has exhaustive notes similar to what might be presented in casual conversations with students. Rao brings in related topics and older texts. It can take a long time to work one’s way through Sri Sarwarthachintamni with true understanding. There are 835 pages in Rao's translation of this book. In contrast J.N. Bhasin's translation is 371 pages.

Academics may consider this view of “vibration” or spirit to be imagination. (The Moon rules imagination, and my Moon is dead in the water.) No, energies and vibration are not imagination. With astrology as in other works of art, the vibration of conscious thought or inspiration is the source of the written word. Thought always precedes a visible production. Technical expertise can’t replace the hidden vibratory soul of India’s astrology. I believe this soul or spirit of astrology is what is being presented in the conversations with pundits AJ discussed. I think perhaps this “essence” is what today’s traditionalists are attempting to convey in their teaching and conversation. We learn from Rao’s books that there is a great deal of India’s astrology that never made it’s way into the standard texts.

If the student wants to understand the astrology of India, read Rao and to some extent his grandson, B.V.Raman. Modern western “Jyotish” texts which students study today are skeletal plastic treatises compared to older translations which carry the essence of traditional Indian teachings. These modern texts also mix in concepts from Tropical astrology.

I am only a student of astrology. I chose not to be an astrologer in this life because I didn’t want the karmic links that are formed when an astrologer works with clients. So I can only talk about my personal experience with various studies and research.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 5:56 pm So you keep saying, but from the texts I have seen, Greek and Sanskrit, there is nothing to support that contention. Aspects are relations between parts of the zodiac (specifically, the ecliptic); they can be used without any reference to houses whatever, as indeed they are in some modern astrological schools that have abolished the use of houses.

You are not understanding; the bhava chart is not mentioned in Brihat Jataka because it is not needed, as signs and houses are synonymous. Some astrologers later introduced the concept of bhava charts, as seen in the 15th chapter of Phaladeepika by Manteswara in the 14th century, but this is not instructed by Varahamihira.

What instructions, specifically?

You missed a good part of our early conversation then, so here it is again.
Namely, the instructions for the following:
In the calculation of bindus (dots) for Ashtakavarga, nowhere is it asked to take the house positions. To do otherwise is contrary to the ancient texts.
The influence of planets in transit is considered to come from the Moon sign, not the house. Sign and house are not distinguishable from each other in this regard. Even if the Moon was on the last degree of a sign, the moment transiting Saturn enters the previous sign from the Moon, we speak of SadeSati. If you were to include both sign and house, you would have a SadeSati of at least 10 years instead of seven and a half.

In longevity or Amsa calculations, Brihat Jataka and Saravali do not ask us to take house positions that are distinct from sign positions.

Yoga positions, which are unique to Indian astrology, are always applied sign=house; these are interchangeable.

Indu Lagna is counted from the 9th house of the Moon and the Lagna, and then, by adding rays, the Indu Lagna sign=house is found. Another example is that a sign and a house are interchangeable.

When we take Arudha, we take the signs, not the house. I grant you that the origins of Jaimini are suggestive of a late introduction into Indian astrology, but there are just as many that affirm its antiquity. It is still noteworthy that Jaimini only uses the ancient WSH system that identifies signs synonymous with houses.

The parallels between the evolution of house systems in Indian astrology and developments in Islamic astrology add another layer of insight. Noteworthy is the testimony of Islamic studies scholar Ali A. Olomi, who asserts that whole sign houses were prevalent in the Medieval Islamicate tradition until the 18th century. In a must-watch video by Chris Brennan and Arabic academic scholar Ali A Olomi,

Here's just a couple of the many pertinent quotes by Olomi in the video:
“In the Medieval Islamicate tradition, if you’re reading the sources, from Masha’allah to Al-Khayyat, even Al-Buruni, all of them are using whole sign houses, and it remains so up until the 18th century. We have Safavid charts, we have Timurid charts, Mongol charts, and they’re all whole sign houses; all of them, with, again, minor exceptions.”

“ Zodiac and house are the same; they’re interchangeable. Where you’ll see the big difference is in when they tell you about how to pick which house it is for a particular topic. And they’ll tell you adad, or they’ll say hisab (count); that’s an indication that maybe they’re working in the sign-based for what a particular house means, or what particular sign is associated with a particular topic.”

I said you were wrong, you used the word 'foolish'. There's a difference. Moving on...

I used the word foolish because you should have realized and acknowledged it was simply a difference of experience, but instead you lashed out with a total affirmation of falsehood on my part; that was foolish. Moving on…

But the BPH is a text of many recensions, so I chose not to bring it up.

As I said, this was an aside; You are not reading carefully. I did not mention the BPHS to bolster any argument, especially if it would help yours. The modern BPHS is suspect on many accounts and is not to be relied on.

I will combine the following two quotes as my answer is relevant to both.

Here is the relevant line from the Bṛhajjātaka (the Sārāvalī, which is later, just restates the same idea in a different metre).
rāśi-kṣetra-gṛharkṣa-bhāni bhavanaṃ caikārthasampratyayāḥ
'Rāśi ("heap"), kṣetra ("field"), gṛha ("house"), ṛkṣa ("star"), bha ("star") and bhavana ("house") are concepts with a single meaning.'
That's all it says. There is no mention of houses in the modern sense, that is, places counted from the ascendant. Anything added to this will be an interpretation, but nobody who knows Sanskrit will dispute that the above is what the line in question actually says.

In other words, you rely on an argument from authority. That's where we came in. Being 'highly regarded' (by whom?) really doesn't mean a thing.

In the text and commentary regarding those excerpts, Professor Shastri and R. Santhanam, in their translations of Brihat Jataka and Saravali, respectively, categorically assert that the terms in question are synonyms. (Shastri, n.d., 11). (Santhanam 2008, 16)
I maintain my position as well, and I think ‘Being highly regarded (by whom?)' does mean '...a thing.'—in fact, a lot.
For someone who professes to be familiar with Indian astrology and scholarship, you seem to have no knowledge of Professor Shastri.
That is surprising to me. Let me enlighten you then.
Prof. P.S. Sastri, M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt. Professor Shastri, held degrees in English, Sanskrit, Telugu, Philosophy, has Ph.D degrees in Rigveda, Aesthetics & Coleridge, and a D.Litt. in Indian philosophy. He translated astrological classics like: Jaimini Sutram, Uttara Kalamrita, and Brihat Jataka. PS Shastri passed away in 2006 and was regarded as one of the finest scholars and astrologers of his time, publishing more than 60 books. I think it was KN Rao also affirmed that about him.

If I accepted your argument, I would still be arguing from authority. So either way, we would be essentially back where we started. LOL.

I am ignoring the rest because it isn’t relevant to the discussion.

Be Well.

AJ wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2024 12:18 pm You are not understanding; the bhava chart is not mentioned in Brihat Jataka because it is not needed, as signs and houses are synonymous.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying, but it is all claims with no evidence. You are either arguing from silence ('X not being explicitly described in a certain text means that X didn't exist at the time or wasn't accepted by the author', which of course doesn't follow) or from a conceptual link that you are assuming but not demonstrating to be present in the texts, such as aspects, aṣṭakavarga, yogas, etc., being linked to the houses with their established symbolism. All you are demonstrating is that there are concepts in the Indian texts that are not based on quadrant houses, which I would certainly agree with. I just don't see that those concepts are based on any sort of house system: they are independent entities.

Additionally, you are mixing up concepts from different regions and different eras (such as ārūḍha and sāṛhesātī), as if Indian astrology were an ahistorical, unchanging, homogeneous entity.

You missed a good part of our early conversation then, so here it is again.

No, I didn't miss the parts you are repeating now, but I'd still be interested to know (1) if you don't believe one can justifiably say that anyone is ever wrong, and (2) how you define a 'genuine Pundit'.

You also keep referring to videos you have watched and people whose authority you accept, rather than to actual textual sources. (I do know of P.S. Sastri [not Shastri] and have some of his translations. My point is that people who are 'highly regarded' by others may still disagree completely on a given issue, so their popularity, or the number of books they have published, etc., has no bearing on the issue at hand.)

If I accepted your argument, I would still be arguing from authority. So either way, we would be essentially back where we started.

As long as you can't read the texts for yourself, yes, you would. Which is indeed where we came in.

Very good information in this topic. I want to thank everyone involved.

Now I will come back full circle.

I've really liked the idea of mundane aspects and parans (I will test it out for sure), but now that I've got back to the beginning, I thought of the following:

Let's say someone is born at 06:30:00 (time of birth) and Mercury rises at 06:42:00 (Mercury rise time)...

What if at 06:42:00 (primary directions) will trigger a "Mercury effect"?

Of course, the question remains:

- Will it trigger only if Mercury were already aspecting another planet?
- Will it trigger only if Mercury is strong in the chart, even if Mercury is not aspecting another planet?
- Will it trigger even if Mercury is not involved, in the case of another(s) planet(s) aspecting this point?
...

I am not saying this is true or accurate, but if it makes sense. It is not yet about the meaning of this "Mercury effect", but can one even begin to discuss its meaning?

I hope my hypothesis are coherent now, because I intend to investigate the Rise, the Culm, the Set and the Anti-Culm of ALL the planets as much as possible. This is only one way of doing it (the ideia is to develop a system).

Be it as it may, I don't know how I am gonna project the 06:42:00 (Mercury rise time) into the chart (as an angle) to test it out... I guess I will just have to always move forward/backward my AS to that point in time (in this case, to 06:42:00), and then consider that AS point (that angle) as the Mercury rise time in the original chart.

I hope this will do, because I don't have enough faith in this hypothesis to calculate it by hand.

Again, I am not sure I am missing something.