New thread for possible anachronism

47
Good morning,

Hopefully no one will mind my opening a new specific thread on the interesting point Mr Varuna II has brought up concerning an eventual anachronism in Claudios Ptolomaios' explanations of planetary domiciles in his Tetrabiblos, Book I, Chapter 18.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Re: Inaccurate impression?

48
Martin,
but I hope we can all keep it polite; I'd prefer not to put my moderator hat on.
I am sorry if my tone was not respectful. I do respect your authority in Sanskrit language and literature. But I am allowed to add that I graduated in Sanskrit in 1984, that my studies did not end in that year, and that I did a *lot* of translation work in my life...
If a tropicalist outlook with respect to the zodiac is ascribed to the YJ, then (as Dieter pointed out earlier) either we must accept that the nak?atras, too, were defined tropically, or that the text is self-contradictory.

Neither supposition is necessary if we accept that Indian horoscopic astrology began as it has continued; and really, the burden of proof should be on those who believe otherwise.
I agree, as long as the text itself does not give an answer, which I believe it does ? if Pingree?s text and translation are correct in the verses under discussion.

But I am not sure about that anymore. After looking into Shukla and the Sanskrit text, I feel that Shukla is partly right and Pingree in error. In the crucial verses 79.6 and 7, Pingree refers te??m to days where grammatically it should refer to tithi (in 6) and to tithi where it should refer to days (dinar?tram, in 7). The numbers are also a problem. But Sukla?s solutions do not convince me either...

No answer required. Anyway, I have to withdraw from the discussion because the weekend is over.

Dieter

49
Varuna,
varuna2 wrote:Dieter,

I found the passage that Martin taught me, but someone else will have to state where this is found in Ptolemy's works.

"of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo"

I guess it states the zenith rather than solstice, but I think this means the same, so it is merely semantics.
Yes, it means the same. This is the passage I meant and I do not know of another one.

I believe Ptolemy just made a thinking error. Tropical Cancer and Leo are the hottest time of the year, and that may have been the actual reason (according to some ancient theory that Ptolemy refers to) why these signs were assigned the Sun and the Moon as rulers. (Tetrabiblos 1.17)

Dieter

Re: Inaccurate impression?

50
dieterkoch wrote:After looking into Shukla and the Sanskrit text, I feel that Shukla is partly right and Pingree in error. In the crucial verses 79.6 and 7, Pingree refers te??m to days where grammatically it should refer to tithi (in 6) and to tithi where it should refer to days (dinar?tram, in 7). The numbers are also a problem. But Sukla?s solutions do not convince me either...
Correction: Pingree is aware of the problem and recommends that the halves of verse 6 and 7 be exchanged. This may solve the problem.

Dieter

51
With regards the nakshatras, I was under the impression that the nakshatras were inherently sidereal, but that texts such as the Surya Siddhanta offered ways of using an ayanamsha to position them tropically. Surely this means they are sidereal considerations which are put into a tropical context for a given reason, perhaps interpretive? Or perhaps the necessity of putting it tropically is for some reason in reference to the sign rising, which is, as I understand it, a tropical consideration rather than a sidereal one. In other words you cannot calculate the ascendant sidereally.

I do not know, I only go by the arguments others have made and thoughts which occur to me as a result of them.

On a separate issue, one question which forever troubles me with regards the sidereal zodiac, which may not be related to this but which I may as well raise in case someone wants to knock it on the head, is that the ideas of the modalities don't make much sense to me from a sidereal perspective. It makes sense that the cardinal signs are as they are tropically for example, but what is being 'hinged' or what is turning in the sidereal system?

With regards the translation issues, I have nothing to add as I do not know anything of sanskrit.
But I'm curious more about the context in which things appear.

Consider 14:9
"From the sun's entrance into Capricorn, six months are his northern progress; so likewise, from the beginning of Cancer, six months are his southern progress"

The previous pargraph describes what the equinoxes and solstices are, then the following paragraph mentions its effect upon seasons. This is all tropical right?

52
Paul
Paul wrote:With regards the nakshatras, I was under the impression that the nakshatras were inherently sidereal, but that texts such as the Surya Siddhanta offered ways of using an ayanamsha to position them tropically.
I don't think so. The planetary theory of the Suryasiddhanta is basically sidereal. Precession is mentioned in Suryasiddhanta 3.9-12. But apparently it is only used to calculate "declination, shadow, ascensional difference, etc.", (verse 10). There is no mention of calculating tropical nakshatras. Besides, modern scholars think these verses are not part of the original SS, but interpolated later, among other reasons because precession is not used or mentioned in other places of the work. More details are given by Burgess in the commentary to his translation of the work. Please forgive me if for reasons of time I cannot go into more details about the usage of precession in ancient and medieval India.
Consider 14:9
"From the sun's entrance into Capricorn, six months are his northern progress; so likewise, from the beginning of Cancer, six months are his southern progress"

The previous pargraph describes what the equinoxes and solstices are, then the following paragraph mentions its effect upon seasons. This is all tropical right?
I think the situation is more complicated. As I said, the solar year and planetary theory of the SS are sidereal, and the old SS most probably did not know the concept of ayanamsha, therefore was not able to calculate tropical positions of the Sun and the planets. For such reasosn, some people (among which Martin, if I am right) consider the above-quoted statement is not to be considered as a "definition" of the zodiac, but rather "accidental" in the sense that, at the time the work was written, the equinoxes and solstices were roughly at the beginning of the mentioned signs, but this should not be considered as a "definition" of the zodiac. However, as I do believe that the author of the SS had no clear understanding of the precession problem, I am of the opinion that he actually *wants* to have the winter solstice *exactly* at the ingress point of Capricorn. This is also what the text says: that the winter solstice is exactly at the solar ingress into Capricorn. I can only understand this as a definition of the zodiac. I cannot understand it differently. Therefore I say, the Suryasiddhantic theory is not purely sidereal, but it is a chimaera. Being sidereal in practice, it wants to be sidereal and tropical at the same time and is not aware that this is impossible. But the case is similar with the systems of other ancient authors like Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, and even Sphujidhvaja (the author of the Yavanajataka). As to the latter, although imho his solar and planetary theory was tropical (see my other posts) he does not mention the sidereal-tropical problem or precession, so most probably had no clear understanding of it. Or he did not know how to treat the problem.

Dieter

54
I, too, have precious little time to spare; but in response to Paul's question about the modalities, I see two possibilities. One is that the Greek word tropikos really should be understood as relating to the 'turning' of the seasons, as Ptolemy thinks. Even if that is the case, however, we should remember that that designation predates the astrological use of the equinox as 0 Aries, and general knowledge of precession. Valens, for instance, calls Aries tropikos (if memory serves); but he also makes it clear that the equinox falls some distance into Aries. In most astrologers' minds, the zodiac was probably fixed in relation both to the stars and to the seasons, and there is no telling which was most important to them.

The other possibility, suggested by Robert Schmidt in an online discussion, is that tropikos does not originally relate to the turning of the seasons at all, but to the turning of the Thema Mundi on its 'pivots' or angles (Cancer rising, Aries culminating). If so, Ptolemy's explanation would be a projection of his own naturalistic views onto a pre-existing term. Note that the third modality is often referred to as 'double-bodied' signs, a designation that obviously has nothing to do with the seasons, but which well describes the constellations of Gemini, Sagittarius and Pisces.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

Ptolemy on Ptolemy

55
Good morning,

Objection, dear Professor Gansten!

In Professor Robbin's English translation of Klaudios Ptolomaios' Tetrabiblos, Book I, Section 11, Of Solstitial, Equinoctial, Solid, and Bicorporeal Signs, one reads:
"The bicorporeal signs, Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, and Pisces, are those which follow the solid signs, and are so called because they are between the solid and the solstitial and equinoctial signs and share, as it were, at end and beginning, the natural properties of the two states of weather."
Obviously, no references to the appearances of constellations.

Best regards,

lihin
Last edited by lihin on Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Non esse nihil non est.

57
Mark wrote:I have been looking at the text of the The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja myself. Its a fascinating text for many reasons.

One section that intrigues me is in Chapter 1 68-69 discussing the rising times of signs.
68. The measure of the rising-times of the first and last signs is
demonstrated with certainty to be two muhiirtas each; know that the
measure of the rising-times (of the rest of the signs) in the two halves of
the zodiac, taken (respectively) in direct and reverse order, is (two
muhurtas) with a fifth (of that measure) added (successively to each).

69. Knowing that the signs are thus measured as being short, medium, or
long, they consider the lengths of journeys as being similar to the
divisions of the zodiac (and the limbs of the zodiacal man)
I am afraid maths is not my strong suit. However, might this give us any clues to what zodiac is involved? Obviously, in the tropical zodiac we have signs of short, intermediate and long rising periods. I am genuinely unclear what is involved in calculating the rising times of sidereal equal sized signs. Would the same terminology make sense there too?

Incidentally, I have only managed to download a version without David Pingree's commentary. Has anyone read his commentary? What view did Pingree take on the text and the type of zodiac involved?

Mark
In part, here is Pingree's commentary on this section of text:

"This list of rising-times is precisely that of System A for Babylon as found on cuneiform tables and in several Greek astrological texts (see O. Neugebauer, "On Some Astronomical Papyri and Related Problems of Ancient Geography." (....additional references...) It is only accurate for the extreme northwestern part of India; yet it is repeated by Satya..., Varahamihira...and Vaidyanatha..." (Volume 2, p.228)
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm