Ashtakavarga + David Pingree

1
Update Note: I have retitled this thread Ashtakavarga + David Pingree. It was originally just Ashtakavarga but the discussion drifted into a wider discussion on David Pingree

I am curious about an astrological technique in Jyotish called Ashtakavarga.

It seems to be a very intriguing system of assessing the strength of planets and houses by pointing their power in a chart. While it can be used in nativities the main utilization of Ashtakavarga seems to be assess transiting planets through the different houses.

http://astroveda.wikidot.com/transits-and-ashtakavargas

http://astrobix.com/astroblog/post/anal ... scope.aspx

http://jyotishvishesh.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... tions.html

http://jyotishvishesh.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... harts.html

http://jyotishvishesh.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... tions.html

I am wondering what text this system stems from? The system is certainly referred to in the Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra (BPHS). However, are there any references to this technique before this?

Thanks

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

3
Martin Gansten wrote:
A??akavarga is present in the earliest preserved Sanskrit texts on horoscopic astrology, including the Yavanaj?taka and V?ddhayavanaj?taka.
Thanks. I must check this out in the Yavanaj?taka myself.

Martin Gansten:
Pingree (YJ, vol. II, pp. 353 ff) rightly or wrongly connects it with the Greek practice of examining the transits to the radix at the time of the annual revolution.
Even if Pingree is correct on that point the technique seems to have developed way beyond any hellenistic antecendents. As you know Pingree's tendency to attribute foreign influence at every possible step of Indian astronomical or astrological development is something other academics have criticised him for.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

4
Mark wrote:Even if Pingree is correct on that point the technique seems to have developed way beyond any hellenistic antecendents.
Indeed.
As you know Pingree's tendency to attribute foreign influence at every possible step of Indian astronomical or astrological development is something other academics have criticised him for.
Actually, I don't know that. Which academics have criticized Pingree for attributing too much of Indian astrology/astronomy to foreign influences?
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

5
Actually, I don't know that. Which academics have criticized Pingree for attributing too much of Indian astrology/astronomy to foreign influences?
Somewhat surprised to hear you haven't encountered such views! Of course being academics they are far too polite to make such a generalised comment against Pingree. However, if you pull together all the separate critcisms of differing research by Pingree such a picture does emerge.

A good start would be the Japanese scholar Yukio Ohashi who has been quite forthright in picking up 'errors' by Pingree regarding the supposed influence of ancient Mesopotamian/Persian on India.

He first raised this criticism in his original PHD paper. It was summarised in a paper that appeared as

Development of Astronomical Observation in Vedic and Post Vedic India, Indian Journal of History of Science, Vol 28, No 3, (1993)

http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upl ... 5c_185.pdf

More recent papers by Yukio Ohashi have become more strident in criticism of Pingree's theory of specific Mesopotamian influence.

Bill Mak has also commented on this in his article of Chinese Jyotisa texts:

http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/daikokai/ ... 20Mark.pdf
While many of Pingree?s arguments are logical and well-found, there are cases which have shown how Pingree?s over-emphasis and faith in Babylonian elements in Indian jyoti?a had led the great scholar into making some grave mistakes.
More indirectly one could also see Bill Mak's recent paper on the Yavanaj?taka as a revision of Pingree's assumption that much of the text was the product of an early hellenistic source text. The indigenous astrological ideas in the text were probably not given sufficient emphasis.

There is also quite a lot of academic controversy around Pingree's views on Classical Siddhantic astronomy. Pingree took the view that as the early Indian astronomers did not have instruments they must have got their calculations from hellenistic tables of astronomical constants rather than local observation.

It was originally the mathematical research of Roger Billard that seems to have provoked Pingree to get into this controversy. Roger Billard analysed Sanskrit astronomical works by the methods of mathematical statistics. In particular using the method of least squares which Billard argued demonstrated these works were based on actual observations in India.

Several academics are on record supporting Billard and thereby disagreeing with Pingree. By implication they took the view that Pingree underestimated or misunderstood the sophistication of astronomical observations by indigenous Indian astronomers. Academics who have written against the views of Pingree, and supporting Roger Billard on Siddhantic astronomy include: Raymond Mercier, B.L. van der Waerden and Yukio Ohashi.

Here is an article by Yukio Ohashi. touching on this issue:

http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upl ... fa_155.pdf

I have left out Indian writers so I am sure there are several people to add to the list!

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

6
Thanks, Mark. I confess that nearly all the names you mention were unknown to me; but then I haven't taken a real interest in the history of mathematical astronomy, only in (horoscopic) astrology. I took your initial comment to mean that Pingree's views on the latter, too, had been criticized by scholars (apart from the question of dating the YJ, of which I am aware); but it seems you were thinking chiefly of astronomy?

I had a brief exchange with Pingree myself, some time in the mid-1990s, on the subject of Indian ??nti rites, which I thought he had partly misunderstood in his eagerness to equate them with Babylonian namburbi rites.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

7
Martin Gansten wrote:
Thanks, Mark. I confess that nearly all the names you mention were unknown to me; but then I haven't taken a real interest in the history of mathematical astronomy, only in (horoscopic) astrology. I took your initial comment to mean that Pingree's views on the latter, too, had been criticized by scholars (apart from the question of dating the YJ, of which I am aware); but it seems you were thinking chiefly of astronomy?
I admit Roger Billard is unknown to me too. However, the others are authorities in their field. Yukio Ohashi is an authority on ancient and Siddhantic Indian astronomy. He has done some interesting research on Indo-Tibetan astronomy recently too.

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10 ... pdf#page-1

Bartel Leendert van der Waerden (1903?1996) was a Dutch mathematician and historian of mathematics well known for his work on Babylonian mathematical astronomy. Raymond Mercier is a figure frequently quoted by astrologers in discussions about the history of the zodiac. His work ?Studies in the medieval conception of precession (2004) ? is a pivotal work in establishing the sidereal basis of the astronomical tables used in early Perso-Arabic astrology. This work is now I believe contained with several other articles in the book Studies on the Transmission of Medieval Mathematical Astronomy (2004).

Martin Gansten wrote:
I took your initial comment to mean that Pingree's views on the latter, too, had been criticized by scholars (apart from the question of dating the YJ, of which I am aware); but it seems you were thinking chiefly of astronomy?
I dont see these topics as strictly separate for several reasons. Firstly, we are discussing the reputation of Pingree as a scholar in regards any preconceptions or biases he might have had. In that specific context I dont think we can objectively discuss his work on Indian astrology in 'splendid isolation'.

Secondly, knowledge of what was astronomically possible effects how we view the astrology too. These topics frequently interact. For example the the Aryabhata by Aryabhata I is probably the major text used in establishing the zero date of the Hindu epoch. Amongst other things this has implications for things like ayanamsa used in astrology.

For the Indians themselves this was surely all part of Jyotisa. Hence we see figures like Varahamira and Sripati dealing with both astronomy and astrology.

Lastly, I dont think Mak's reevaluation of Pingree's translation of the Yavanaj?taka is restricted to just the dating of the text. He also suggests Pingree effectively imported some ideas into his translation that had no basis in the text whatsoever.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:41 pm, edited 6 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

8
Raymond Mercier is a figure frequently quoted by astrologers in discussions about the history of the zodiac. His work Studies on the Transmission of Medieval Mathematical Astronomy (2004). is a seminal work in establishing the sidereal basis of the astronomical tables used in early Perso-Arabic astrology.
Thanks; I'll definitely read up on that. (I do recognize Mercier's name, but I don't believe I've read any of his work.)

On the rest of what you write, I largely disagree. The Indians as well as the Greeks did differentiate between (what we now call) mathematical astronomy and (what we now call) horoscopic astrology. Of course they are related, but the latter is a much more circumscribed and (relatively speaking) securely datable and traceable body of knowledge than the former. If Pingree was wrong about the one, it doesn't follow that he was wrong about the other.
Lastly, I dont think Mak's reevaluation of Pingree's translation of the Yavanaj?taka is restricted to just the dating of the text. He also suggests Pingree effectively imported some ideas into his translation that had no basis in the text whatsoever.
Yes, but he doesn't call into question the Greek origins of horoscopic astrology. As I have said before, Pingree was not really a first-class Sanskritist (I can't pronounce on his other language skills); his translations as well as his emendations were sometimes on the reckless side, and he had a tendency to regard some of his pet hypotheses as established facts (a common scholarly vice). None of this detracts from his enormous contributions to the field; it just shows that good scholarship is a collaborative, or cumulative, effort. But the main point is that, to my knowledge, no academic scholar has questioned Pingree's overall views on the history of horoscopic astrology in India.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

9
Martin Gansten wrote:
On the rest of what you write, I largely disagree. The Indians as well as the Greeks did differentiate between (what we now call) mathematical astronomy and (what we now call) horoscopic astrology. Of course they are related, but the latter is a much more circumscribed and (relatively speaking) securely datable and traceable body of knowledge than the former. If Pingree was wrong about the one, it doesn't follow that he was wrong about the other.
I suppose it depends how pedantic one wants to be here. In the narrow sense I dont dispute what you are saying. However, from a broader perspective my position has a basis in Indian culture too.

Lets start with your position. This appears to be summarised by Bill Mak as follows:
Traditionally, jyotisa was viewed as one of the auxillary disciplines associated with the Vedas (Vedanga). The prevalent classification follows the tripartite scheme given in Varahamihira?s (505-578 CE) Brhatsamhita, namely ganita (mathematical astronomy), hora (genelithical astrology or horoscopy) and samhita ( natural astronomy or miscellaneous divinations). Varahamihira produced three major works in each of these categories, namely Pancasiddhantika, Brhatjjatika and Brhatsamhita, which in turn became the authority in the respective domains up to the present day.
Taking this approach the two fields are certainly distinguishable. However, there is a broader outlook which can also be used in Indian tradition. For example at the outset of his article ?Astronomers and Their Reasons: Working Paper on jyotisastra', Christopher Minokowski writes:
??Sanskrit knowledge systems, the scientific tradition of Jyotis, Jyotisastra, a term that includes the disciplines of mathematics, astronomy and divination?.
Also David Pingree himself wrote the book Jyotisastra - A History of Indian Astral and Mathematical Literature which reviewed Indian astrological and astronomical literature together.

So the precedent of linking astronomy and astrology together at times seems indigenous to India and not something I am just subjectively seeking to impose retrospectively. That is not to suggest they were synonymous either though. Clearly, there is a large volume of Jyotisa astrological literature with negligible astronomical or mathematical content.

Still I don?t think it is invalid to examine Pingree?s work on the history of Indian astronomy in the context of this discussion. Not least as some of the recent criticism of his translation of the astrological text known as the Yavanaj?taka actually concerns a chapter devoted exclusively to astronomy!

I should say that I have never suggested Pingree was ?wrong? in all these controversies. I am not qualified enough to ultimately judge. I simply recount that academics who are suitably qualified have been critical of some of his assumptions. The interesting point is that both in the astronomical and astronomical texts he worked on the most controversial element frequently seems to come down to disputes regarding indigenous concepts vs foreign transmission of ideas. While I think Pingree left a phenomenal academic legacy behind him I don?t think that means we have to take a uncritical attitude to all his conclusions.

Martin Gansten wrote:
Yes, but he doesn't call into question the Greek origins of horoscopic astrology.
Absolutely not. I never suggested this anywhere though did I?

Clearly though from the earliest stage Indian astrology was never just a clone of the hellenistic tradition in the way very early Persian astrology was. References to basic hellenistic notions such as the bounds, the lots, planetary sect are missing in the earliest Indian horoscopic astrology. In contrast uniquely Indian notions like the vargas, yogas, ashtakavarga, and a unique position on retrograde planets all seem present from a fairly stage. We also have the distinctive Indian lunar zodiac or nakshatras.

However, I don?t wish to be misunderstood here. I therefore need to clarify that my points regarding Pingree were fairly subtle ones. It was merely a passing comment which you picked me up on. The criticisms he has received concern quite specific areas of academic interpretation and not the broad sweep of history.

I dont wish to be identified in any way with the Hindu chauvanist critics of David Pingree who condemn him as a prejudiced or even racist westerner. It seems to me Pingree has become a particular target for the Hindu nationalists or their fellow travellers seeking to challenge the Aryan invasion theory. For advocates of this approach, such as the astrologer David Frawley, the idea of an Aryan invasion to North India was a myth and the early Vedas were composed by an indigenous Indians.

The Hindu separatist mentality seems to have leaked into some astrological discussions too in India. Hence, the astrological influence of Greek astrology is often denied with claims that horoscopic astrology is all indigenous and has scriptural basis in the Vedas. Academics like David Pingree, who was probably the strongest proponent of cultural influences from outside India, inevitably attracts a degree of animosity from such quarters.

I personally, think Pingree was a remarkable and gifted man. The range of languages he studied in astrological and astronomical texts is surely unprecedented. Its an amazing legacy when you look at it overall. As astrologers we are very lucky to have had such a high calibre scholar take an interest in the history of Babylonian, Persian, Arabic and Indian astrology. Like any fallable human being though he clearly made some mistakes. The only problem is that relatively few similar high quality scholars are taking an interest in Jyotisa literature. That is why Bill Mak?s research is so welcome.

Martin Gansten wrote:
As I have said before, Pingree was not really a first-class Sanskritist (I can't pronounce on his other language skills); his translations as well as his emendations were sometimes on the reckless side, and he had a tendency to regard some of his pet hypotheses as established facts (a common scholarly vice). None of this detracts from his enormous contributions to the field; it just shows that good scholarship is a collaborative, or cumulative, effort. But the main point is that, to my knowledge, no academic scholar has questioned Pingree's overall views on the history of horoscopic astrology in India.

But the main point is that, to my knowledge, no academic scholar has questioned Pingree's overall views on the history of horoscopic astrology in India.
No although his suggestion of heavy Mesopotamian influence on Indian astral science before the introduction of horoscopic astrology has been seriously challenged.

If we are discussing the overall chronology of horoscopic astrology though I have not suggested Pingree's position was incorrect. Although it has be said there has hardly been an avalanche of academics examining this topic as a whole since Pingree has there? Especially, in regards Jyotisa. Can you think of any names yourself? I mean people who have attempted a comprehensive history of Jyotisa rather than just specialising in a very narrow area? No disrespect intended here but from what I have seen of your research to date your work (on Nadi and Tajika) would seem to fall in to the latter category.

Basically though I was referring to quite specific concepts that have been disputed not the ?big picture?. For example, Bill Mak is heavily critical of Pingree?s edition of the 79th chapter of the Yavanajataka which Pingree amended heavily to align with Babylonian data. K.Shukla (1989) and Falk (2001) have pointed out Pingree?s reconstruction of the text contains serious flaws since there was really no Babylonian basis to the source text. What Shukla pointed out was that Pingree essentially failed to understand the internal logic in this part of the text dealing with indigenous Indian time measures including the concept of a yuga. This seems an example of Pingree seeking to creatively plug the information gap by inserting an ultimately flawed interpretation based on the notion of inherent Babylonian influence. Interestingly this disputed translation by Pingree occurs in a purely astronomical chapter of an otherwise astrological text. A good example of how these topics can interact.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

10
Mark wrote:Still I don?t think it is invalid to examine Pingree?s work on the history of Indian astronomy in the context of this discussion. Not least as some of the recent criticism of his translation of the astrological text known as the Yavanaj?taka actually concerns a chapter devoted exclusively to astronomy!
Which was sort of my point.
Yes, but he doesn't call into question the Greek origins of horoscopic astrology.
Absolutely not. I never suggested this anywhere though did I?
What you said was that 'Pingree's tendency to attribute foreign influence at every possible step of Indian astronomical or astrological development is something other academics have criticised him for' (my emphasis). I just haven't seen the latter part, that's all -- neither Pingree looking for foreign influences on every step of astrological development nor others criticizing him for it. In fact, in his Jyoti???stra, Pingree evinces fairly little interest in (the history of) astrological ideas as such. His main focus was dates and routes of transmission.
Clearly though from the earliest stage Indian astrology was never just a clone of the hellenistic tradition in the way very early Persian astrology was.
From the earliest recorded stage -- agreed.
I mean people who have attempted a comprehensive history of Jyotisa rather than just specialising in a very narrow area? No disrespect intended here but from what I have seen of your research to date your work (on Nadi and Tajika) would seem to fall in to the latter category.

That's rather like calling the medieval transmission of Arabic-language astrology to Europe 'a very narrow area'. :D What the field needs isn't more scholars attempting (and necessarily failing) to write the history of all aspects of astronomy-astrology on the Indian subcontinent. It needs more specialization, though I use that term in a very relative sense: the entire body of Indian writings on Perso-Arabic-derived astrology over the better part of a millennium still isn't what I would call highly specialized or narrow...

Anyway, I apologize if I derailed your thread; that wasn't my intention. Perhaps we should get back to a??akavarga?
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

11
Mark wrote:
Still I don?t think it is invalid to examine Pingree?s work on the history of Indian astronomy in the context of this discussion. Not least as some of the recent criticism of his translation of the astrological text known as the Yavanaj?taka actually concerns a chapter devoted exclusively to astronomy!
Martin Gansten wrote:
Which was sort of my point.
Strange. I rather thought it was mine! The Yavanaj?taka surely provides a clear example where the astronomical discussion is integral to an astrological text. You have been the one insisting on a strict differentiation of the two disciplines all through this thread.

I suppose your point is that the criticisms of Pingree even in an astrological text like The Yavanaj?taka concern the derivation of astronomical/mathematical ideas not astrological techniques. In that respect I have to concede you have a good case.

Martin Gansten wrote:
Yes, but he doesn't call into question the Greek origins of horoscopic astrology.
Mark wrote:
Absolutely not. I never suggested this anywhere though did I?
Martin Gansten wrote:
What you said was that 'Pingree's tendency to attribute foreign influence at every possible step of Indian astronomical or astrological development is something other academics have criticised him for' (my emphasis). I just haven't seen the latter part, that's all -- neither Pingree looking for foreign influences on every step of astrological development nor others criticizing him for it. In fact, in his Jyoti???stra, Pingree evinces fairly little interest in (the history of) astrological ideas as such. His main focus was dates and routes of transmission.
If I had realised a passing comment was going to be scrutinised to this extent I would have provided the necessary caveats! First off ,unlike you, I have less interest at present in the study of the medieval period onwards. I don?t think ideas regarding Perso-Arabic influence are really controversial to the same extent because they are undeniable. So nothing Pingree stated regarding this period was on my mind. I was thinking more of the ancient, yavana and early Siddhantic period. I suppose my comment could give the impression I was discussing a much longer time frame. In that respect your scrutiny on this issue has been helpful to further clarify my briefest of comments.

We probably also have a different take on what we define as astrology. You seem to have adopted the fairly tight definition used by David Pingree which exclusively focuses on his definition of 'horoscopic astrology'. This requires use of an astrological ascendant to qualify as a horoscope. I prefer the view of more recent scholars such as Francesca Rochberg, Michah Ross and Dorian Greenbaum who have challenged this approach in regards both Babylonian and Egyptian astrology. I regard astrological activity prior to the introduction of hellenistic astrology as just as interesting as later developments. So in that context I think that Pingree?s comments about strong Babylonian influence on Indian astral science in this period is relevant.

Having said all that if we confine ourselves to the period of influence from Greco-Roman horoscopic astrology in India I don't have many criticisms of Pingree to call on except those by Bill Mak. So I broadly accept there is not a weight of academic opinion critical of Pingree in this respect. Still there is a definite common theme to the academic criticisms of Pingree regarding his astronomical and astrological writing covering the period from the late Vedic writing to the early Siddhantic period. They nearly always coalesce around points that Pingree often speculated on foreign influence to a degree not shared by other scholars. However, this is more about specific technicalities than the broad sweep of history. So I dont think there is any serious controversy regarding the influence of Greek horoscopic astrology around the beginning of the first millenium CE or the later influence of Perso-Arabic astrology on India. In those respects the impact of foreign influence is uncontroversial in the academic community.

So I hope this helped to clarify my rather sweeping statement on Pingree!

Mark wrote:
Clearly though from the earliest stage Indian astrology was never just a clone of the hellenistic tradition in the way very early Persian astrology was.
Martin Gansten wrote:
From the earliest recorded stage -- agreed.
Well yes there are undoubtably missing links in the available sources we have at our disposable.

Mark wrote:
I mean people who have attempted a comprehensive history of Jyotisa rather than just specialising in a very narrow area? No disrespect intended here but from what I have seen of your research to date your work (on Nadi and Tajika) would seem to fall in to the latter category.


Martin Gansten wrote:
That's rather like calling the medieval transmission of Arabic-language astrology to Europe 'a very narrow area'.
Touche! Ok I see your point. I did express myself rather poorly there.

Martin Gansten wrote:
What the field needs isn't more scholars attempting (and necessarily failing) to write the history of all aspects of astronomy-astrology on the Indian subcontinent. It needs more specialization, though I use that term in a very relative sense: the entire body of Indian writings on Perso-Arabic-derived astrology over the better part of a millennium still isn't what I would call highly specialized or narrow...
I guess your right. Scholarship does generally progress through painstaking, detailed research on quite specific issues. Bill Mak's re-evaluation of the Yavanaj?taka is a good case in point. What made Pingree unique was the exceptionally wide historical range he covered in numerous papers. This put him in a stronger position than most to evaluate the Jyotisa tradition in India.

I know the introduction of Tajika astrology with Perso-arabic astrology is a particular interest of yours. Personally though my interest lies more in the ancient period up to the early Siddhantic era. This seems to be the time when most of the idiosyncratic features of Jyotisa developed. I also think there is a lot of scholarship still to be done on ancient texts that have received relatively little attention to date.

Martin Gansten wrote:
Anyway, I apologize if I derailed your thread; that wasn't my intention. Perhaps we should get back to a??akavarga?
My query was basically historical rather than practical and you already covered that well. I am a good bit off applying this technique in charts yet.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly