Good morning,

Here are links to two critical papers (warning: one of them might seem somewhat polemic at times) about 'Vedic astrology' by Herr lic. phil. Dieter Koch (also known in connexion with the 'Swiss ephemerides') and Mr Vic DiCara, both published this year. Both papers contain information specifically relevant to this thread:

Vedic Astrology - critically examined

"Vedic Astrology"? What It Is and What It's Not

Best regards,

lihin

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your translation of the Yavana Jataka passage. Your a handy guy to have around! From what I can gather this text dates from the first half of the 2nd century CE.

Well, not quite. The text as we have it is date by Pingree (from text-internal evidence) to 269/270 CE. It is said to be based on an earlier text from 149/150 CE, but we can't really know what was in the original. It's a bit like the Dorotheus situation.

delete

Good morning,

Even if other stars in asterisms (or small constellations) used for naming the 27 (and / or 28 ?) Indian lunar mansions were named, not unlike other, larger constellations, did they constitute mansions of equal size in ecliptical longitude?

Even if one is convinced of the 'truth' of a so-called 'sidereal' zodiac, solar or lunar, which of the numerous ones, if any, is correct and why? What are the selection criteria?

Best regards,

lihin

delete

Hi Martin,

a word from my side, if I am allowed...

Martin Gansten wrote:

Mark wrote:We also have the fact that the earliest astrological texts entering India from the west such as the Yavana Jataka express ideas that seem explicitly tropical.

One section the Yavana Jataka clearly refers to the Tropical Zodiac:

30. One should find that the northern course of the Sun begins at the beginning of Capricorn, and the southern course at the beginning of the fourth sign (Cancer); the first equator (crossing) in the year is at the beginning of Aries, the second at the beginning of Libra.

I'm afraid you underestimate the importance of the 'at' in Pingree's translation. Personally, I would have used 'in' rather than 'at' to translate the locative case. Here is the verse in the original:

raver uda?m?rgagati? m?g?dau y?my?yan?di? tu caturthabh?dau /
vindy?d aj?dau vi?uvantam ?dyam abde dvit?ya? <tu> tul?dhar?dau //

Pingree's translation is acceptable, if slightly imprecise. The point is that the verse states that the solstice and equinox points fall in/at the beginning of these signs (which of course they did, sidereally, around the year 269/270 CE). It does not say that these points define the signs, for which one would have expected a nominative case construction rather than the locative ('the beginning of the northern course of the Sun is the beginning of Capricorn', etc). The optative, which Pingree translates as 'one should find', is perhaps better rendered 'one may/can find'.

Furthermore, the verse in question occurs in the very last chapter of the YJ, which deals with calendric and astronomical matters, and not in any of the chapters defining and describing the zodiac. So rather than a definition of the zodiac based on the equinoxes and solstices, we have here a means of locating the equinoxes and solstices (for calendric purposes) based on the zodiac.

It seems to me that your interpretation of the quoted verse is not in agreement with some other statements in the same chapter of Yavanajaataka. In 79.34, it says that the sun traverses all signs within 365.2464 days, which indicates a tropical zodiac. (We can go into Sanskrit if required.) Besides, the Yavanaj?takam teaches the tropical year. In 79.5-6 it says that a yuga of 165 years corresponds to 60?265 days. This results in a very accurate tropical year length of 365.2424 days. These are strong clues in favour of translating the locative case with Pingree as an "at", denoting the exact point of the beginning of the sign.

However, what is strange: In 1.29 the text fixes the zodiac signs at the nakshatras. If nakshatras are defined sidereally, then this verse is in contradiction with the statements made in chapter 79. The text is only consistent if it defines the nakshatras tropically.

But maybe the text is just confused. It is interesting that it does not discuss, not even mention, precession and the tropical-sidereal problem. I assume that either it is not fully aware of the problem or it does not know how to treat it.

However that may be, there can be no doubt that there was a tradition of tropical astrology in ancient India. The Romaka-Siddhanta, mentioned in the Pancasiddhantika, also used the tropical year. Even the Suryasiddhanta and Aryabhata, both of which use a sidereal year length, nevertheless state that the equinoxes and solstices are the starting points of the four cardinal signs. And there is no possibility there to play with the meanings of the locative:
SS 14.9:
bh?normakarasa?kr?nter ?a?m?s? uttar?ya?am
karky?destu tathaiva sy?t ?a?m?s? dak?i??yanam
?Six months from the ingress of the Sun into Capricorn are the northward course (of the Sun),
and six months from the beginning of Cancer are the southward course.?
(Context also worth reading.)
For this reason I would say that the S?ryasiddh?nta *intends* a tropical view, although in practice it is a sidereal system. The same could be said of the work of Aryabhata, although probably not of Varahamihira.

Kind regards
Dieter

Dear Lihin,

Back in 1025 CE, there was an Arab scientist named al-Biruni who was also an astrologer. He had been to India, written about it extensively, and another one of his books which is an introduction to astrology includes a lot of Jyotish -- making him perhaps the first "cross-cultural astrologer" we know of, unless you want to count Abu Ma'shar.

Al-Biruni records that when he visited the Jyotishis, he found two ways of assessing the nakshatras. He encountered many people who used the same 13.20 degree division that we use now. He encountered others who simply watched the sky and noted the principal stars of each asterism by "naked eye astronomy" alone, completely disregarding formal mathematical measurements.

As for the 27/28 controversy, I translated portions of a nimitta text called Sardulakarnavadana, which dates to about the beginning of the Common Era,and in this text there are ALWAYS 28; in fact, Abhijit is regarded as one of the most important and auspicious. It is also worth mentioning that the earliest list of nakshatras (Atharva Veda 19.7, c. 800 BC) includes Abhijit.

Somewhere along the line, Abhijit gets lost. The Mahabharata says that Abhijit became jealous of the charms and celebrity status of her sister Rohini, and that she retired to the forest as an ascetic, leaving only 27 nakshatras.

Abhijit is not mentioned in the Yavana Jataka of 279 CE. So it got lost somewhere between 0 CE and 279. Beyond that, we don't know.

Hi Dieter,

dieterkoch wrote:The text is only consistent if it defines the nakshatras tropically.

But maybe the text is just confused.

As I generally tell my Sanskrit students, if the text doesn't seem to make sense, the odds are that you have misunderstood something.

I am perfectly happy to grant that some Indian texts, including the YJ, make use of a tropical year. (I haven't got the Sanskrit text to hand now, but I presume Pingree's translation to be correct.) The point is that the calendar and the astrological use of the zodiac are two different things. Insisting that they must be the same is a tropicalist prejudice which, if applied to the Indian texts, will certainly make them confusing.

So when you say that

there can be no doubt that there was a tradition of tropical astrology in ancient India.

I must contest that. Tropical measurements in the calendar, yes. Astrological use of a tropical zodiac: not that I have ever seen.

These are strong clues in favour of translating the locative case with Pingree as an "at", denoting the exact point of the beginning of the sign.

I think you may have misunderstood me here; perhaps I was unclear. Using in or at is a matter of preference and doesn't really change the meaning of the verse; and in any case, the equinoxes and solstices would in fact have coincided very closely with the beginnings of the sidereal signs at the time when the YJ was composed. The point is that the text does not define the zodiac as beginning with the equinox, etc; rather, it locates these points within the (apparently sidereal) zodiac. For the meaning you wish the passage to have, a congruence in case would be the normal construction in Sanskrit. (For example, *raver uda?m?rgagati? m?g?di? ... vidy?t)

delete

delete

Hi Martin,

I am perfectly happy to grant that some Indian texts, including the YJ, make use of a tropical year. (I haven't got the Sanskrit text to hand now, but I presume Pingree's translation to be correct.) The point is that the calendar and the astrological use of the zodiac are two different things. Insisting that they must be the same is a tropicalist prejudice which, if applied to the Indian texts, will certainly make them confusing.

I am afraid, you are wrong. Where do ancient Indian texts state that calendar making and astrology have to be separated? The Yavanajataka is an astrological work from its beginning to its end. The last chapter 79 is astronomical and contains instructions how to calculate the planets and all the other factors required for an astrological chart. This is the context in which the tropical year length appears, and it means that tropical signs were used in practice.

Besides, the chapter starts with the following verse (translation by Pingree):
?The wise say that the observed course of the planets is the supreme eye of the entire body of the rules of horoscopy (sarvasya [hor?]vidhisa?grahasya, D.K.). I shall explain it concisely according to the instruction of the Greeks.?
(Note: hor? is a conjecture by Pingree to make the verse complete, but it is obvious that vidhisa?graha refers to the whole astrological teachings of the book.)
This means: What follows in ch. 79 serves astrology, not calendarmaking!

Honestly, I wonder a bit how seriously you looked into the text.

Also note that the Suryasiddhanta was the basis of astronomy, calendar, and astrology. There was no such fundamental difference and separation between these things.

The point is that the text does not define the zodiac as beginning with the equinox, etc; rather, it locates these points within the (apparently sidereal) zodiac. For the meaning you wish the passage to have, a congruence in case would be the normal construction in Sanskrit. (For example, *raver uda?m?rgagati? m?g?di? ... vidy?t)

Well, you say "normal construction in Sanskrit", but imho such judgments are dangerous because, as no doubt you know, Sanskrit is extremely different depending on literary genre, tradition, and epoch of the text. The correct approach to settle the question is to study the usage of language in ancient astronomical/astrological texts. If you do so, it will turn out, in my opinion, that you are wrong.

The question concerns the exact meaning of the word -?di in compounds preceded by the name of a zodiac sign in astronomical texts. And whether a locative case is used or not does not really matter. Even with other declension cases one could discuss whether ?di means the exact beginning or the first couple of degrees.

Let us look again at the verse I quoted from the Suryasiddhanta (14.9):
bh?normakarasa?kr?nte? ?a?m?s? uttar?ya?am
karky?destu tathaiva sy?t ?a?m?s? dak?i??yanam
?Six months from the ingress of the Sun into Capricorn are the northward course (of the Sun),
and six months from the beginning of Cancer are the southward course.?

The first line of the verse states that the uttarayana months start at the ingress into Capricorn. The second line has the dakshinayana beginn from the "beginning of Cancer". It is obvious in this case, that "beginning of" (-?di-) does *not* mean "somewhere in the first degrees of Cancer", but it means the *ingress*.

Another verse from Aryabhatiya (4.1):
me??de? kany?nta? sama? udagapama??al?rdham apay?tam
tauly?de? m?n?nta? ?e??rdha? dak?i?ena eva
"The first half of the zodiac that begins with Aries and ends with Virgo has northern declination. The other half that begins with Libra and ends with Pisces has southern (declination)."

This statement is only true if the equinoxes are exactly at the beginning of Aries and Libra and if "begin" (?di- again) refers to the exact point of the beginning of the sign.

Another verse from Brhatsamhita (3.1) (referring to Vedangajyotisha):
??le??rdh?d dak?i?am uttaram ayana? raver dhani??h?dyam
n?na? kad?cid ?s?d yenokta? p?rva??stre?u
"In the middle of the lunar mansion ??lesh? (or at the end of sidereal Cancer) started the southward path of the Sun, and at the beginning of the lunar mansion Dhani??h? (or at the end of sidereal Capricorn) started its northward path / in ancient times. This is stated by old scientific works."

To my knowledge, no expert ever understood this verse in such a way that "middle" (ardha) and "beginning" (?di) mean only "within a few degrees". All assume that accuracy is intended.

Please show me texts, where ?di means "somewhere in the first degrees of".

Conclusion: It is quite obvious that the Yavanajataka in the verse under discussion puts the equinoxes at the exact beginning of the signs. Even more so when its context is taken into account: ephemeris algorithms based on the tropical year.

Dieter

delete