Skyscript Astrology Forum

Therese Hamilton wrote:Mark, do you have an older classical Indian Varshaphal text that mentions the correlation of elements to signs?

This is Martin, not Mark. Yes, I'm talking about Sanskrit texts from within the Tajika tradition, not modern books about Tajika.

I assume you are talking about India's Varshaphal system (solar returns) which is based on Tajika principles.

Strictly speaking, the school or system is called Tajika, and varshaphala or the annual revolution is one technique within that system. In reality, of course, it has become the defining technique. But Tajika also has its own teachings on horary astrology (prashna), etc.

Raman's statements on historical matters may be safely ignored.

Martin wrote:

Strictly speaking, the school or system is called Tajika, and varshaphala or the annual revolution is one technique within that system. In reality, of course, it has become the defining technique. But Tajika also has its own teachings on horary astrology (prashna), etc.

Martin, are those texts only in Sanskrit then, no English translations? Sorry about the mis-read of your name. My excuse is that I've had house guests all month, and for me that's exhausting. I do get confused on which Perso-Arabic techniques have made their way to India.

I wondering if anyone could clarify more on the history of divisional charts in India?

I have read that most of the traditional texts that explicitly teach a method of domification favour the Sripati system, described by the author Sripati in his 'Jatakakarmapaddhati' (c. 1050 CE).

I have also seen it suggested that in the 'Brihatparasharahorashastra' (c. ???) does not detail any one method of deriving the cusps, but it does contain passages which mention that the distance between two cusps is a variable factor, as with unequal house cusps.

Mark

I have been doing a bit digging around on the net. I managed to find an online copy of Johannes Vehlow's monumental 8 volume work Lehrkurs der wissenschaftlichen Geburts-Astrologie. Vehlow discusses his proposed equal house system (which cusps in the house centre) in Volume 1 which was published in 1933. This was two years before B.V. Raman's book appeared.

Vehlow had obviously been working with this system for several years before this publication. He doesn't mention any Indian influences in proposing this house system. Instead he seems strongly influenced by the Solar cycle and Egyptian mysticism. Vehlow points out the traditional orb of the Sun is 15 ? right and 15 ? left and imagines it rising on the ASC degree.

However, Vehlow does quote an English astrologer called EH Bailey who had written two articles in the ''British Journal of Astrology" from 1928 who advocated equal houses with central cusps. Bailey himself does attribute the idea to 'Hindu astrology' and quotes the astrological text of Sripati. At present he appears to be the first astrologer to propose this system in writing.

Although, from the quote Therese gave B.V. Raman may have been using the system successfully for much longer in private.

Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote:Martin, are those texts only in Sanskrit then, no English translations?

The T?jikan?laka??h? is the one text that seems to be translated into English (and Hindi, etc) over and over again. Watch out for the many different transcriptions of the title: Tajik Neelkanthi, etc. It opens with a description of the signs, including their elements. The translations are generally quite free, as is common in India.

Mark wrote:I wondering if anyone could clarify more on the history of divisional charts in India?

To Indian astrologers, the term 'divisional chart' will generally mean a chart (ku??al?) representing a certain division of the zodiacal signs, such as the nav???a or dv?da????a. But if I understand you correctly, it is house division you are interested in?

I have read that most of the traditional texts that explicitly teach a method of domification favour the Sripati system, described by the author Sripati in his 'Jatakakarmapaddhati' (c. 1050 CE).

Yes, I haven't seen any other quadrant system taught.

I have also seen it suggested that in the 'Brihatparasharahorashastra' (c. ???) does not detail any one method of deriving the cusps, but it does contain passages which mention that the distance between two cusps is a variable factor, as with unequal house cusps.

It does, or at least some recensions do; and others even include chapters with explicit instructions on calculating (Sripati) houses. The problem is that there are so many versions of the BPHS about, probably with interpolations from different periods. Pingree puts the composition of the original text between c. 600 and 800 CE, but what was in that text is another matter.

Martin Gansten wrote:[The T?jikan?laka??h? is the one text that seems to be translated into English (and Hindi, etc) over and over again. Watch out for the many different transcriptions of the title: Tajik Neelkanthi, etc. It opens with a description of the signs, including their elements. The translations are generally quite free, as is common in India.

Thank you, Martin. A Google search brought up Tajik Neelkanthi by D.P. Saxena available at vedicbooks.net. On sale for $9 U.S.
http://www.vedicbooks.net/tajik-neelkanthi-p-16085.html

Mark wrote:I have been doing a bit digging around on the net. I managed to find an online copy of Johannes Vehlow's monumental 8 volume work Lehrkurs der wissenschaftlichen Geburts-Astrologie. Vehlow discusses his proposed equal house system (which cusps in the house centre) in Volume 1 which was published in 1933. This was two years before B.V. Raman's book appeared.
(...)
However, Vehlow does quote an English astrologer called EH Bailey who had written two articles in the ''British Journal of Astrology" from 1928 who advocated equal houses with central cusps. Bailey himself does attribute the idea to 'Hindu astrology' and quotes the astrological text of Sripati. At present he appears to be the first astrologer to propose this system in writing.

I'm very happy to have this information, Mark. Thank you! You and others might find the full quote from B.V. Raman's A Manual of Hindu Astrology (Raman Publications 1935-1972) helpful, so I will give it here. I had left out a few words so as not to distract from the central issue. But after reading your post, it appears probable that Raman might have seen Bailey's articles since he studied western asrology, and there was the British-Indian political link. This doesn't necessarily indicate the origin of the system, but does privide support for a European-Indian exchange of astrological ideas. I have bolded the phrase I left out in my original post.

"...In India, there are two schools of thought bearing on the question of Bhava Sphutas (house-division). According to one view, shared by a vast majority of people not only in India but also in Europe and America, the length of each Bhava will be 30 degrees--the influence extending 15 degrees on either side of the ascending degree (equal house system).

"According to the other view, this system is unscientific because it ignores the relationship between the ecliptic and equator which should be considered for determining the dimensions of the Bhavas. Classical writers like Sripathi favor the determination of Bhavas on the lines given in the following paragraphs. In our humble experience extending for nearly 35 years the equal-house system appears to be yielding more satisfactory results." (page 96, revised 9th edition 1972)

Martin Gansten wrote:

To Indian astrologers, the term 'divisional chart' will generally mean a chart (ku??al?) representing a certain division of the zodiacal signs, such as the nav???a or dv?da????a. But if I understand you correctly, it is house division you are interested in?

Clearly, an unfortunate choice of words on my part. Following the theme of this thread though I was referring to a house system based on sign division in contrast to whole sign houses. The divisional charts (varga) are clearly a separate topic.

Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I'm very happy to have this information, Mark. Thank you! You and others might find the full quote from B.V. Raman's A Manual of Hindu Astrology (Raman Publications 1935-1972) helpful, so I will give it here. I had left out a few words so as not to distract from the central issue. But after reading your post, it appears probable that Raman might have seen Bailey's articles since he studied western asrology, and there was the British-Indian political link. This doesn't necessarily indicate the origin of the system, but does privide support for a European-Indian exchange of astrological ideas. I have bolded the phrase I left out in my original post.

"...In India, there are two schools of thought bearing on the question of Bhava Sphutas (house-division). According to one view, shared by a vast majority of people not only in India but also in Europe and America, the length of each Bhava will be 30 degrees--the influence extending 15 degrees on either side of the ascending degree (equal house system).

"According to the other view, this system is unscientific because it ignores the relationship between the ecliptic and equator which should be considered for determining the dimensions of the Bhavas. Classical writers like Sripathi favor the determination of Bhavas on the lines given in the following paragraphs. In our humble experience extending for nearly 45 years the equal-house system appears to be yielding more satisfactory results." (page 96)

Thanks Therese that is very useful. It is interesting that E.H. Bailey claims to have been using this middle cusp Equal House system for many years in his articles from 1928. Its an intriguing thought that he may have been influenced B.V. Raman. The British Empire dimension in India certainly made such intellectual cross fertilisation more likely. Moreover, the Theosophical movement had close ties to India too.

However, this may be a case of a quite independent stumbling upon a similar approach. Bailey had clearly studied the astrological text of Sripati, setting out his house system, which he cites in his article. Moreover, E.H. Bailey had previously collaborated with Alan Leo who advocated an Equal House variant with the ASC as the 1st house cusp from the turn of the century. So it wouldn't have been an immense leap for E.H. Bailey to have developed the idea quite independently of B.V. Raman.

The issue remains when did Johannes Vehlow first propose the system that carries his name in the west? Vehlow wrote a piece specifically on this house system in 1931 entitled , Das H?userproblem in der Astrologie (AsBl, 13.Jhg., Hefte 6, 8-9) (The House Problem in Astrology (ASBL, 13.Jhg., Notebooks 6, 8-9)

He also wrote earlier astrological works on the German Republic (1922) and President Paul Von Hindenburg (1925). I dont know if Vehlow was using the middle cusp Equal House system as early as this or not. I have contacted the Vehlow Society in Germany to try to track down his earliest mention of this system.

I haven't seen Vehlow attribute his approach to any Indian sources but that doesn't mean he wasn't influenced by them at least indirectly. There was clearly a lot of interest in Indian astrology in inter-war Germany. For example Wilhelm Wulff , famous for being Himmler's astrologer, wrote a series of works on Indian astrology from 1929 onwards.

I will put in an update here if I find out any more.

Mark

Hello Therese,

Something I dont quite follow about the quote you have provided from B.V. Raman above is his claim to have been using the Equal system with central cusps for 45 years.

B.V. Raman was only born in 1912 so it wasn't possible for him to have been using that system for 45 years in 1935.

So either these comments were written in a much later edition of A Manual of Hindu Astrology or if they do stem from 1935 he was introduced to this house system by his astrologer Grandfather Bangalore Suryanarain Rao and was referring to a family tradition of utilising this technique.

Mark

Mark wrote:Hello Therese,

Something I dont quite follow about the quote you have provided from B.V. Raman above is his claim to have been using the Equal system with central cusps for 45 years.

B.V. Raman was only born in 1912 so it wasn't possible for him to have been using that system for 45 years in 1935.

So either these comments were written in a much later edition of A Manual of Hindu Astrology or if they do stem from 1935 he was introduced to this house system by his astrologer Grandfather Bangalore Suryanarain Rao and was referring to a family tradition of utilising this technique.

Mark

Hi Mark,

First, 45 years was a typo. The book says 35 years, but that is still too many years from Raman's year of birth. Either he edited the book later than the first publication date or (as you suggested) he was referring to a family tradition utilizing the technique. My book has a ninth edition preface written in 1972, and Raman states:

"Several chapters have been entirely revised, re-cast and at some places re-written." (p. 2)

It seems certain that the reference to 35 years of experience was added to a later edition.

I first learned Indian astrology from Raman's books in the 1970s and was under the impression that the equal house system with the cusp at the center was the normal method of house division in India. This may well have been an assumed error on my part, but at that time Raman's family WAS astrology in India, at least as far as English publications were concerned.

I have a copy of Robert DeLuce's Constellational Astrology published in 1963, and it looks like he was using Sripati's method of house division.

My final house guest for June-July is soon to depart, and then I'll have more time for replies on the forum.