46
martin and others fwiw -

i note dieter koch updated the article this july 18th that mark initially shared with us here on july 14th. the passage that martin quoted from my post was changed to read differently as follows - "The oldest text of Greek-inspired Indian astrology, the mentioned Yavanaj?takam by Sphujidhvaja, in its last chapter fixes the cardinal points of the year at the beginnings of the signs of Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn[48] and has the sun traverse all signs within 365,2303 days. This year length is closer to the tropical (365.2422) than the sidereal year (365.2564) and was most probably determined by observation of the solstices and equinoxes."

perhaps for anyone interested it is best to read it in context in the revised article that koch updated here - http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm

Martin Gansten wrote:
"Another point deserves attention: Today's "Vedic" astrology and calendar calculation are purely sidereal, i.e. they ignore the seasons, equinoxes, and solstices. In contrast, the Vedic texts attribute great importance to the season-based tropical year and its cardinal points. 9 ?atapathabr?hma?a 6.7.1.18 says that the year is based on the seasons."

"The oldest astronomical text book of India, Ved??gajyoti?a 5ff., teaches that the beginning of the month of M?gha ideally coincides with the winter solstice and a new moon at the beginning of the lunar mansion Dhani??h?."
While I am in agreement with Dieter Koch on the non-Indian origins of horoscopic astrology, and recognize the frustration he feels at the unreasonable attitudes of some Indian teachers,* the above paragraphs are partly wrong and wholly beside the point. The Hindu calendar used today is as connected to the seasons as it ever was; the seasonal elements are just not seen as relevant to the zodiac issue. And really, there is no reason to assume such relevance unless you are a tropicalist of some sort -- which means that Indian siderealists are being criticized simply for not being tropicalists.

*(Not that such attitudes are unique to India; most people would feel the same way about, say, American creationist views.)