Paul wrote:As far as I understand it it was actually based a bit on both. For example we clearly see in sites like Newgrange etc. that the ancients were concerned also with tropical considerations such as the solstices.
As far as I know jyotish astrology still uses an equal sign zodiac - thus deciding that actually every single constellation can be ignored with the exception of Aries - why is this?
Also why do jyotish astrologers suggest that the Sun rules Leo and Mars rules Aries etc which are clearly a tropical northern hemisphere assignation. When precessing, why not also precess latitude? Why only longitude?
The problems with the zodiac used by jyotish are numerous.
I don't really care enough about jyotish astrology to diminish it. However, in my opinion, it clearly has many questions to answers regarding its apparently contradictory logic with regards its zodiac.
om
You are as ignorant as I am on the study of the origins and even the mechanisms of all astrology systems, therefore, I would offer a challenge on this, and you would be the only one to take this challenge.
Did you notice how no one else opened their mouth on this, except Mark, but Mark only did this to tell the two little schoolchildren to settle down now, and he showed us some information that reveals our own ignorance. Now, instead of two ignorant fools wasting their time revealing their own ignorance to each other, why don't we return to our studies? Then someday we will have earned the right to even open our mouth on this forum or any one, concerning broader astrology issues.
One of the authorities on origins of so-called Western astrology is said to be Robert Hand, I don't know if it is true or not. Hand said that the earliest astrology writings from the Near East use stars to mark positions of planets. Is this true?
What astrology system is based on Newgrange? Yes, probably every culture knew about seasons and marked them - it is kind of hard not to notice seasons, unless you are on the equator. Ancient Indians also used the seasons, but for some reason they chose to use a star-based astrology, but they still kept track of seasons separately.
Did it ever occur to you that there could be more than one cycle of things imposed on other cycles of things in the same culture? It seems like it has occurred to you, but you insist on questioning jyotish, without having studied the earliest origins of both systems, and learning both systems.
There are still vast amounts of obscure and untranslated texts in India, and some day in the future, these texts will shine more light on the current understandings of astrology and its history.
If you would care to study jyotish you would see the erroneous statements you already made. Whoever told you that Aries is the only constellation jyotishis pay attention to? When you have a star-based zodiac you take a particular placement and base the zodiac on that, just as you would by picking the vernal equinox as the 0 point for a tropical zodiac, for example. Your argument contradicts your own position as well.
The constellation of Aries doesn't even reach to either end of the sidereal sign of Aries. Why would jyotish base their signs on Aries? Who said they do this in the first place? I do not know what tree you are choosing to see, rather than the forest. I do not understand you.
The signs are 30 degrees because they take into account the influence of the surrounding galaxy and of the physics of harmonics at the same time. It is an elegant solution.
The names of the constellations and their shapes are arbitrary and placed on them by humans. It makes absolutely no difference if one constellation overlaps another one or not, as it were. You are seeing a tree and not the forest. The important thing about the star-based zodiac is the harmonic resonance, not the fact that some man-made attribute of an arbitrary shaped group of stars is one way or another. It is those regions of the sky (surrounding stars and galaxy) which matter in jyotish, not the arbitrary shape of a constellation.
The nakshatra which is placed on the galactic center is called the "root." It is believed that even in those ancient times, some people knew the galactic center was there.
According to the links Mark gave, the notion that rulerships and exaltations is based on the northern-hemisphere seasons is unverified and unproven.
They don't precess the latitude for the same reason that declination is unnecessary in Western astrology to give a reading. But more importantly, you are looking at it through the lens of the Tropical system, if you think more deeply about this you will realize the absurdity of the allegation of "not precessing the latitude." Hint: think about it by switching the idea that whichever zodiac you think is fixed, is also movable from the viewpoint of the other, and vice versa. Everything is relative to each other.
The problems with jyotish are only numerous in your mind, due to lack of knowledge. Someday you will understand why Ed made that statement on the thread at astrodienst about the recent article which questioned jyotish roots. I believe it was one of the last comments Ed made if you would care to look. It was something along the lines of using consistent techniques and logic from whichever points one wanted to use. Everything in the universe is in motion. Everything is relative. In order to create a system one needs to apply arbitrary logic to it to stabilize it in this ever changing universe.
It might be helpful to try this thought experiment: Imagine that you are standing in whichever orientation you are standing in right now and take away the earth. Which way is up? Take away the solar system. Which way is up? Take away the galaxy. Which way is up? Take away the local galaxy cluster. Which way is up? Take away the visible universe. Which way is up?
Everything is relative.
Systems were created in order to create something meaningful out of this relativity. The secret is that stability is a lie.
What contradictory logic are you talking about in jyotish? The contradictions are in your own lack of understanding jyotish, combined with an apparently deep prejudice. I do not mean that you are prejudiced against jyotish, but that your previous training has dirtied the lens of your mind from seeing alternative things with clarity.
The house cusps in Western astrology are placed on the front of the house, which is contrary to jyotish. This is why oftentimes the cusp ruler of various houses in Western astrology is the same as it would be in jyotish.
If you truly believe, without proof, that the rulerships and such are a northern hemisphere seasonal invention, then how do you dare to delineate a chart from Australia using Western astrology? I am not suggesting that you should stop interpreting Australian charts, but maybe you should think about these things before attacking another relative system.
The hellenistic astrologers are to astrology history, what the industrial revolution is to general history. In other words, the hellenistic astrologers came long after astrology began. If you have only studied hellenistic astrology or post-hellenistic astrology, then you know nothing about the early astrology.
I would consider Mark's advice and maybe spend time learning rather than arguing about things you don't even understand in the first place. I am certainly taking that advice myself. But you are free to do as you choose, or are you? (karma, astrological predispositions, etc.)
Before you think you have earned the right to challenge the logic or whatever, of a thing, you need to understand the thing, in my view at least.
peace
om
