Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:57 am
Mark wrote:
I suspect the "tropical Vedic" question might pit university trained academics against those who have interpreted India's texts on their own. For example, I recently read in K. K. Pathak's Astrology in the Vedas and Puranas (2004) that Vedanga Jyotisha was never meant to propound principles of astrology. It was authored to fix the timing of religious rites and festivals. (p. 19) So it wouldn't be correct to use that text as a support for using the tropical zodiac for India's astrology.
The academic view knows you must keep a broad perspective. Ernst Wilhelm has purposely kept his perspective narrow by giving away most of his books and relying on his two favorites: Brihat Parsara Hora Sastra and Jaimini Sutras. (Which he then preceded to interpret himself.) In comparison, in his two volume Textbook of Scientific Hindu Astrology (2004), Dr. P. S.Sastri cites India's primary classical texts and even brings in western astrological authors to explain and support certain principles of astrology.
These two approaches are alive and well in astrology today. "This is the way I see it" opposed to the professional education of astrologers which relies on a thorough understanding of classical concepts and critical thinking.
The key here is "his interpretation." That is the crux of the entire zodiac question for India's astrology. This question would require the input of trained academics in Sanskrit and India's history and astronomy. (That is why in a previous post I quoted from two Indian academics.) I don't know Vic DiCara, but I do know that Ernst Wilhelm and the few I personally know who follow his system have no higher academic education. (At least I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.) Ernst has reached his conclusion based on his own studies. Then of course Ernst's students will follow his teaching, probably without careful comparison of academic opinion.Thanks. The counterview is put forward in a link in the comments to that piece. In particular an article/video by Vic DiCara. He seems to be yet another astrologer practising Indian astrological techniques who advocates a tropical approach. He argues this in part based on his interpretation of Indian texts such as the S?rya Siddh?nta and ?r?mad Bh?gavatam were he suggests a tropical outlook is implicit.
I suspect the "tropical Vedic" question might pit university trained academics against those who have interpreted India's texts on their own. For example, I recently read in K. K. Pathak's Astrology in the Vedas and Puranas (2004) that Vedanga Jyotisha was never meant to propound principles of astrology. It was authored to fix the timing of religious rites and festivals. (p. 19) So it wouldn't be correct to use that text as a support for using the tropical zodiac for India's astrology.
The academic view knows you must keep a broad perspective. Ernst Wilhelm has purposely kept his perspective narrow by giving away most of his books and relying on his two favorites: Brihat Parsara Hora Sastra and Jaimini Sutras. (Which he then preceded to interpret himself.) In comparison, in his two volume Textbook of Scientific Hindu Astrology (2004), Dr. P. S.Sastri cites India's primary classical texts and even brings in western astrological authors to explain and support certain principles of astrology.
These two approaches are alive and well in astrology today. "This is the way I see it" opposed to the professional education of astrologers which relies on a thorough understanding of classical concepts and critical thinking.