32
Sunny Dawn wrote:Fancy language, GR. You sound so offended.
Well, I'm not particularly offended.
Sunny Dawn wrote:Can't you give me a chance to go home and find it, and see what the larger document was?
If you have a 3500 year old Sanskrit document at home, worrying what goes on a website? Probably not that important.
Or are you just mad because your Western-centric worldview might get kicked off its pedastil?
All I care about is facts. The fact is, right now, based on the available evidence, the Greeks, or Hellenized Egyptians or whatever is comfortable, devised horoscopic astrology, with what appears to be a bunch of stuff from the Mesopotamians. Their work gets spread around, and into the East, where it gets altered, tinkered with, and adapted with either native materials or other innovations. Then, as the Caliphate rises, they bring together astrological information from India, Persia, and the Greeks. Then they make their own alterations, tinkerings, and adaptations, and so on to Europe, where they decide in the Renaisance that they know better then anyone, and then proceeded to screw it all up. :D A dramatic and misleading simplification, but it gets the jist of it.

There are other pre-horoscopic astrological texts, and probably some oral traditions before that, in a lot of ancient cultures. The stuff about the moon mansions is part of it, as far as I know.

This is how the matter stands. Now, as time goes on and more sources become available, that can change, but its not really challengeable with the evidence at hand.
Gabe

33
I like the idea of Gabe?s History of Astrology in A Paragraph, but it probably says something about how speculative this subject is when she can reduce it down to one paragraph and I still want to take issue over some of it. :)

That aside, I wonder if the disputed dates of Indian astrological documents is connected to a reluctance to contradict the content of those ancient documents. Perhaps this is tied to the traditionally devotional attitude towards those texts, so that the claims haven't been as widely subjected to updated historical knowledge as western texts have?

All ancient civilisations exaggerated their own histories, partly because they had little concept of how huge figures of numbers related to the evolution of mankind over time. The Babylonian Berosus claimed that he had access to temple records going back more than 500,000 years. He probably just thought of a great big number and doubled it. No one doubted his word because they had no way to measure it against proven details. Hence Pliny also claimed that the Babylonians had cuneiform tablets with astronomical observations for 730,000 years. (He added a few more to 'big' it up a bit). Then we have the Indian textbook Surya Siddhanta purporting to be based on records kept for over two million years. To put this into perspective: human language developed in the upper Palaeolithic period, and our earliest known cave paintings date to around 30-25,000 BC.

One thing we can rely on, is that we can?t rely on the historical information contained within these ancient texts. Often these figures are no more than civilisations attempting to compete with each other over who has had the most sacred knowledge longest. As far as I am aware, historians are in agreement that the Venus Tablets of Ammisaduqa from ancient Babylon are the oldest preserved records to demonstrate astrology being practiced with applied organisation and logic, based upon systematic planetary evaluation, and it is partly for this reason that Mesopotamia is so important to the ancient origins of Western astrology. These were written around 1600 BC based upon observations that began at an earlier, unknown date. There is, of course, some very important earlier scattered evidence, from Mesopotamia and elsewhere, suggesting that these kinds of records are based on much older traditions, but if we are talking about documents of planetary information, and then circulated texts, the Mesopotamians still have a clear claim to the oldest preserved knowledge. I will be very happy to hear of credible evidence to the contrary.

34
Then they make their own alterations, tinkerings, and adaptations, and so on to Europe, where they decide in the Renaissance that they know better than anyone, and then proceeded to screw it all up.
Actually, this should read:
Then they make their own alterations, tinkerings, and adaptations, and so on to Europe, where they decide in the Renaissance that they know better than anyone (which, of course, they did, because they'd finally got it right), and then proceeded to screw it all up (largely because of the tragic influence of the Theosophical Society).

Re: Okay P & P, you win...

35
Sunny Dawn wrote:Papretis, those are some pretty juicy bios you've got there, especially the one on Luisa Tetrazzini. Maybe it was her Ketu in Sag that made her such a princess (I know, no reference from the nakshatras backs it up). Some of your sample size has Ketu in Ardra instead of Rahu, or no mention of Rahu at all, but we'll let that go.
Hmmm... the idea was not to have Rahu or Ketu or any specific planet there, just charts with emphasis on Ardra. To have three planet (out of the nine used in Indian astrology) in one nakshatra is not very common; those 67 charts were drawn out from 10154 charts, they were the only ones that had three or four planets in Ardra. So in that way it's possible to try to find common themes in those 67 charts and maybe draw some conclusions, regardless what else those charts contain.

I would never associate Ketu in Sag with being a princess :shock: . Maybe you're thinking about tropical Sagittarius here. That's not wise when we're floating around a sidereal zodiac. That's, eh... mixing of two systems. You may be interested in what B.V. Raman writes about sidereal Sagittarius in How to Judge a Horoscope:
They are too conventional and also business-like. They are prompt and hold conservative views. (---) They are too callous and enthusiastic. They hate all external show. They are God-fearing, honest, humble and free from hypocrisy. They exercise strinct control over their food and drinks and in regard to their relations with the opposite sex.
Luiza Tetrazzini (28th June 1871 at 3.10 AM +0.00 in Florence, Italy, rating AA) had Ketu/Saturn conjunction in her 7th house, the house that signifies everything that's opposing us. In traditional Western astrology it signifies both open enemies and partners. It's everything that's foreign to us, that repels us and attracts at the same time. Ascetism (Ketu + Saturn in sidereal Sag) was foreign for Tetrazzini. She embodied everything but that.

36
Andrew wrote: Then they make their own alterations, tinkerings, and adaptations, and so on to Europe, where they decide in the Renaissance that they know better than anyone (which, of course, they did, because they'd finally got it right), and then proceeded to screw it all up (largely because of the tragic influence of the Theosophical Society).
My argument against that bolded phrase would be that, by assuming that Ptolemy was the source and main document of horoscopic astrology (which is clearly not the case), the Renaissance astrologers ended up damaging their astrological knowledge and judgment in their attempts to reform astrology. Not everything that was done is this period is bad, as examination of what Lilly and Morin did shows, but I'd argue that most of it was, and this made it that much easier to disregard astrology altogether. Then as consequence, the 19th century manifestation also found it much easier to mold what was left of astrology into something more appealing to the philosophical and political doctrines of that time, e.g. the Theosophical inspired musings of Leo, Rudhyar, et al.
Gabe

37
Sounds like a whole new discussion is coming up. Can I suggest the start of a new thread for that one? The influence of Ptolemy is cropping up in a number of threads, but the points are getting scattered and interrupting other discussions. Let's keep the focus of this thread on Vedic astrology. Anyone want to expand this and kick off a thread that gives Ptolemy and his influence a discussion to himself?

38
Deb wrote:Sounds like a whole new discussion is coming up. Can I suggest the start of a new thread for that one? The influence of Ptolemy is cropping up in a number of threads, but the points are getting scattered and interrupting other discussions. Let's keep the focus of this thread on Vedic astrology. Anyone want to expand this and kick off a thread that gives Ptolemy and his influence a discussion to himself?
That could be ... interesting. :shock:
GR wrote:My argument against that bolded phrase would be that, by assuming that Ptolemy was the source and main document of horoscopic astrology (which is clearly not the case), the Renaissance astrologers ended up damaging their astrological knowledge and judgment in their attempts to reform astrology. Not everything that was done is this period is bad, as examination of what Lilly and Morin did shows, but I'd argue that most of it was, and this made it that much easier to disregard astrology altogether. Then as consequence, the 19th century manifestation also found it much easier to mold what was left of astrology into something more appealing to the philosophical and political doctrines of that time, e.g. the Theosophical inspired musings of Leo, Rudhyar, et al.
The bolded phrase was meant as tongue-in-cheek: I wasn't assuming that Ptolemy was the source and main document of horoscopic astrology, but I wouldn't argue that the Renaissance astrologers ended up damaging their astrological knowledge and judgment in their attempts to reform astrology, so I don't think they made it easier for others to disregard it or for Theosophists to muse about it. I see Renaissance astrology as simpler (or more straightforward) yet more systematic than (for example) western Medieval or eastern Vedic astrology. It's just a perspective.

39
The discussion about the Nakshatras has been really interesting, especially where it touched on a possible exaltation sign for Ketu, but I seriously doubt that we can find it simply using this method, anymore than we can explain Saturn's exaltation sign by examining the Libra Nakshatras. Bonatti tells us that Ketu is exalted in Sagittarius, Braha states that both nodes are exalted in the signs of Mercury. In my view only observation and work can give us a clear picture, far and above all the discussion and debate.
My original post asked about the influence of Ketu when in conjunction with another planet. How does Ketu alter or affect the expression of that planet and the house involved? Examples will help us to find an answer to that question. This is how we learn.

Cheers,
Pete

Sun, Mars and Ketu in Leo.

40
I am Virgo Asc, with Sun, Mars and Ketu in Leo. Mars and Ketu are in Magha Asterism.

I am currently running Mercury Dasha, Ketu to start in 2011.
Other planets:
Virgo: Asc, Merc
Libra: Venus, Jup & moon.
Aquarius: Rahu
Aeris: Saturn
Leo: Sun, Mars and Ketu.

Please check this chart for the interesting discussion above.

Regards,

AK
ak

41
Papretis wrote:
As far as I know it's the other way out, Ketu (the South Node, Dragon's Tail) is exalted in Sagittarius and Rahu (the North Node, Dragon's Head) is exalted in Gemini, just like in Western traditional astrology. If Braha writes it another way out, it's his own opinion, not supported by tradition.
Actually, it is supported by at least one tradition: the Jyothishgranth Jataka Chintamani states that Ketu (Cauda Draconis) is exalted in Mithuna (Gemini) and fallen in Dhanu (Sagittarius).

42
From a modern perspective, A T Mann has written:
The North Node is exalted in Sagittarius where the ultimate community spirit is manifested in religion. The South Node is exalted in Gemini where the ambivalence of Gemini is contradictory to group realities.
I wonder whether Mann was familiar with the Jatakachintamani when he wrote that?