The earliest surviving astrological classical texts, according to traditional Hindu chronology:

Shiva Jataka, Jyotisharnava Navanitam (Shiva)

Gauri Jataka (Gauri)

Ravana Samhita (Ravana)

Lomasha Samhita (Rishi Lomasha)

Narada Samhita (Rishi Narada)

Bhrigu Sutra, Bhrigu Samhita (Rishi Bhrigu)

Garga Hora (Rishi Garga)

Kashyapa Samhita (Rishi Kashyapa)

Vasistha Samhita (Rishi Vasistha)

Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra (Rishi Parashara)

Upadesha Sutras (Jaimini, son of Rishi Parasara)

Yavana Jataka (Rishi Yavanacharya)

Welcome to the forum. So how do you think Sanskrit texts attributed to Śiva or Lomaśa compare to Greek texts attributed to Anubis or Hermes Trismegistus? Which culture's deities and mythical sages are the oldest?

Arranging religious/mythological characters in presumed historical order (to what purpose?) strikes me as a very western thing to do. I've never come across an Indian author, and certainly not a classical Sanskrit one, doing something like that. Also, it must be a close call between Bhṛgu, N??rada and Vasiṣṭha, who are all the mind-born sons of Brahm??!

As it happens, there actually are some early (at least partly pre-horoscopic?) Sanskrit writings on astral and other divination attributed to a Garga (though not the Gargahor??, which is a much later text). There is an exploratory, Open Access paper on the subject here:
https://doi.org/10.18732/H2ND44

Lomasha received the knowledge of Jyotish from Brahma and Rama before all the other Rishis. This is written in the Lomasha Samhita. The rest of the Rishis also received this knowledge in a certain sequence. The last was Rishi Yavanacharya. And, he says directly in his Jataka that there were other Sages before him. Shiva and Gauri are put in first place due to the fact that Shiva and Devi are Gods, they existed before the birth of all other Rishis. Ravana studied with Shiva, so his Jyotish is identical to that of Shiva himself. Traditional Hindus, including Jyotisha astrologers within the traditional Sampradayas, do not accept any western scientific dating of their sacred texts. There are very good reasons for this, as in any other religious system. Indian astrology traditionally goes back to the Indian Gods, while Western astrology traditionally goes back to the Greco-Egyptian ones. I don’t see anything terrible in this, because official science does not recognize astrology, in any case. Which Gods are older or more correct is a matter of faith.

voltecerdi wrote:Traditional Hindus, including Jyotisha astrologers within the traditional Sampradayas, do not accept any western scientific dating of their sacred texts. There are very good reasons for this, as in any other religious system.

Shall we problematize that a bit? Let's start with the concepts 'sacred' and 'religious'. If they are as central to Indian astrology (and culture generally) as you suggest, there should be indigenous terms for them. I know of none, and I have studied Sanskrit for forty years. Do you?

There are in fact large numbers of Hindus who are entirely open to the scholarly dating of Sanskrit texts, including texts attributed to mythical authors. (You may of course choose to define 'traditional' as 'anti-historical', but that would make your statement merely a piece of circular reasoning.) I personally know highly orthoprax Brahmins who are also professional academics working on the history of Indian literature, science, etc. Being steeped in tradition is not the same as being blinkered.

The trope of any form of knowledge being passed down from the gods to human beings is a pervasive one in Indian culture. When Arabic-language astrology entered India with Islam, it wasn't long before someone came up with a myth about the Hindu sun god having been cursed by Brahm??, Viṣṇu and Śiva to be born in 'Rome' (= Byzantium) and teaching astrology to the foreign barbarians, which made it all right to study their books. Needless to say, not everyone took that claim seriously.

Which Gods are older or more correct is a matter of faith.

On that, at least, we can agree. Which is why I suggest that we respectfully place the gods and sages to one side and focus on actual astrology in this forum. You already started one thread on the correct ayan??ṃśa, a subject of unfailing interest. Would you perhaps like to offer some examples that, in your opinion, demonstrate the superiority of your preferred precessional value?

Some individual Hindus who have received a Western education may recognize the scientific chronology and dating of Sanskrit texts. But most of these things do not recognize, do not even hesitate. And if we accept the opinion of science that the Yavana Jataka was the first zodiac text in India, and this text was brought by some not the greatest Greek astrologer, then the rest of Jyotish will have no meaning and value. Because there are older, more authentic texts on zodiacal astrology. But even Greco-Egyptian astrology will lose all value, if you honestly follow the scientific chronology. Because the texts of Babylonian astrology are even more ancient, and the Babylonian zodiac astrology was original and it was much different. This means that all subsequent zodiacal astrology, after the most ancient Babylonian, is erroneous and does not make any sense at all. Therefore, it is clear that none of the orthodox is going to accept the scientific chronology and dating of texts. And this topic is not devoted to scientific chronology and dating, which have long been known to everyone who wants to know. By the way, many of these datings are disputable, because texts originally transmitted only orally cannot be accurately dated at all, experienced orientalists are well aware of this.

Well, I'm not going to try to convince you that a Christian literalist-style view of religious myth is actually not integral to most versions of Hinduism, so let me address this instead:

And this topic is not devoted to scientific chronology and dating, which have long been known to everyone who wants to know.

If you want a thread devoted to unscientific/unscholarly chronology and dating, then this forum is not for you. Informed discussion of real problems in dating texts is welcome, however.

It is true that datings of texts are often uncertain – you seem unaware, for instance, that several scholars including Bill Mak have refuted Pingree's dating of the Yavanaj??taka – but it doesn't follow that mythological accounts or ideas of oral transmission over centuries or millennia are equally credible. (India has known such transmission, particularly of the Veda, and the amount of mnemonic devices and sheer hard work that goes into it is extremely impressive. But writing has been used in India for more than 2,000 years.)

There is in fact very good evidence that horoscopic astrology entered India from the Greek-speaking northwest, and at least partly through written sources. I have made my own small contribution towards the gathering of such evidence in this short paper:
https://doi.org/10.18732/hssa66

But I'd like to address your assumption that if we accept this,

then the rest of Jyotish will have no meaning and value. Because there are older, more authentic texts on zodiacal astrology. But even Greco-Egyptian astrology will lose all value [...] Because the texts of Babylonian astrology are even more ancient, and [...] all subsequent zodiacal astrology, after the most ancient Babylonian, is erroneous and does not make any sense at all.

The fact that A is older than B, or that B is derived from A but has developed in new directions, does not tell us anything about their respective value, whether they are right or wrong, make sense or not. Those are separate questions. Only if you start out from the assumption that there was an original, divine revelation of a perfect system of astrology do age and value become entangled, leading to ideologically motivated pseudo-history. But in the words of the classical Sanskrit poet K??lid??sa, प???राणमित???येव न साध??? सर???वम??? pur??ṇam ity eva na s??dhu sarvam: not everything is good simply because it is old.

I already told you that most Indian pundits and ordinary Hindus do not accept such studies and such logic. Hindus easily find evidence of the existence of the zodiac in India already in the riddle hymns of the Rigveda and in the Vedanga Jyotisha (Lagadha). Long before the beginning of the Indo-Greek kingdom and long before the penetration of any Greek influences. India has its own scholars and they write their own national history, which the Indians rightly reject the determining influence of the mleccha cultures. And if you are such a zealous supporter of Western science, then you should completely abandon any astrology at all. Because according to Western academic science in general, any astrology is false, is pseudoscience, profanity, does not bring any benefit, but only creates a false picture of the world among the ignorant, etc.

Well, I'm going to out myself here to a certain extent: I have been intimately acquainted with Hindu beliefs and practices for forty years, and a formal convert to a very traditional Hindu lineage for more than half that time (with an orthoprax, widely respected South Indian sanny??sin for a teacher/??c??rya), while simultaneously working as an academic in several universities in the west. So you must forgive me if I smile when you try to inform me about what Hindus on the one hand, and western academics on the other, do or do not believe.

Let's go back to discussing astrology, shall we?

In South India, not classical Jyotish is usually practiced, but Nadi Jyotish.

Martin Gansten wrote:I have been intimately acquainted with Hindu beliefs and practices for forty years, and a formal convert to a very traditional Hindu lineage for more than half that time (with an orthoprax, widely respected South Indian sanny??sin for a teacher/??c??rya), while simultaneously working as an academic in several universities in the west.

In that case, here's a simple question for You. What is the gender of Rahu? I need an answer with pramanas from Jyotisha Shastras.

voltecerdi wrote:In South India, not classical Jyotish is usually practiced, but Nadi Jyotish.

I don't think you read my previous post properly: I didn't mention studying astrology in South India. In any case, you couldn't be more wrong: South Indians have been over-represented among astrological authors both historically (see, for instance, Pingree's Jyotiḥś??stra [Wiesbaden 1981]) and in modern times (see my entry 'Modern Astrologers' in Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism, available on my Academia page).

In that case, here's a simple question for You. What is the gender of Rahu? I need an answer with pramanas from Jyotisha Shastras.

Sorry, I'm not here to be tested by you. If you want to discuss the question, feel free to ask forum members about their views, including which sources they may have read. (Personally I barely use the nodes.)

I'm not wrong. The main astrology in Kerala and Tamil Nadu is the various Naadi schools. This is not the classical Jyotish practiced in central and northern India. If you write articles on these topics somewhere, then at least you should know about it. And for some reason, an elementary question on Indian astrology turns out to be too complicated for you. Well, I understand everything.