delete

dieterkoch wrote:I am afraid, you are wrong.

No, Dieter, I am not; but I haven't the time or the inclination to attempt to convince you, particularly as you have a very definite agenda which you seem determined to defend against nearly 1800 years' worth of tradition. I don't care much for arguments from authority, but I will take the liberty of pointing out that I have studied Sanskrit for 30 years (and taught it at two major universities) and Indian astrology for 23. As a result, I do know a thing or two about Sanskrit syntax, and also about the difference between the Indian categories of astronomy (ga?ita-jyoti?a) and astrology (phalita-jyoti?a).

Good luck with your studies.

Good morning,

Even or perhaps especially in India with its unbroken history of philosophic and religious, most often 'Polytheistic', diversity, mostly but not exclusively within the framework of the Sanskrit language, it would be surprising if one found something like a monolithic Indian astrological 'tradition', although people with more Jovial than Mercurial inclinations apparently often enjoy such a construction. Unanimity, unless imposed by brute force, apparently has been quite illusory in both ancient and modern times.

To summarise results of this thread until now, originated by yours truly, there is obviously no consensus even amongst highly qualified published experts fluent in Sanskrit that Indian astrology has been exclusively 'sidereal' (see comments about proper use of this word) since inception. It seems possible or likely that, as today, some Indian astrologers practised using a tropical zodiac of the Northern hemisphere, others using some kind of 'sidereal' zodiac of equal signs. Also consensus has apparently been lacking concerning the number of lunar mansions.

May i broaden the question to include the 'real' sidereal zodiac of unequal constellations and asterisms? What evidence, if any, is there that ancient and / or modern Indian astrologers, like for comparison the modern German astrologers Frau Maria Thun and Dr. med. Editha Torsson, used this zodiac for some delineation purposes, e. g. wandering stars in specific constellations and asterisms?

Although personally i am with those who enjoy the stimulation of open differences of opinions, especially amongst experts, perhaps they can simply 'agree to disagree' and avoid indulgence in unpleasant, unfruitful polemics.

As a provisional personal conclusion from this thread, it seems to me than even Claudius Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos might not be SO far removed from an Indian astrology based on the Samkya philosophy expounded by Kapila, especially considering the complementary 'mythological' view of the Hindu Elemental Goddesses and Gods Prithvi, Varuna, Agni and Vaya.

Here is a representation of the Earth Goddess Prithvi:
Best regards,

lihin

I have to say several people here all seem to have very set agendas.

Lithin-Keen to critique the equal sized sidereal zodiac at every opportunity. Frau Maria Thun and Dr. med. Editha Torsson seem to merit mentions on numerous threads on Skyscript. Also a clear preference for the Ptolemaic model.

Dieter-Trying to make a case that early Indian astrology was really tropical or at least heavily influenced by tropical ideas.

Varuna-Making the case that scholarship is essentially wrong on dating of Indian astrology and culture in general. Generally pushing back most dates provided by contemporary scholars about 2000-2500 years. Also arguing the Vedas substantiate a sophisticated sidereal astrological tradition thousands of years before contact with Mesopotamia/Persia let alone Greece. The Aryan invasion theory is another regular target.

Some of what seems to be going on here might be described as 'megaphone posting' where the poster only seems interested in promoting their own viewpoint. There appears little concern with listening or truly engage with what others have to say and learning from that. Instead we we seem to be involved in a lot of point scoring polemics. In my experience that is not a conducive environment to actually learn or share ideas.

As someone who is fairly agnostic on a lot of these hot topics I just felt the need to share my take on this thread.

Mark

Varuna,

varuna2 wrote: If calendar making and astrology are not separated then we have a huge problem when using a sidereal zodiac and a solar year.

Does not "observed" imply the planets amongst the stars? Is it possible to "observe" Tropical placements of planets? I thought the Tropical placements were dependent upon math?

You apparently refer to Yavanajataka 79.1, which I quoted in my last post.
Indeed, this is an interesting question, and it may seem in contradiction with my (and Pingree's) tropical interpretation of the rest of the chapter. But attention: The verse quotes older experts: "The wise say that the observed course (prad???a? caritam) of the planets...".
As it is a reference to earlier works it need not agree exactly with what Sphujidhvaja does.

Besides, tropical ephemerides are also observational, of course. If you know the current tropical positions of the fixed stars, then your direct observations of planetary positions will be "tropical".

varuna2 wrote: The Brhatsamhita 3.1 cited by you, refutes the Tropicalist position that the Indians were using a Tropical astrology.

"The Indians"? Varuna, ancient India had different authors and traditions with different ideas. The ideas of the Brhatsamhita disagree with those of the Yavanajataka.

I do not know how to construct astrology charts, but I thought the Solar Year or Tropical Zodiac was necessary for getting information on calculating certain chart placements? Regardless of which zodiac one uses, does not one need to calculate the Tropical Zodiac, in order to get certain data for an astrology chart?

It depends on what kind of ephemeris one uses. Ancient Indian astrologers did not need the tropical year or zodiac for sidereal planetary positions as long as they used sidereal ephemerides (e.g. based on the Suryasiddhanta). An ayanamsha would only have been required in order to calculate *tropical* ephemerides.

The situation is different for modern Indian astrologers, who rely on modern astronomical ephemerides. They start from tropical planetary positions and apply an ayanamsha in order to arrive at sidereal positions.

I do know the Indians were very concerned with the Solar Cycle for timing of rituals. So that in itself is enough reason (if I am wrong about the need for calculating Tropical positions even if using Sidereal) for them to calculate the "Tropical" or Solar Year.

But even today they celebrate uttarayana (the wintersolstice) on 14/15 January. Panchanga almanacs mostly ignore the equinoxes and solstices.

I suspect that Ptolemy had access to the Solar Cycle data from about 1900 bc which stated that the summer solstice was at 0 Leo, and I would call this Ptolemy's fundamental error,

You refer to Tetrabiblos 1.17, right? This is strange indeed. Ptolemy says that Leo and Cancer were the most northern zodiac signs. But this is in contradiction with his assumption that the solstices are located at the beginning of Cancer and Capricorn. I do not have a simple explanation for this his "bloomer?. I don?t believe that Ptolemy had access to such old sources.

Dieter

Good morning,

Our Moderator is alas somewhat off the mark in his expressed perception of yours truly and in my humble opinion would better abstain from personal remarks about his fellow forum members.

My view is that there is, has never been and will never be a one true comprehensive always valid astrology. Each thesis implies an antitheses. Both may be resolved, but often not, in a synthesis. At all levels generation includes the seed of corruption.

To put it differently: my perspective is usually more with the 'common' or 'mutable' (Shiva) energies than the apparent vast majorities who strongly identify mostly with stability ('fixed', Vishnu) or occasionally with creativity ('cardinal, movable', Brahm?). Here is a representation of the Dancing Shiva:
Best regards,

lihin

Lithin wrote:

Our Moderator is alas somewhat off the mark in his expressed perception of yours truly and in my humble opinion would better abstain from personal remarks about his fellow forum members.

Just to clarify I am not the moderator here Martin Gansten is. And my comment was not a personalised attack on anyone. I just wish we could all discuss the sources in a more open minded and respectful manner despite our differences.

Mark

Martin Gansten wrote: I haven't the time or the inclination to attempt to convince you, particularly as you have a very definite agenda which you seem determined to defend against nearly 1800 years' worth of tradition.

My agenda here is the truth about the Yavanajataka, honestly. Independently of the 1800 years of tradition that followed and that did not exist at that time. I find it pity that you are not willing to defend your understanding of the text.

I don't care much for arguments from authority, but I will take the liberty of pointing out that I have studied Sanskrit for 30 years (and taught it at two major universities) and Indian astrology for 23. As a result, I do know a thing or two about Sanskrit syntax, and also about the difference between the Indian categories of astronomy (ga?ita-jyoti?a) and astrology (phalita-jyoti?a).

I knew that when I entered the discussion.

Dieter

I have been looking at the text of the The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja myself. Its a fascinating text for many reasons.

One section that intrigues me is in Chapter 1 68-69 discussing the rising times of signs.

68. The measure of the rising-times of the first and last signs is
demonstrated with certainty to be two muhiirtas each; know that the
measure of the rising-times (of the rest of the signs) in the two halves of
the zodiac, taken (respectively) in direct and reverse order, is (two
muhurtas) with a fifth (of that measure) added (successively to each).

69. Knowing that the signs are thus measured as being short, medium, or
long, they consider the lengths of journeys as being similar to the
divisions of the zodiac (and the limbs of the zodiacal man)

I am afraid maths is not my strong suit. However, might this give us any clues to what zodiac is involved? Obviously, in the tropical zodiac we have signs of short, intermediate and long rising periods. I am genuinely unclear what is involved in calculating the rising times of sidereal equal sized signs. Would the same terminology make sense there too?

Incidentally, I have only managed to download a version without David Pingree's commentary. Has anyone read his commentary? What view did Pingree take on the text and the type of zodiac involved?

Mark

Mark wrote:I have been looking at the text of the The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja myself. Its a fascinating text for many reasons.

One section that intrigues me is in Chapter 1 68-69 discussing the rising times of signs.

68. The measure of the rising-times of the first and last signs is
demonstrated with certainty to be two muhiirtas each; know that the
measure of the rising-times (of the rest of the signs) in the two halves of
the zodiac, taken (respectively) in direct and reverse order, is (two
muhurtas) with a fifth (of that measure) added (successively to each).

69. Knowing that the signs are thus measured as being short, medium, or
long, they consider the lengths of journeys as being similar to the
divisions of the zodiac (and the limbs of the zodiacal man)

I am afraid maths is not my strong suit. However, might this give us any clues to what zodiac is involved? Obviously, in the tropical zodiac we have signs of short, intermediate and long rising periods. I am genuinely unclear what is involved in calculating the rising times of sidereal equal sized signs. Would the same terminology make sense there too?

Incidentally, I have only managed to download a version without David Pingree's commentary. Has anyone read his commentary? What view did Pingree take on the text and the type of zodiac involved?

Mark

Pingree's Translation
http://www.ancientindianastrology.com/c ... 2&cid=1979

Not everything Pingree translated as is correct(check the errata and re-interpret):

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdatauplo ... 60_211.pdf[/url]

I think Sphujidhwaja was trying to push his own ideas which were probably not as accepted or practised.That is why he had to give a method of calculation in his own way to prove a point.

Good day,

Based only on the English translations presented above, it seems to me that they refer to a tropical zodiac unless the vernal point coincided with a sign boundary of an equal-sign 'sidereal' zodiac when the book was written and / or for the period described.

As the equinoxes and solstices rarely (and depending on which of the many proposed 'sidereal' zodiacs is used) coincide with sign borders, astrologers working with such zodiacs are apparently quite rare (have yet to encounter even one) who avail themselves of various symmetries familiar to those working with the tropical zodiac of the Northern hemisphere in the framework of Hellenistic and / or Mediaeval astrologies, ex. gr.:

- antiscia and contra-antiscia
- seeing and hearing signs
- commanding and obeying signs.

To what extent, if at all, have these symmetries been applied in Indian astrology?

On the other hand, perhaps there are other techniques available to astrologers using equal-sign 'sidereal' zodiacs that are quite difficult to apply using the tropical zodiac of the Northern hemisphere.

Best regards,

lihin