16
Thank you, James. Your version seems to be the same as mine, although mine was published many years ealier. Your quote certainly doesn't highly recommend Brihat Jakata, does it?!

An open minded translator will admit there are a number of Greek references in Brihat Jataka. I wonder if your quoted words on Aquarius have their origin in Valens? Quoting from the Riley on-line translation:
Aquarius is:... base, with few offspring...Men born under this sign are malicious, haters of their own families, incorrigible, self willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless, accusers, betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty, occasionally generous (because of [this sign’s flow of water)...

https://beyondtheheaven.files.wordpress ... .-blue.pdf
When we study the characteristics of the twelve signs in ancient texts, it seems obvious that sign traits were more or less copied from the ruling planets. It does seem that many of these descriptions were streams of consciousness from various astrologers, much as modern texts that have large sections on the traits of zodiac signs which couldn't have possibly been tested and verfied by the authors of these books.

It's interesting that the section of Brihat Jataka which contains the descriptions of planets in signs is near the end of the book and isn't included in the introductory material on signs in Chapter 1. This material generally lacks commentary by the translators. Perhaps they just shook their heads in bewilderment, and more or less ignored that section of the text! Or was this material a later interpolation to the basic text? (Even the basic text shows Greek influence, however.)

P. S. Sastri translates this Aquarian passage as "One having the Sun in Aquarius is engaged in unbecoming actions. He become bereft of sons and good luck." (Ranjan Publications, 2007, p. 138)

Note: It's interesting that Swami Vijnandanda's translation (which I've only obtained recently) has every word of the Sanskrit translated in separate paragraphs for anyone who wants to explore the original Sanskrit. (The Brihata Jatakam of Varaha Mihira, Delhi: India, Satguru Publications, 2008) This is a nicely made hardback digital copy of the original 1912 publication.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

17
thanks therese,

yes - the quote i shared is reminiscent of valens.. i was mentioning matheseos earlier, but matheseos and valens seem to share a lot in common!

i think you might be right about sign characteristics being copied from descriptions of the ruling planets... what conclusions do you personally draw from this?

18
James wrote:
I think you might be right about sign characteristics being copied from descriptions of the ruling planets... what conclusions do you personally draw from this?
My conclusion?? That these ancient traits and many modern traits are figments of the imagination and bogus. If you had asked for the paper I mentioned a while back, that paper covers the traits I've found to be genuine. Certain triplicity symbolism is solidly based on Aristotle and the planets--but not as Valens and others have recorded. In general India was wise in ignoring bogus traits. I have no idea what the planets-in-sign material is doing in Brihat Jataka. This is the section that contains your Aquarius quote (Chapter eighteen).

I wish I had time to compare Hellenistic and Medieval western texts with India's classics. I've done this to some extent, and the inter-communication is clear. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the twelve sign zodiac has its origin in the west. But India took that zodiac and developed it in extensive and unique ways as well as combining it with the nakshatras. So at present I believe that India has the most accurate zodiac and astrology.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm