Good morning,

Reference is made to Pundit N. C. Iyer's English translation of Varaha Mirira's Brihat Jataka, one of the most respected textbooks of Indian genethliacal astrology. This translation was of base for Herr Wilhelm Wulff's German translation and as far as is known for his astrological practice.

In the introduction, the translator Pundit N. C. Iyer makes a rather long case for the use of a tropical zodiac in Indian astrology. The example charts at the end of the German translation make it quite clear that Wilhelm Wulff indeed worked with the tropical zodiac usual for Western astrology in the Northern hemisphere. Had Wulff's results not been accurate, it is doubtful that he would have survived his forced recruitment by the by German SS to work for them from 1941 to 1945. The translated account of this may be read elsewhere at this web site: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/wulffF.html.

For those familiar with Indian astrology, is the use of a tropical zodiac in Indian astrology as it was recommended by Pundit N. C. Iyer and applied by Herr Wilhelm Wulff a heresy, a grave error, or perhaps a legitimate alternative to one of the 'sidereal' zodiacs mostly used?

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote:For those familiar with Indian astrology, is the use of a tropical zodiac in Indian astrology as it was recommended by Pundit N. C. Iyer and applied by Herr Wilhelm Wulff a heresy, a grave error, or perhaps a legitimate alternative to one of the 'sidereal' zodiacs mostly used?

I think we can dispense both with the quotation marks and with religiously loaded terms like heresy. To the best of my knowledge, the tropical zodiac was never in vogue in India before the early 20th century (when modern western astrology entered the subcontinent in the wake of Theosophy). However, Arabic and European astrologers have been applying classical Indian techniques like the nav???a to the tropical zodiac since medieval times, and of course everyone is free to experiment. (After all, most astrological techniques even outside of India, such as the terms, were originally used with a zodiac where the equinox did not mark 0 Aries.)

I find the more interesting question is when did Indian astrologers become aware of precession? Without that we cannot properly discuss a tropical (sayana) zodiac being used in India or anywhere else.

Quite a few authors have identified contradictions in the writings of Varahamihira (500 CE) that have opened the possibility of him adopting what appears a tropical zodiac in some parts of his work. Considering he is regarded as one of the key foundational figurs of Indian astrology this is at least worth exploring.

For example, I seem to recall the western siderealist Rupert Gleadow discusses this in his The Origin of the Zodiac. More recently, the astrologer Ernst Wilhelm has discussed this topic:

http://www.vedic-astrology.net/Articles ... Zodiac.pdf

Wilhelm also suggests the great Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhata was exclusively utilising a tropical zodiac.

We also have the fact that the earliest astrological texts entering India from the west such as the Yavana Jataka express ideas that seem explicitly tropical.

One section the Yavana Jataka clearly refers to the Tropical Zodiac:

30. One should find that the northern course of the Sun begins at the beginning of Capricorn, and the southern course at the beginning of the fourth sign (Cancer); the first equator (crossing) in the year is at the beginning of Aries, the second at the beginning of Libra.

To quote Wilhelm

The Yavana Jataka clearly refers to the Equinox as the beginning of Aries, so the Tropical Zodiac is mentioned. These two contradicting Sutras reveal that the Yavanas, considered as masters in astrology by Varahamihira, had no knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes, which means that they had no knowledge of the possiblitity of a Sidereal and Tropical Zodiac.

Based on the Lahiri sidereal zodiac the Niryana (sidereal) and the Sayana (tropical) zodiacs coincided in the year 285 AD when the ayanamsha was zero. So the question is when were such ambiguities ironed out and an explicity sidereal astrology adopted in full awareness of the seasonal shifts brought about by precession? Or did Indian astrology carry on in ignorance of precession for centuries more? Over the centuries, this must surely have created calendrical problems in terms of timing religious festivals to auspicious times? For exampe the Ved??ga Jyoti?a states that the new year is calculated from the winter solstice.

Mark

Good evening,

Some contemporary Western authors of Hindu or 'Vedic' astrology like Mr Freedom Tobias Cole in his Science of Light - An Introduction to Vedic Astrology place Indian astrology in a religious Hindu framework. As mentioned elsewhere, in my humble opinion only the astronomical zodiac of unequal constellations, used ex. gr. by the German astrologers Frau Maria Thun (died 2012) and Dr. Editha Torsson, can be properly called sidereal. Equal-sign zodiacs pegged to a fixed star, to the galactic centre etc. therefore receive single quotes around 'sidereal'. It was in no way intended to open a discussion on the respective virtues and vices of equal-sign tropical versus equal-sign 'sidereal' zodiacs.

The question remains. Herr Wilhelm Wulff apparently worked successfully using a tropical zodiac for Indian astrology or he would scarcely have been retained by force as 'court astrologer' of the German SchutzStaffel from 1941 to 1945. Have perhaps readers of this thread knowledge of other astrologers who use a tropical zodiac for Indian astrology?

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin,

As I mentioned in my last post Ernst Wilhelm is an example of a contemporary astrologer who uses Indian astrological techniques with the tropical (sayana) zodiac.

http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=94

Mark

Mark wrote:Lithin,

As I mentioned in my last post Ernst Wilhelm is an example of a contemporary astrologer who uses Indian astrological techniques with the tropical (sayana) zodiac.

http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=94

Mark

Hi Mark,

having read through that, I'm not sure how much this gentleman follows traditional Indian practices. I notice he uses Trimsamsa to delineate physical appearance while in Parasara we are told that "evil effects (are to be found) from Trimsh???" (chapter 7, BPHS). I also find the approach to the Lots used in the Indian version of Solar Revolutions to be wrong, quite frankly, but that, I suppose, is down to personal preference.

I'd have thought it would be fairly simple to say whether or not the Tropical zodiac is effective using Indian techniques since so much of the finer points of delineation is dependant on the Vargas and the order of Dasa rulerships.

Konrad wrote:

having read through that, I'm not sure how much this gentleman follows traditional Indian practices.

Fair enough. I am not advocating this particular approach just reporting it.

I have been looking at the Nakshatras but as a separate astrological system not as something to combine with tropical astrology.

Mark

Mark wrote:Konrad wrote:

having read through that, I'm not sure how much this gentleman follows traditional Indian practices.

Fair enough. I am not advocating this particular approach just reporting it.

I have putting been looking at the Nakshatras but as a separate astrological system not as something to combine with tropical astrology.

Mark

Yes, this is something I was thinking about while reading his posts. Surely the Nakshatras would have to remain Sidereal?

Konrad wrote:

Yes, this is something I was thinking about while reading his posts. Surely the Nakshatras would have to remain Sidereal?

Yes. I mean they are based on stars after all!

It seems to me you can still use the Nakshatras as an astrological tool without the rasis at all. For example, the most popular dasa system is based on the nakshtras.

Of course there is a long established Indian tradition of integrating the two together i.e. sidereal rasis and nakshatras. However, I dont think the original order of the ancient nakshatras necessarily related to the sidereal 12 sign zodiac either. There is some evidence the order of the nakshatras has changed due to changing seasonal alignments with the stars.

David Frawley, who is a reputed practitioner and writer on Indian astrology suggests several ancient Vedic texts indicate the original order of the Nakshatras related to the seasons. Frawley proposes that this dates back to the time when the Nakshatra ie Krttika (the Pleiades) would have heliacally risen around the time of the spring equinoix. The original lists of the nakshatras always start with Krittika which is associated with the Pleiades. There has been much speculation about why the nakshatra order would start with what we now consider the third in the list. The earliest Indian star calendars were based on the 27 nakshatras, and some scholars believe that the nakshatra system was developed during the time when the vernal equinox occurred in the asterism of the Pleiades. The period when the Pleiades heliacally rose at the vernal equinox was 2720-1760 BCE

http://www.vedanet.com/2012/06/nakshatr ... akshatras/

This idea is also supported by Dr S.Balakrishna who has researched this topic astronomically:

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/stars_bharatheeya.htm

Mark

Mark wrote:We also have the fact that the earliest astrological texts entering India from the west such as the Yavana Jataka express ideas that seem explicitly tropical.

One section the Yavana Jataka clearly refers to the Tropical Zodiac:

30. One should find that the northern course of the Sun begins at the beginning of Capricorn, and the southern course at the beginning of the fourth sign (Cancer); the first equator (crossing) in the year is at the beginning of Aries, the second at the beginning of Libra.

I'm afraid you underestimate the importance of the 'at' in Pingree's translation. Personally, I would have used 'in' rather than 'at' to translate the locative case. Here is the verse in the original:

raver uda?m?rgagati? m?g?dau y?my?yan?di? tu caturthabh?dau /
vindy?d aj?dau vi?uvantam ?dyam abde dvit?ya? <tu> tul?dhar?dau //

Pingree's translation is acceptable, if slightly imprecise. The point is that the verse states that the solstice and equinox points fall in/at the beginning of these signs (which of course they did, sidereally, around the year 269/270 CE). It does not say that these points define the signs, for which one would have expected a nominative case construction rather than the locative ('the beginning of the northern course of the Sun is the beginning of Capricorn', etc). The optative, which Pingree translates as 'one should find', is perhaps better rendered 'one may/can find'.

Furthermore, the verse in question occurs in the very last chapter of the YJ, which deals with calendric and astronomical matters, and not in any of the chapters defining and describing the zodiac. So rather than a definition of the zodiac based on the equinoxes and solstices, we have here a means of locating the equinoxes and solstices (for calendric purposes) based on the zodiac.

Pingree wrote an article on 'Precession and trepidation in Indian astronomy before A.D. 1200 ' (Journal for the History of Astronomy iii, 1972). According to it, the earliest datable reference to an Indian theory of precession or trepidation is found in Var?hamihira (6th century).

Good afternoon,

To me it seems that the 27 ( or 28 ) equal Indian lunar mansions are fraught with similar underlying inconsistencies as their solar counterparts. Although like the signs of the solar zodiac named after known fixed stars and / or constellations of unequal lengths, for the purposes of temporal measurement in constant units equal-length lunar mansions were introduced. To my knowledge no proposed 'sidereal' zodiac amongst the 30 or so found for selection in astrological software programmes includes all of the Naming Stars or Constellations in the 27 or 28 lunar mansions that bear their names.

Claudius Ptolemy, called by some a 'revisionist' in respect of prior Hellenistic astrology, basically separated, except for the names, the constellations from the signs and in so doing dispensed with the problem of somehow aligning the two, the former unequal, the later equal. Rigorously geocentric, Ptolemy's system sees a slow procession of the fixed stars relative to the equinoxes and solstices. Whether Ptolemy's procedure provides the best astrological results is still a vividly debated question, aggravated by many if not most astrologers' adversity to statistical analyses. At least his choice appears to have some coherence, rationality and consistence and, aside from the again thorny issues of applicability in both hemispheres, few if any variations. 'Sidereal' positions are calculated with reference to tropical data.

Thus, from my humble perspective questions like, "Aren't the Indian (equal) lunar mansions sidereal?" seem somewhat void.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello Martin,

Thank you for your translation of the Yavana Jataka passage. Your a handy guy to have around! From what I can gather this text dates from the first half of the 2nd century CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavanajataka

It therefore seems to predate Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos which is the first astrological text to explicitly advocate a tropical zodiac based on 0 Aries.

In retrospect it seem unlikely there would have been explicit advocacy of the tropical zodiac in an astrological text this early. Of course astronomically, the tropical zodiac had been used by hellenistic astronomers for centuries before Ptolemy. This knowledge would have provided a straightforward manner to calculate equinoxes and solstices for calendrical purposes as seems to be alluded to in the text.

I appreciate the Pingree reference. I will check that out. The whole topic of trepidation theory ,as opposed to a modern understanding of precession, is an interesting historical issue across various cultures.

Mark