Mark wrote:

Thanks. The counterview is put forward in a link in the comments to that piece. In particular an article/video by Vic DiCara. He seems to be yet another astrologer practising Indian astrological techniques who advocates a tropical approach. He argues this in part based on his interpretation of Indian texts such as the S?rya Siddh?nta and ?r?mad Bh?gavatam were he suggests a tropical outlook is implicit.

The key here is "his interpretation." That is the crux of the entire zodiac question for India's astrology. This question would require the input of trained academics in Sanskrit and India's history and astronomy. (That is why in a previous post I quoted from two Indian academics.) I don't know Vic DiCara, but I do know that Ernst Wilhelm and the few I personally know who follow his system have no higher academic education. (At least I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.) Ernst has reached his conclusion based on his own studies. Then of course Ernst's students will follow his teaching, probably without careful comparison of academic opinion.

I suspect the "tropical Vedic" question might pit university trained academics against those who have interpreted India's texts on their own. For example, I recently read in K. K. Pathak's Astrology in the Vedas and Puranas (2004) that Vedanga Jyotisha was never meant to propound principles of astrology. It was authored to fix the timing of religious rites and festivals. (p. 19) So it wouldn't be correct to use that text as a support for using the tropical zodiac for India's astrology.

The academic view knows you must keep a broad perspective. Ernst Wilhelm has purposely kept his perspective narrow by giving away most of his books and relying on his two favorites: Brihat Parsara Hora Sastra and Jaimini Sutras. (Which he then preceded to interpret himself.) In comparison, in his two volume Textbook of Scientific Hindu Astrology (2004), Dr. P. S.Sastri cites India's primary classical texts and even brings in western astrological authors to explain and support certain principles of astrology.

These two approaches are alive and well in astrology today. "This is the way I see it" opposed to the professional education of astrologers which relies on a thorough understanding of classical concepts and critical thinking.

Mark wrote:

Whether purely eclipitical or equatorial the ancient Nakshatras are without question sidereal. My inspiration for this theory came completely from ancient Indian cosmology which doesn't seem to have been fixated on the ecliptic.

I therefore suggest opening a fresh thread on just that issue. Otherwise I fear the issue will get totally sidelined into the controversy around tropical vedic astrology.

Mark, as this is a special interest of yours, why don't you open a thread to discuss this issue after you solve your keyboard problem? I think maybe you mean Indian astronomy rather than cosmology because cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the universe. (I wasn't sure of the meaning of cosmology myself until I looked it up as to how it was different from astronomy.)

"Cosmology differs from astronomy in that the former is concerned with the Universe as a whole while the latter deals with individual celestial objects. Modern physical cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics." (Wikipedia)

It seems to me that the most comprehensive study backed by the authority of academic astronomy is Professor K. D. Abhyankar's Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy (2007). As astrologers poorly versed in astronomy, I don't know what we can add to Abhyankar's research and conclusions. We simply don't have the required background and education or familiarity with ancient Sanskrit.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Mark, as this is a special interest of yours, why don't you open a thread to discuss this issue after you solve your keyboard problem?

I intend to.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I think maybe you mean Indian astronomy rather than cosmology because cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the universe.

No. Your Wikipedia definition may reflect the modern scientific use of the term but it is not comprehensive enough. If I had just meant exclusively astronomy Therese I would have used the word. Obviously, astronomy cannot be traced as a separate academic discipline until the 16th century in Europe and later in many other parts of the world.

I am consciously using the word cosmology to encapsulate an ancient cultures world view of the universe which incorporated together religion, astrology,mythology and astral knowledge.

Astronomical histories while useful often completely ignore such a wider cultural context of ideas.

This broader interpretation of the term cosmology incorporating ancient cultures seems good enough for academics like Dr Nicholas Campion:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Astrology-Cosmo ... 0814717144

Therese Hamilton wrote:

It seems to me that the most comprehensive study backed by the authority of academic astronomy is Professor K. D. Abhyankar's Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy (2007). As astrologers poorly versed in astronomy, I don't know what we can add to Abhyankar's research and conclusions. We simply don't have the required background and education or familiarity with ancient Sanskrit.

I should mention for anyone looking to follow up this recommendation of Therese that this book isn't at all easy to track down. Although only published its 2007 its now hard to locate a copy since it was limited to one edition with a small Indian publisher. No republications as far as I can see. No copies in places like Amazon.co.uk or ABE books. However, I notice on Amazon.com you can pick up a copy at a snip for $7,777! Is the book market totally crazy? Avoiding such insanity I eventually managed to pick up a copy for around ?60 on the Amazon.Ca site.

Still, if you have the book you might want to consider its current sale value on Amazon.com. It could fund you a lovely world cruise...

From an initial search even the academic libraries in Scotland don't seem to hold a copy of the book.

The book appears to have been only published in India by a small scientific publisher called the Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas based in Hyderabad.

http://serveveda.org/

I have emailed them to see whether they are considering a republication of the work.

I will take some time out to properly study Dr Abhyankar's book before I open a new thread examining the non-ecliptical nature of ancient Indian star lore. A view I am already aware that Dr Abhyankar's strongly rejects. Indeed Abhyankar is so keen to reject a non-ecliptical nature to the nakshatras that he even suggests the 28th Nakshatra Abhijit traditionally associated with the star Vega has been misidentified and is really the star Altair.

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

To cut costs I have ordered the book Sea Mail so it will be a few months before I can comment on the book!

Mark

An email correspondent recommended Abhyankar's book earlier this year. I purchased it through Amazon from Exotic India for USD $27 in July. Another North American email correspondent also purchased the book from the same company and commented that the book arrived in only a few days. It looks like we may have been fortunate enough to find the last two easily obtainable copies of Abhyankar's book!

The definition of cosmology I gave is standard in today's dictionaries. Unlike astrology, academic disciplines have to keep to standard well defined terminology. Otherwise no one would understand what another person is saying. If we're talking about the relationship of nakshatras to the ecliptic or equator, that is astronomy rather than cosmology.

Mark wrote:

(...) Indeed Abhyankar is so keen to reject a non-ecliptical nature to the nakshatras that he even suggests the 28th Nakshatra Abhijit traditionally associated with the star Vega has been misidentified and is really the star Altair.

But how would this change of stars support the ecliptical measurement of Altair?? Altair practically sits on top of the celestial equator (declination +8?51') while its latitude (distance from the ecliptic) is much larger at +29?18'. Abhyankar points out that Altair falls within the ecliptical longitude designated for Abhijit whereas Vega is located in Purva Ashada in Sagittarius.

I don't know why we would want to argue with Abhyanakar, a professionally trained scholar who has specialized in classical works and has multiple books and articles in print. As astrologers we don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the mathematics of astronomy. We have only our personal opinions and belief systems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.insa.nic.in/writereaddata/Up ... ituary.pdf
BEGIN QUOTE:
OBITUARY: K D ABHYANKAR (1928-2007)
Professor K D Abhyankar, Indian astrophysist, teacher and well known populariser of astronomy, passed away in Hyderabad (AP) on 8 November 2007 at the age of 79. He was born on 21st June, 1928 and showed signs of brilliance from his childhood. He procured gold medals at high school and colleges.

After completion of his M.Sc. from Agra University, he worked for a short period at Holkar College, Indore. He obtained a Government of India senior research fellowship and worked at Kodaikanal Observatory during 1952-1954. He was awarded a scholarship for doctoral studies at the University of California at Berkeley.

He worked for his Ph.D. thesis, under the supervisorship of Otto Struve, and studied several close binary stars with a view to understanding stellar evolution. He discovered a short period variable AD CMi. The work done by by him for his Ph. D thesis was a masterpiece and has been well quoted...(etc.)
END OF QUOTE

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I don't know why we would want to argue with Abhyanakar, a professionally trained scholar who has specialized in classical works and has multiple books and articles in print. As astrologers we don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the mathematics of astronomy. We have only our personal opinions and belief systems.

While Abhyanakar wrote numerous publications they were all about modern astronomical topics aside from this work. As far as I know he was not a leading historian or linguist. But you have his book. If I am wrong in that view I am sure you will correct me. In any case I am not in a position agree or disagree with the views of the late Dr Abhyanakar as I haven't even read his bookyet. I was simply reporting his idiosyncratic view on the Nakshatra of Abhijit.

Academic opinion is seldom monolithic Therese. It positively thrives on dialectic and disagreement. And other academics have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence. Knowledge seldom progresses through obsequious acquiescence to academic authority.

Your recurrent refrain on Skyscript seems to be we should all go off and do a PHD in linguistics, astronomy, or mathematics before we have the right to comment here. If we want to write books or produce peer reviewed papers that may be a legitimate view. However, this is a discussion forum intended to stimulate thought. All anyone can hope to achieve here is raise a few interesting points that challenge received opinion. People are welcome to disagree and refute anything said here.

I must state Therese I find your comments here often appear intended to discourage further discussion by citing what you regard as unassailable academic authority and implying our total ignorance as astrologers. Whether intended or not it comes over as very controlling and dismissive at times and therefore seems inimical to the spirit of a discussion forum like Skyscript.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

If we're talking about the relationship of nakshatras to the ecliptic or equator, that is astronomy rather than cosmology.

Things are not that black and white as I see it. Not least if an equatorial perspective was part of a wider cosmological world view underpinning it in the pre-Siddhantic era.

There are clearly different takes on the terms like cosmology. This piece is quite useful in demonstrating my point with the discussion of how anthropologists use the term:

http://what-when-how.com/social-and-cul ... hropology/

Mark

Mark, each field of study has its professionals and experts. Would you trust a Ph.D. in linguistics to interpret an astrological birth chart? Just as the scientists who try to prove that astrology is groundless hocus pocus without studying the subject first, so we aren't really qualified to judge professional fields we haven't specialized in ourselves. We owe our respect to professionals in all fields, and that includes astrology.

It takes a lifetime of study to become proficient in the various specialty fields. This is the problem with astrology. Many read a few books, attend a few lectures or conferences and decide they can practice astrology. So, yes, I'm for more stringent education and qualifications for astrological counseling.

But this is getting off topic. I'm still waiting for someone to provide some solid evidence that India's classic techniques work better in the tropical zodiac.

I own both Kala by Wilhelm and Sirius by Cochrane.

They are both elite research centred astrologers who have developed awesome software.

Here are a few Cochrane youtube videos addressing the matter:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50v_KbnxHho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGPCUogn-w

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Mark, each field of study has its professionals and experts. Would you trust a Ph.D. in linguistics to interpret an astrological birth chart? Just as the scientists who try to prove that astrology is groundless hocus pocus without studying the subject first, so we aren't really qualified to judge professional fields we haven't specialized in ourselves. We owe our respect to professionals in all fields, and that includes astrology.

I think you have rather misunderstood my position Therese. I would have thought it was self evident from my previous posts here on Skyscript that I am not anti-intellectual or contemptuous towards academics. Let me be more explicit.

I was essentially making two points. Firstly, academic debate is not monolithic. Its seldom that one academic has an unquestioned monopoly in regards one subject. If that does happen its usually because they are a pioneer and first to research a topic. That is certainly untrue in the field of Indian pre-Siddhantic astronomy/astrology where there are disagreements on chronology and many other issues. So I find your assertion that one single academic has essentially sowed up the whole topic quite implausible. For example, I have read works by other Indian astronomers disagreeing with both the calculations and chronology used by Dr Abhyanakar.

My second point was regarding general posters here on Skyscript. As we all know this is an astrological discussion forum intended for an open exchange of views and information. Clearly the informal level of debate here will not storm the academic barricades. Its not intended to. Still, I feel people at all levels of understanding should be encouraged to participate. However, your comments at times seem to have the opposite effect by discouraging discussions from leaving the starting blocks in topics you disagree with. By all means lets examine and fully consider existing academic research. But lets not use it as a road block to cut off interesting discussions.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

It takes a lifetime of study to become proficient in the various specialty fields. This is the problem with astrology. Many read a few books, attend a few lectures or conferences and decide they can practice astrology. So, yes, I'm for more stringent education and qualifications for astrological counseling.

You have expressed your views on this in other threads and others have put counter positions. I don?t really see the point of going over all that again here as it seems a distraction from the topic here.


Therese Hamilton wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to provide some solid evidence that India's classic techniques work better in the tropical zodiac.

Maybe I missed the big news but when was solid irrefutable evidence provided to suggest that either zodiac works in the first place? Other than the views of practitioners (on both sides) what ''solid evidence'' are you relying on?

Mark

Saturnhead wrote

They are both elite research centred astrologers who have developed awesome software.
Here are a few Cochrane youtube videos addressing the matter:-

I have watched Cochrane Before and he is very pleasant to listen to.

In his video about the two zodiacs he did not take a stand for or against but held his mind openminded in the issue. He suggested that taking some random charts for wellknown people and claiming the best zodiac fits would not do. Instead he suggested to let the software do controlled research with extreme sampling. Doing searches for charts with much emphasis on certain signs.

I did a small attempt for such a deed and did a datasearch in Solar Fire software for sign emphasis with sun, Moon and Ascendant in same sign.
out of 2200 charts in the database typically I got 1 or two charts for some signs. Cancer and virgo sidereally did not produce any charts at all.
The Ascendant, Sun and Moon are the key triad of most importance in a chart. So perhaps all of them in a sign would be interesting to look at.

I thought that perhaps opening a separate thread about this would be interesting. But due to lack of time right now I Think I just post the charts shortly of the first signs searched. Maybe later I do a separate thread for this.

( I may state that my personal take in this zodicac question is that I think both work in their own way. I have used both and been satisfied then. But the stance of this falang of tropical astrologers tends to polarise the issue by claiming the tropical zodiac is the correct one, which should be used. Which in fact is the same as saying that countless astrologers in east and west using the sidereal zodiac is working in a vacum with a faulty zodiac.)

Search for Sidereal Aries sun, Moon and Ascendant.


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

He was a Soldier. He was Always dressed in army dress.
Taurus tropical ascendant, moon and sun.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Gal ... seph_Simon
(Interesting comparison to Hitler who had stellium in aries sidereally
as a warlord).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taurus search
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Vic ... of_England

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sidereal Gemini search:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Perot,_Ross

Interesting from the sidereal wiew that he built his fortune dealing with computers and information technology. He also was a top salesman for IBM
computers.
But he is stated from tropical wiew to be a family man and he also started out in the navy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sidereal Cancer:
No hits.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sidereal Leo:

1.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Johnson,_Lyndon_B.
(Politician and power personality.)


2).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_Fraser
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Fraser,_Dawn
(Athlete and politician).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgo sidereal search:
No Hits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libra sidereal search:
No hits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scorpio sidereal search:


http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Helfgott,_Gillian
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 36163.html
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Helfgott,_Gillian

(Astrologer and wife to shizophrenic Prodigy pianist
Scorpio theme sidereally of dealing with life's mysteries and also
the psyche's deeper psychology issues).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok that's all I have done so far. Maybe a thread later with more room for discussion about specific charts. Not so much research. More a fun astrological investigation. Thanks to David Cochrane.


S

Therese Hamilton wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to provide some solid evidence that India's classic techniques work better in the tropical zodiac.

Thinking about my words here, I would like to reword my thoughts: On the topic of Tropical Vedic Astrology, I'd like to see a demonstration of how the tropical zodiac is used with India's astrological concepts. Data would have to be provided so the techniques could be replicated in the sidereal zodiac for comparison.