Martin Gansten wrote:
On the rest of what you write, I largely disagree. The Indians as well as the Greeks did differentiate between (what we now call) mathematical astronomy and (what we now call) horoscopic astrology. Of course they are related, but the latter is a much more circumscribed and (relatively speaking) securely datable and traceable body of knowledge than the former. If Pingree was wrong about the one, it doesn't follow that he was wrong about the other.
I suppose it depends how pedantic one wants to be here. In the narrow sense I dont dispute what you are saying. However, from a broader perspective my position has a basis in Indian culture too.
Lets start with your position. This appears to be summarised by Bill Mak as follows:
Traditionally, jyotisa was viewed as one of the auxillary disciplines associated with the Vedas (Vedanga). The prevalent classification follows the tripartite scheme given in Varahamihira?s (505-578 CE) Brhatsamhita, namely ganita (mathematical astronomy), hora (genelithical astrology or horoscopy) and samhita ( natural astronomy or miscellaneous divinations). Varahamihira produced three major works in each of these categories, namely Pancasiddhantika, Brhatjjatika and Brhatsamhita, which in turn became the authority in the respective domains up to the present day.
Taking this approach the two fields are certainly distinguishable. However, there is a broader outlook which can also be used in Indian tradition. For example at the outset of his article ?
Astronomers and Their Reasons: Working Paper on jyotisastra', Christopher Minokowski writes:
??Sanskrit knowledge systems, the scientific tradition of Jyotis, Jyotisastra, a term that includes the disciplines of mathematics, astronomy and divination?.
Also David Pingree himself wrote the book
Jyotisastra - A History of Indian Astral and Mathematical Literature which reviewed Indian astrological and astronomical literature together.
So the precedent of linking astronomy and astrology together at times seems indigenous to India and not something I am just subjectively seeking to impose retrospectively. That is not to suggest they were synonymous either though. Clearly, there is a large volume of Jyotisa astrological literature with negligible astronomical or mathematical content.
Still I don?t think it is invalid to examine Pingree?s work on the history of Indian astronomy in the context of this discussion. Not least as some of the recent criticism of his translation of the astrological text known as the
Yavanaj?taka actually concerns a chapter devoted exclusively to astronomy!
I should say that I have never suggested Pingree was ?wrong? in all these controversies. I am not qualified enough to ultimately judge. I simply recount that academics who are suitably qualified have been critical of some of his assumptions. The interesting point is that both in the astronomical and astronomical texts he worked on the most controversial element frequently seems to come down to disputes regarding indigenous concepts vs foreign transmission of ideas. While I think Pingree left a phenomenal academic legacy behind him I don?t think that means we have to take a uncritical attitude to all his conclusions.
Martin Gansten wrote:
Yes, but he doesn't call into question the Greek origins of horoscopic astrology.
Absolutely not. I never suggested this anywhere though did I?
Clearly though from the earliest stage Indian astrology was never just a clone of the hellenistic tradition in the way very early Persian astrology was. References to basic hellenistic notions such as the bounds, the lots, planetary sect are missing in the earliest Indian horoscopic astrology. In contrast uniquely Indian notions like the vargas, yogas, ashtakavarga, and a unique position on retrograde planets all seem present from a fairly stage. We also have the distinctive Indian lunar zodiac or nakshatras.
However, I don?t wish to be misunderstood here. I therefore need to clarify that my points regarding Pingree were fairly subtle ones. It was merely a passing comment which you picked me up on. The criticisms he has received concern quite specific areas of academic interpretation and not the broad sweep of history.
I dont wish to be identified in any way with the Hindu chauvanist critics of David Pingree who condemn him as a prejudiced or even racist westerner. It seems to me Pingree has become a particular target for the Hindu nationalists or their fellow travellers seeking to challenge the Aryan invasion theory. For advocates of this approach, such as the astrologer David Frawley, the idea of an Aryan invasion to North India was a myth and the early Vedas were composed by an indigenous Indians.
The Hindu separatist mentality seems to have leaked into some astrological discussions too in India. Hence, the astrological influence of Greek astrology is often denied with claims that horoscopic astrology is all indigenous and has scriptural basis in the Vedas. Academics like David Pingree, who was probably the strongest proponent of cultural influences from outside India, inevitably attracts a degree of animosity from such quarters.
I personally, think Pingree was a remarkable and gifted man. The range of languages he studied in astrological and astronomical texts is surely unprecedented. Its an amazing legacy when you look at it overall. As astrologers we are very lucky to have had such a high calibre scholar take an interest in the history of Babylonian, Persian, Arabic and Indian astrology. Like any fallable human being though he clearly made some mistakes. The only problem is that relatively few similar high quality scholars are taking an interest in Jyotisa literature. That is why Bill Mak?s research is so welcome.
Martin Gansten wrote:
As I have said before, Pingree was not really a first-class Sanskritist (I can't pronounce on his other language skills); his translations as well as his emendations were sometimes on the reckless side, and he had a tendency to regard some of his pet hypotheses as established facts (a common scholarly vice). None of this detracts from his enormous contributions to the field; it just shows that good scholarship is a collaborative, or cumulative, effort. But the main point is that, to my knowledge, no academic scholar has questioned Pingree's overall views on the history of horoscopic astrology in India.
But the main point is that, to my knowledge, no academic scholar has questioned Pingree's overall views on the history of horoscopic astrology in India.
No although his suggestion of heavy Mesopotamian influence on Indian astral science before the introduction of horoscopic astrology has been seriously challenged.
If we are discussing the overall chronology of horoscopic astrology though I have not suggested Pingree's position was incorrect. Although it has be said there has hardly been an avalanche of academics examining this topic as a whole since Pingree has there? Especially, in regards Jyotisa. Can you think of any names yourself? I mean people who have attempted a comprehensive history of Jyotisa rather than just specialising in a very narrow area? No disrespect intended here but from what I have seen of your research to date your work (on Nadi and Tajika) would seem to fall in to the latter category.
Basically though I was referring to quite specific concepts that have been disputed not the ?big picture?. For example, Bill Mak is heavily critical of Pingree?s edition of the 79th chapter of the Yavanajataka which Pingree amended heavily to align with Babylonian data. K.Shukla (1989) and Falk (2001) have pointed out Pingree?s reconstruction of the text contains serious flaws since there was really no Babylonian basis to the source text. What Shukla pointed out was that Pingree essentially failed to understand the internal logic in this part of the text dealing with indigenous Indian time measures including the concept of a yuga. This seems an example of Pingree seeking to creatively plug the information gap by inserting an ultimately flawed interpretation based on the notion of inherent Babylonian influence. Interestingly this disputed translation by Pingree occurs in a purely astronomical chapter of an otherwise astrological text. A good example of how these topics can interact.
Mark
What the field needs isn't more scholars attempting (and necessarily failing) to write the history of all aspects of astronomy-astrology on the Indian subcontinent. It needs more specialization, though I use that term in a very relative sense: the entire body of Indian writings on Perso-Arabic-derived astrology over the better part of a millennium still isn't what I would call highly specialized or narrow...