Martin Gansten wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 7:28 pm 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.

It is essential to clarify that the absence of explicit descriptions in a text does not necessarily negate the existence or acceptance of a concept at a given time.
I acknowledge that the argument lacks direct evidence, but it is necessary to recognize that some historical and cultural contexts may not provide comprehensive documentation. In the absence of explicit references, it becomes challenging to dismiss the existence or acceptance of certain concepts solely based on the silence of the texts.

The absence of explicit descriptions does not automatically imply the non-existence or non-acceptance of a concept. It is plausible that certain ideas were considered implicit knowledge or assumed to be understood by the intended audience. (See my comment below.)

While it is crucial to establish these links more explicitly, that doesn't necessarily mean they are entirely absent. It is important to consider that the absence of a direct link in the texts does not preclude the possibility of a conceptual foundation.

Further exploration and analysis may reveal implicit connections that were not overtly expressed in the texts.

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.

I understand that Indian astrology has indeed evolved over time, with different regions and periods contributing to its development. However, this evolution does not imply a complete rupture or disconnection between various concepts. Some fundamental principles and practices have persisted, forming a thread of continuity despite regional and temporal variations. Until modern times, Jyotish is an oral tradition passed from master to pupil. The texts also view astrology as a living tradition but are more like modern ‘Cliff notes’ than full textbooks and anticipate that individuals engaging with them will have guidance from their guru or teacher. The teacher would then clarify any complexities, helping the learner comprehend the intricacies of astrology.

The assertion that ārūḍha and sāṛhesātī belong to different regions and eras does not necessarily negate the possibility of a common underlying principle or conceptual link. While variations exist, it is plausible that certain core ideas or methodologies have transcended geographical and chronological boundaries, contributing to the perceived mixing of concepts.

Indian astrology, like any other knowledge system, has witnessed the exchange and assimilation of ideas across regions and eras. The presence of shared concepts or similar methodologies in different traditions might be attributed to the cross-pollination of astrological knowledge rather than an arbitrary mixing of unrelated concepts.

You also keep referring to videos you have watched and people whose authority you accept, rather than to actual textual sources. … 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.)

I acknowledge that relying on authorities, even well-regarded ones like P.S. Sastri, doesn't guarantee unanimity of opinions. People highly regarded in a field may indeed disagree on specific issues. However, it is not uncommon in academic and scholarly pursuits to refer to various authorities to present a spectrum of perspectives, acknowledging the diversity of opinions within the field. You appear unable to accept that there are other scholarly opinions and that they can differ in their interpretations and conclusions from yours.

(I do know of P.S. Sastri [not Shastri] and have some of his translations.

I appreciate the correction in spelling regarding P.S. Sastri (not Shastri), but it seems you couldn't overlook pointing out an obvious typo.

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

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

I appreciate your perspective and the importance you place on first-hand engagement with texts. While I may not have the ability to personally read every text mentioned, I am comfortable that I have formed my opinion based on well-informed insights based on available resources, scholarly research, and a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

Understanding the assumptions of past astrological practices is challenging because historical documents, though useful, provide only speculative insights. Addressing historical astrology can be speculative, particularly when relying solely on texts, potentially overlooking the importance of oral traditions. Ignoring the oral tradition reduces its relevance, and arguing a viewpoint based solely on historical texts will always be inconclusive in understanding ancient astrological practices, especially before written records. Recognizing that the oral tradition predates written records complicates the study of historical astrology.

As always, be well.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:32 pm 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.

Hi Therese:
I've been intending to circle back to your insightful reflections on the art of translation, particularly within the realm of Indian astrological texts. Instead of quoting each section individually, I'll just chatter away. lol

Thanks for sharing your insightful thoughts on the art of translation, especially in the context of Indian astrological texts. Your exploration of the dual layers of any work of art—the literal and the spiritual—resonates deeply.

Your reflection on Yogananda's experiment with art immersion to attune himself to the consciousness of other artists is intriguing and adds a personal touch. I remember this story too, but like you, I can't remember where I read it now. Your emphasis on the translator's consciousness, particularly in the realm of Indian astrological texts, highlights the importance of connecting with the spiritual dimension within any work.

Your admiration for B. Suryanarain Rao's translations is comes through strongly, and it's wonderful that you possess copies of his works with such sentimental value. I agree that the dedication and meticulousness Rao brings to his translations, coupled with his immersive approach, are about as close as you will get to capturing the essence of ancient India's astrology in English. The description of Rao's use of Sanskrit words and the detailed expansion of their meanings mirror the intricacies of the art of translation.

I concur with your candid acknowledgment of Rao's potential shortcomings in other respects too. Your comment reflects the complexity of human endeavors and the ability to extract valuable insights even amidst imperfections.

Thanks also for sharing your personal journey as a student of astrology, and your decision not to become an astrologer due to karmic considerations adds a unique dimension to your story. Your advice to aspiring students to delve into Rao's works, as well as his grandson B.V. Raman's, for a deeper understanding of traditional Indian astrology is a valuable recommendation since so much of the current learning materials are compromised with western concepts.

Your closing thoughts on the soul or spirit of astrology, as conveyed in conversations with pundits and the essence carried by traditionalists, resonate with the quest for authenticity in the pursuit of knowledge. Your distinction between older translations and modern Western "Jyotish" texts provides valuable guidance to those navigating the diverse landscape of astrological studies.

Your contribution enriches our collective understanding of astrology, and I'm sure many readers, myself included, find inspiration in your words.

Thank you, and be well.

AJ, your post bright tears to my eyes! I thought you would be the person who understood what I was trying to say. So your response was heart warming. When I said, "We learn from Rao's books that there is a great deal on India's astrology that never made it's way into the standard texts," I most definitely did not mean to include quadrant houses. India's traditional chart designs speak more loudly than any text. They're all Rasi (sign) charts which have always been the foundation chart of India's astrology.

In the astrology of the human soul varga (divisional) charts and nakshatra measurements take the place of the various non-zodiacal technical western innovations. In its purity India's astrology is zodiac and star based. Western house innovations (appropriate for mundane astrology) have brought astrology much closer to earth, leaving the sky behind. David Roell even insisted that tropical astrology was earth-based. ("Astrology Under Our Feet," Forward to George J. McCormack's A Textbook of Long-Range Weather Forcasting, Astrology Classics 2012.)

AJ, I have deeply appreciated your thoughts and the extensive time you have taken in the discussion with Martin. A number of times I wanted to add comments, but thought it best not to intrude on the conversation. But my previous post which you have mentioned here more or less summarized my perspective.

As for the Sanskrit being the letter of the law in classical translations, I didn't mention it previously but there are places in his translations where Rao simply says: "What the author is saying here cannot be right, and here are the reasons." One has to have a deep understanding of his own nation's astrology to make a statement like that.

kudos on a lovely exchange aj and therese! i enjoyed reading it..

i was reading this last night and thought the quote was relevant, so i am sharing it here...

"A fish trap is for catching fish; once you catch the fish, you can forget about the trap. A rabbit snare is for catching rabbits; once you've caught the rabbit, you can forget about the snare. Words are for catching ideas; once you've caught the idea, you can forget about the words. Where can I find a person who knows how to forget about words so I can have a few words with him?

i think this is applicable here.... ultimately it is about learning about the practice of astrology, whether it is from the deep past, or today in the present.. at least that is my focus and priority, as opposed to finding the right interpretation of some text examined 100's or 1000's of years later without knowing the context of actually being their to experience it first hand.. it's in a persons practicing of the art of astrology, with an emphasis on the word art - that is most interesting to me.. there is so much more that we don't know then what we do know.. i think it's wise to keep that in mind no matter our level of expertise, or lack of it in any area under consideration..

AJ wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2024 12:36 pm You appear unable to accept that there are other scholarly opinions and that they can differ in their interpretations and conclusions from yours.

Not at all, but scholarly opinion is always based on argument, including refutation of opposing or erroneous views, and that includes Indian scholarly traditions (as anyone knows who has studied Sanskrit śāstra literature with its rich commentarial tradition). Here is a fairly recent work on that topic. Scholarship is largely about establishing facts and weeding out errors, at least unless you're an out-and-out postmodernist, which I confess I'm not.

Addressing historical astrology can be speculative, particularly when relying solely on texts, potentially overlooking the importance of oral traditions.

Any sort of historical study can be speculative, but we should strive to make it as little so as possible. Regarding the views of present-day practitioners (extremely few of whom, incidentally, are part of unbroken chains of tradition) as a window into the past is beyond speculative. The kindest word I can find for it is 'naïve'.

Therese Hamilton wrote: India's traditional chart designs speak more loudly than any text. They're all Rasi (sign) charts which have always been the foundation chart of India's astrology.

Indian sign charts (rāśi-cakra) and house charts (bhāva-cakra) look exactly the same as each other. With the exception of the anti-clockwise South Indian variant (the history of which I have never seen explained or discussed, but which I suspect may have been based on some other form of divination), they also look the same as Greek, Perso-Arabic and western European astrological charts, just turned 90° to put east at the top in the standard manner of Indian maps. There is nothing uniquely Indian about them, and in fact most of the designs used tend to emphasize the four angular houses (just do an image search for 'Indian horoscope manuscript').

Martin wrote:

Indian sign charts (rāśi-cakra) and house charts (bhāva-cakra) look exactly the same as each other.

Actually India never devised a bhava chart form if by "bhava" is meant quadrant houses. This is all the evidence we need that whole sign houses continued to be the dominant preference for astrologers. In contrast the circular chart form evolved in the west to better accommodate quadrant houses. Cusps and planets in quadrant houses are easily seen in circular charts.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:48 pm your response was heart warming.

Hey Therese: Your response also truly touched me, and I'm grateful for the warm connection we've established through this and other past discussions. It's heartening to know that my words resonated with you and that we share a common understanding of the depth and essence of India's astrology.

Your clarification about the focus on Rasi charts as the foundation of India's astrology adds additional insight, and I'm so glad you brought that point into sharp focus. It's fascinating to explore the differences in approach, with varga charts and nakshatra measurements playing a significant role in capturing the intricacies of the human soul. Your contribution sheds light on the rich tradition that goes beyond textual explanations and emphasizes the visual language of traditional chart designs.

I appreciate your decision to share your perspective, and I'm glad we can engage in this meaningful exchange of ideas. It's a pleasure to be part of this conversation, and I welcome any future insights or thoughts you may have.

Thank you for your kind words and for contributing to this enriching dialogue. I look forward to more shared reflections and learning together.

As always, be well.

james_m wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:41 pm kudos on a lovely exchange aj and therese! i enjoyed reading it..

i was reading this last night and thought the quote was relevant, so i am sharing it here...

James: The quote you shared about the transience of tools once their purpose is fulfilled is thought-provoking and beautifully applicable to various aspects of life, including the exploration of astrology.

Indeed, the true essence lies in the experiential journey of interpreting the celestial language rather than fixating solely on historical texts. Your focus on the "art" of astrology adds a nuanced perspective, acknowledging the creativity and intuition involved in the process.

Could I say that your humility? LOL, and acknowledgment of the vast unknowns in astrology highlight a valuable aspect of continuous learning and curiosity.

It's refreshing to see someone prioritize the journey of discovery over the pursuit of a fixed, unyielding interpretation.

Thank you for sharing your insightful thoughts.

As always, be well.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 6:57 pm Not at all, but scholarly opinion is always based on argument, including refutation of opposing or erroneous views, and that includes Indian scholarly traditions (as anyone knows who has studied Sanskrit śāstra literature with its rich commentarial tradition). Here is a fairly recent work on that topic. Scholarship is largely about establishing facts and weeding out errors, at least unless you're an out-and-out postmodernist, which I confess I'm not.

While I appreciate the acknowledgment of the scholarly nature of Indian traditions and the emphasis on argumentation, I would like to offer a nuanced perspective on the statement.

Firstly, the assertion that scholarly opinion is always based on argument, including refutation of opposing or erroneous views, is a generalization that might oversimplify the diversity within scholarly approaches. While argumentation and critical analysis are undoubtedly crucial aspects of scholarly endeavors, it is important to recognize that not all scholarly traditions exclusively follow this model. Some intellectual traditions may prioritize synthesis, exploration, or dialectical engagement rather than a straightforward refutation.

Acknowledging the Sanskrit śāstra literature and its extensive commentarial tradition is relevant; however, the diversity within Indian philosophical and scholarly traditions is vast, encompassing various schools of thought and perspectives. It would be misleading to present them as a monolithic entity adhering to a singular approach.

The link to the mentioned work on vāda in theory and practice is appreciated for those interested in delving into the subject. However, it is crucial to note that even within the realm of scholarship, perspectives may differ and interpretations may vary.

While the statement dismisses postmodernist approaches to scholarship, it is essential to recognize that engaging with diverse viewpoints, including postmodernist perspectives, can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of any subject. A balanced scholarly approach involves not only refutation but also an open-minded exploration of different paradigms and a recognition of the evolving nature of knowledge.

The emphasis on argumentation and refutation is acknowledged within Indian scholarly traditions; it is crucial to avoid oversimplifications and recognize the diversity inherent in these traditions. Additionally, a more inclusive approach to engaging with various scholarly perspectives, including postmodernism, can enrich the discourse and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the subject at hand.

Any sort of historical study can be speculative, but we should strive to make it as little so as possible. Regarding the views of present-day practitioners (extremely few of whom, incidentally, are part of unbroken chains of tradition) as a window into the past is beyond speculative. The kindest word I can find for it is 'naïve'.

While acknowledging the inherent speculative nature of historical studies, it is essential to recognize that historical inquiry often requires a level of speculation due to the inevitable gaps and limitations in available evidence. The notion of striving to minimize speculation is commendable, but it's crucial to understand that the study of history is not a static process; it evolves with new discoveries, reinterpretations, and methodologies.

Now, regarding present-day practitioners and the characterization as 'naïve,' it's important to exercise caution when making such generalizations. While it is true that modern perspectives may not directly reflect historical realities, dismissing them entirely can overlook valuable insights.
Dismissing present-day practitioners as 'naïve' when attempting to understand the past overlooks the potential insights that can be gained from their perspectives. While it's true that not all contemporary practitioners are part of unbroken chains of tradition, those that are within a tradition can provide valuable clues and interpretations about historical practices.

Moreover, historical studies often involve a convergence of various sources, including written records, archaeological findings, and oral traditions. Integrating the perspectives of present-day practitioners can serve as another layer in this multidimensional approach, providing additional context and potential insights that will enhance the overall historical narrative.

It is important to avoid a rigid dichotomy between 'speculation' and 'certainty' in historical research.

Indian sign charts (rāśi-cakra) and house charts (bhāva-cakra) look exactly the same as each other. With the exception of the anti-clockwise South Indian variant (the history of which I have never seen explained or discussed, but which I suspect may have been based on some other form of divination), they also look the same as Greek, Perso-Arabic and western European astrological charts, just turned 90° to put east at the top in the standard manner of Indian maps. There is nothing uniquely Indian about them, and in fact most of the designs used tend to emphasize the four angular houses (just do an image search for 'Indian horoscope manuscript').

Therese I hope you don't mind me jumping in here to piggyback on your answer to Martin's statement. Just a few thoughts.
While it is true that Indian sign charts (rāśi-cakra) and house charts (bhāva-cakra) may share visual similarities with charts from other astrological traditions, it is essential to consider the deeper philosophical and interpretative distinctions that set Indian astrology apart. Therese has already addressed this.

The shared design can be simply attributed to a common graphical expediency across cultures to diagram the horoscope in two dimensions, with or without a straight edge and a pen. I use the square format myself very often when I need to manually draw a chart because it is quick and I do not need a straight edge. The emphasis on the four angular houses, as observed in many designs, could be seen as another feature shared across various astrological traditions.

Regarding the South Indian variant, while its historical origins might not be fully explained, it is an intriguing mystery. I would be interested in your thoughts on its origin. I also understand that it may not be something easily explained in a forum post and, of course, would be a separate topic.

Be well.

I feel this discussion has outlived its usefulness, although I'm happy to discuss actual, concrete textual passages and the like if any more such should crop up. (That, incidentally, is something I have been doing for a living for decades, not least reading and teaching others to read Sanskrit commentarial literature across several genres.)

As for chart design and its (ir)relevance for the question of house division, the historical evidence is freely available, these days, to anyone who cares to look for it. Modern western-style wheel charts have been around for barely 200 years, while quadrant houses have been used since antiquity. Indian chart designs are no different from the Hellenistic ones from which they were derived, and longitudes of both planets and houses are always listed separately, in tabular format, in Indian manuscripts and horoscope scrolls.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:25 pm I feel this discussion has outlived its usefulness, although I'm happy to discuss actual, concrete textual passages and the like if any more such should crop up.

I feel the same. Thanks for your offer to discuss other textual passages.

As for chart design and its (ir)relevance for the question of house division, the historical evidence is freely available, these days, to anyone who cares to look for it. Modern western-style wheel charts have been around for barely 200 years, while quadrant houses have been used since antiquity. Indian chart designs are no different from the Hellenistic ones from which they were derived, and longitudes of both planets and houses are always listed separately, in tabular format, in Indian manuscripts and horoscope scrolls.

I am aware of the overall history of chart design and the related resources, etc., and I agree it is not directly relevant to the discussion.
What I was interested in is that you suggested in your earlier post that you had a theory of how the anti-clockwise southern Indian square chart was perhaps derived from divinatory practices aside from astrology. If I understood your statement correctly.

Be well.