Talk:Jyotiṣa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Free Vedic Astrology Lessons 2 Rashi 3 Jyotish - Origin & Principles 4 Cleanup 5 Jyotisha 6 top page additions 7 POV 8 Why is this item under "factual accuracy is disputed" category? 9 Vedic / Hindu astrological guidance 10 Scientific critique 11 Tags removed 12 Tag added 13 No Tag needed 14 Proposal to rename article Jyotish 15 Dispute over Science 16 Protection? 17 Dropping the NPOV tag 18 Jyotisha and Astronomy 19 Article name proposal 20 Zodiac signs 21 Panchanga 22 can somebody please adopt this article?? 23 It's Jyotisha, not Jyotishya 24 Sources 25 progress 26 Birth Charts 27 graha and navagraha 28 more of the same 29 Conflicting gender for Shani in wikipedia entries

[edit] Free Vedic Astrology Lessons

This is one of my favorite astrology websites & it has great, helpful lessons on Vedic astrology. It isn't spam. Please consider adding it to the external links.

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/vedic/ IdLoveOne 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

although they don't appear to be "spam" in the commercial sense, these "lessons" are patently unencyclopedic nonsense ("Indian Astro-Physics"). --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Still, the site has many more things to offer that are encyclopedic. IdLoveOne (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rashi

Under Rashis the chart depicting North Indian Notation of houses has incorrectly been identified as depicting South Indian Notation. NayakDeepti 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jyotish - Origin & Principles

I would like to know where in the Vedas the principles of Jyotish are found - Dr N D King

The principles of Jyotish are well founded in the Vedas. "Karma" or one's actions (what you sow, so shall you reap) forms the fundamental basis of Jyotish. Even a mere thought is said to trigger a cosmic reaction. Hence, human as well as other lives tend to progress through this spiritual journey by taking on physical forms until they realize the absolute reality (the reasons or the process is all too extensive to discuss here). A Jyotishi or Astrologer then is someone who delineates an individual's "Karma Phala" (the fruits of our karma) and provides the individual with the necessary spiritual insight/jyoti (light) to steer them towards the absolute reality/truth. Hence, a true Jyotishi is one who himself/herself is illumined by understanding the absolute reality (which is why this science can't be quantified or tested).

Jyotish is multi-faceted. "Jathaka" or Horoscopy is one facet of Jyotish that looks at the planetary positions at birth to predict the events in one's life. "Muhurtha" or Electional astrology looks at the quality of time to predict the course of an event started at any specific time. "Prasna" or Horary astrology is another branch that deals exclusively with predicting outcomes of queries. "Nimmitas" or premonitions based on signs/symbols are another way of understanding how events will unfold. "Ganita" or mathematics is yet another branch that deals with the calculations of planetary motions, the reasoning behind these numbers, etc. Finally, "Gola" or study of rounded objects is study of the actual planets themselves and why they revolve/rotate, etc.

There is a lot of talk about how Jyotish may be from Babylon, Greece etc. Given that the principles of Jyotish lies completely in the Vedas it is difficult to believe that it was borrowed and retro-fitted into Vedic thought, the other way seems more likely, which is one of the reasons why western astrology doesn't seem to be as complete. Jyotish on the other hand, is regarded as one of the "anghas" or parts of the Vedas. Jyotish is designated to be the "eyes" of the Vedas (rightfully so). With Jyotish one is able to see everything the Vedas propound - the very truth about our existence.

It is said that everything emanated from this one basic vibration of "Om" or "Aum." From "Om" the five elemental vibrations emerged representing the five different tattwas (or elements). The five planets represent these five vibrations – Jupiter for Ether, Saturn for Air, Mars for Fire, Mercury for Earth, and Venus for Water. Everything is made up of these five different elements in different proportions. From this, arise the principles of Jyotish, the principles of Ayurveda, the principles of Yoga, the principles of Indian classical music, the principles of color, and pretty much every other science in ancient India. You'll be surprised to find out even the Sanskrit language is structured based on these five tattwas (or elements).

--j balagopal 14:59, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've added the cleanup template due to the lack of paragraph breaks. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 05:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- The section at the beginning did not fit the flow of the article and was moved to a new page: Bhrigu Samhita

Makewa 08:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    ACTIONS FOR NIVRATI ARE ACCORDING TO JYOTISH
    WHILE OTHER KARMAS ARE ACCORDING TO PRAVRATI.
    IN MY VIEWS NIVRATI MEANS THE PATH TO SALVATION
    WHILE PRAVRATI MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO COME AGAIN TO LIFE TILL WE DO NOT ADOPT 
    NIVRATI MARG.

[edit] Jyotisha

I moved to Jyotisha since we usually have the transcriptions of Sanskrit as titles (see Vedanga). The Hindi pronunciation can be given as a spelling variant of course. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] top page additions

These have been deleted as the nine planets are not the key significators of the elements as pointed out. The information can be divulged somewhere else but not on the top of the article.

--shridharvk, 15 May, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The article needs to be rewritten from a NPOV view so that it is clear that this is a form of divination. There is a complete lack of scientific criticism of this subject, and as a result it is biased.59.92.62.163 07:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well if the POV is "a lack of scientific criticism", then so be it. By the way, for the information of 59.92.62.163, the scientific method is to verify or falsify a given hypothesis, and not to criticise a given field of knowledge. I suggest this POV tag be dropped. Entries on Wikipedia are not meant to convince or offer proof of anything, but to offer a factual representation of the topic under dicussion. Jyotish, or vedic astrology, is an ancient field of knowledge and practice. All readers know what astrology is about. This is much ado about nothing, in my view. Ramayan 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree with Ramayan. The POV flag due to "lack of scientific criticism" is ridiculous. Jyotish and Vedanga are the first and foremost scriptures to mathematically provide us calculations about the space. In fact, thousands of years before the west even accepted the idea of Earth not being flat, the Maharishis (seers) who gave these scriptures to humanity knew that! This is profound knowledge we are talking about, and someone who is caught within the bounds of ultra-Western thinking has to open his/her mind instead of issuing such blanket POVs. Please remove POV!

[edit] Why is this item under "factual accuracy is disputed" category?

There is absolutely no argument I see on the Talk page to suggest that something in the article is factually incorrect. So why is this item unnecessarily highlighted as so? Guys, leave Vedic astrology alone from your political agendas and religious agendas. This is pure knowledge we are talking about! Please release this from the disputed category and let people enjoy reading Wikipedia without trepidation and doubts.

Additional comments from another reader: It is not a sin to talk about what the believes were in the ancient Indian culture. Unfortunately, one tries to compare with modern science. It is absolutely ridiculous to draw such comparison. I think that it might have been basically derived from “cause and effect” theories on the statistical inferences that we do in modern media today.

Additional comments: It also has to be taken into consideration that jyotish as well as every other form of esoteric field has known effects coming from unknown causes. In essence, there is a cause and an effect involved here but the former, which refers to the mechanics of astrology, is still a mystery. The reason why "scientific" minded persons are biased is because they do not have a reason to believe it and in effect know very little if anything at all about these fields of knowledge. Science is supposed to be a field of advancing knowledge instead of sticking to the traditional ways (which is exactly what they are doing by not keeping an open mind and and by not accepting that science has not discovered everything yet, at least from the standpoint of knowledge dubbed as "unexplainable").

Do not add unsigned comments. Comments above were added by User Pisapatis on 17 Sep 2006 23:57 UTC, while last comment above was added by anonymous user 58.71.49.2 today. -Vinay Jha 06:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinay Jha (talk • contribs).

[edit] Vedic / Hindu astrological guidance

The section on Vedic / Hindu astrological guidance is misleading. To the best of my knowledge India did not have the seven-day week system during the vedic era. Probably they used `tithi' instead. The Sunday, Monday ... system came to India later.N shaji 03:40, 13 August 2006

Vadic Astrology has "five attributes" of the day viz, tithi,vara, nakshatra, yoga and, karana. Each Vara is ruled by one of the seven Grahas from the Navagraha

[edit] Scientific critique

This article is in shambles, there's no scientific critiscim and it's very biased and filled with unreferenced claims. We need to make this article NPOV59.92.40.87 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on critique. What do you think?59.92.40.87 11:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Made an account. I've also delted some unneccesary detailed information.Naroays 11:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The critique section was recently deleted without any consensus. Restored Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags removed

If there are specific sections in the article that need attention, please add tags in these sections and explain the reasons for the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag added

I've added the NPOV tag, as this article violates the undue weight and pseudoscience part of the Wikipedia policy. There was a referenced section on the critique on jyotisha which was removed without any discussion. As it stands now, this article is not balanced. We should include [1] or referenced satements from scientists such as [2].Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Tag needed

Mythology may be false, yet they have have exerted profound influence upon human history and upon social consciousness of even modern societies. Same is the case with astrology. All attempts of rationalists to wipe out astrology will only make the situation worse : only quacks will be left in this field and all sincere investigation will come to a stop. That is already happening. Astronomy has come out of astrology. No field of enquiry should be closed for investigation and study. Those who are not interested in a particular field should keep away from it and let others work. I think almost all astrologers are quacks who have nothing to do with either astrology or science. Yet a ban is totalitarianism which I oppose. Vinay Jha 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename article Jyotish

The article currently goes by the Hindi or modern name, Jyotisha but is originally a sanskrit term, Jyotish. As the sanskrit term is the original one and also the one most frequently used, it is proposed the name of the article be rename to reflect that. This requires the lead paragraph also be rewritten and a proposal for that follows:

Jyotish, or jyótiṣ, is the Sanskrit term for Vedic astrology, which originated in Vedic times in India. The word Jyothi means light or flame and Ish means God. Jyothish thus means "Lord of the light". Today, it is commonly referred to as the science of light. In modern Hindi, the term Jyotisha, or jyotiṣa, is used, while in the English speaking world, the terms Hindu astrology and Indian astrology are used in addition to the predominant English term Vedic astrology.

Astronomically, the practice of Vedic astrology relies on the sidereal or visible zodiac, which is different from the tropical zodiac used in western astrology in that an ayanamsa adjustment is made for the gradual precession of the vernal equinox.

Philosophically, the Vedic system of astrology is one of the six disciplines of Vedanga. As such, Jyotish has historically been part of a continuous holistic approach to living and an integral practice emanating from this ancient spiritual tradition of India. Its role is to offer humanity a means to understand the role and expression of karma in individual and collective life. Jyotish is regarded as one of the oldest schools of ancient astrology to have had an independent origin, affecting all other schools in and around India. Jyotish is often discussed as the instructional element of the Rig Veda, or "body part" of the Vedas, namely called the Eye of the Veda, for its alleged ability to view both phenomenal reality and wisdom itself. Part of a larger Vedic curriculum including mathematics, architecture, medical and military applications. Jyotish has its own sophisticated reference to the noumenal: the planets are grahas, which are thought to seize or act upon created beings and influence their actions and life. Indeed, Hindus believe that humans have fortune and misfortune in life because of karma. Many use Jyotish to understand setbacks in life due to the influence of planets, i.e. Navagraha, and perform religious ceremonies to mitigate or avoid the pain of separation in life. Ramayan 12:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Common words like light or flame do not need to be linked. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). — Sam 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The terms were wikified to give insight into their esoteric meaning - as opposed to their common meaning. Have removed link to one of the terms and made remaining link to light specific to the term enlightenment. Ramayan 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a little misleading I think. Why not just use the term "enlightenment" instead of piped links that lead the user to somewhere else? — Sam 12:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The original term is light. The link is made to the intended esoteric meaning. Are you sure you mean to say that such a link is misleading? It's only purpose is to assist those who may not know the deeper or esoteric meaning of literal terms. Ramayan 13:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

you are free to state that the Hindi term is "jyotish", but please stop conflating Sanskrit jyotiṣa "astrology" with jyótis- "light". The difference is significant. Also, since this isn't hi:, the article should reside either at the Sanskrit term, Jyotiṣa, or at the self-exlpanatory English Hindu astrology. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the proper name is, let us please come to a consensus and stop having this article's title change so many times. Samuel Grant 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over Science

Hello fellow wikipedians, if you have a dispute over whether it is science, please leave a reference that states it isn't. Also, another way to avoid this conflict is by making a Controversy sub article in this article. Warrush 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Astrology is not a science. Here are your references.

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], or do you want more? 158.144.16.13 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's proto-science if you like. In any case, it's astrology, and whether astrology is or isn't science in some sense does not need to be discussed here. The fact of the matter is that "astrology" as it exists today is an occultist continuation of what used to be actual science in Hellenistic times, but became separated from scientific mainstream with the emergence of the "age of reason" in the 17th century. Of course, there was no "age of reason" in 17th century India, and the confrontation of Indian tradition with the notion of "science" began in the 19th century, and is in some sense ongoing. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

I have put this article up for semi protection due to the edit war. Warrush 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the IP user's concern is reasonable -- Jyotiṣa is Indian astrology. Generally, astrology is not considered a science. Besides, the IP user wasn't vandalizing the article, just tagging it with {{dubious}} -- so I've removed "science" and replaced it with "system"/"discipline". Hope that fixes the problem. Cheers! utcursch | talk 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was vandal patrolling so the only thing i payed attention to was the adding of dubious everywhere. I know he/she is right about the science, but he/she still has to abide by the wikipedian rules. I wasn't wrong in reverting it, and good job cleaning it up. I hope this fixes the dispute. Warrush 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And where exactly did I not abide by the rules? You were wrong in reverting it, claiming that I was a vandal. I think user Warrush is overzealous in "protecting" the article, without actually looking at the edits.158.144.16.24 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be some clarification here. First, Warrush didn't protect the article from editing. I have threatened to do so, but Warrush doesn't have the technical ability to protect an article from editing. Administrators do. Second, there was this edit summary referencing vandalism and this message, both of look like the vandalism accusation referenced. None of the recent IP actions regarding this article were vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism has an extensive list of what is and isn't vandalism, and nothing here qualifies. What has been going on here is a Wikipedia:Edit war, and that is prohibited, at the very least by the Three revert rule. Both Warrush and an ever-shifting IP address were equal participants in the edit war, but it now seems to be resolved by some editing by Utcursch. In any case, to summarize, you are both allowed to constructively edit the article, and you can both start from a clean slate for whatever real and imagined past transgressions on this article. Please leave a message here or on my talk page if you have other questions.--Chaser - T 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted it was because adding "dubious" everywhere without adding a reference. You are right, it wasn't vandalism, but you can't add it without providing a reference (which you did after you reverted). After you showed me some references I stopped reverting. And you did break the rules, you cannot add a tag that deals with a controversy without a reference. Also, I appologize for calling you a vandal, my mistake. Warrush 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dropping the NPOV tag

After reading through some previous history, it is clear to me that this article is tagged with the NPOV tag because someone "removed scientific critique on jyotisha section without any discussion". Compare with Chinese astrology and Western astrology and comment why the NPOV tag shouldn't be dropped. rohith 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jyotisha and Astronomy

RandomCritic has inserted a tag in Indian astronomy proposing a merger of this article (Indian astronomy) with Jyotisha. Jyotisha includes astronomy, but it also includes much more. Hence a merger will result in a giant and unmanageable article. A merger will cause confusion. --Vinay Jha 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While it's possible that two articles are needed, the scope of both needs to be very clearly defined so that it's clear to any editor what material should go in either. At present there is no such definition. If it's not possible to make any such distinction, then there should be merger.

As, currently, scientific astronomy in India is the same science as it is anywhere in the world, the title "Indian astronomy" is not really appropriate; perhaps "History of astronomy in India" would be an appropriate article, though that's not really what the current "Indian astronomy" article is about, and the material therein would appear to fit more comfortably in an article about astrology, if anywhere.RandomCritic 05:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

RandomCritic is justified in raising the point that topics of both these articles have not properly defined by the editors. Although I detest Jyotisha as a profession I have thoroughly mastered it so that government and non-gonernmental organisations are publishing almanacs from my softwares (freewares) based on scientific as well as traditional astronomy, and topmost professors of sanskrit universities (jyotish departments) are on editorial boards of my almanacs, and recently a Sanskrit university decided in my favour, following a High Court order, in which I had charged that a head of department is publishing faulty almanac and does now his subject adequately. I assure RandomCritic that I will try to remove the defects pointed out by him as I get time. There is a problem : for traditional Jyotisha I will have to cite from Sanskrit (with Hindi commentaries) because traditional texts are generally published for pandits, and English books do not reflect this subject properly and are written by biased persons who are more interested in reforming Jyotish rather than in describing it in a neutral way. Present Wiki article 'Jyotisha' is infested with a few such editors and that is why I kept away from editing, because I want to keep away from edit war or any war.

The editors of both these articles are keeping the subject matter well separated. But it ought to be well defined in the beginning of both articles. 'Indian astronomy' may be renamed as 'Indian astronomy(Jyotisha)' to remove the possible confusion RandomCritic has pointed . But I think nobody is actually getting confused because everyone knows that 'Indian astronomy' is not a branch of modern astronomy. Nevertheless, renaming will be better. It is simple : create a new article as 'Indian astronomy(Jyotisha)' and move the present article there. But it should be discussed with other editors before being implemented. I request RandomCritic to remove the tag for merger because a merger will result in a unmanageably big and confused mass. Instead place a new 'proposal' in a box at the start of this article : "It is proposed that this article should be moved to 'Indian astronomy(Jyotisha)' for removing the confusion that a title 'Indian astronomy' may be mistaken to be a branch of modern scientific astronomy - discuss". -Vinay Jha 06:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• • This is a really bad idea. It would serve to dilute the content of Jyotish and take up space with astronomy, which is a very different subject matter in the modern age. It is ok to create a reference to the astronomy page, but I emphatically oppose this ludicrous idea of merging the two.Wordup 10 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name proposal

Instead of having constant disputes over the correct Indian term, I'd like to propose this article be simply titled "Indian astrology" in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions. Quoting from the page: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Samuel Grant 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Indian Astrology" would be the more apt title for the English version of Wikipedia, or any versions for that matters. "Vedic astrology" is a misnomer, and Jyotisha doesn't adequately distinguish this tradition from the others. For example, the modern western tradition of Uranian astrology could also be labeled under the broad category of "Jyotish". The article should be renamed "Indian Astrology". --Chris Brennan 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vedic astrology" is certainly not suitable due to overuse and misuse of this term. The article in its present form is nearer to "Indian Astrology" (Indian version of European computations with some Indian cosmetics) than to Jyotisha. Go ahead, rename. Someone will start a new article 'Jyotisha' and try to present the native system there. Vinay Jha 02:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of the article's content; this article's title is under recurring dispute regarding which Indian term is best when the argument is irrelevant when considering Wikipedia guidelines. Jyotish and its variants are not good choices as the majority of English speakers are not familiar with these terms. That leaves "Vedic astrology" and "Indian astrology", with the former being the most problematic. Samuel Grant 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest two possible names : "(Jyotish)Indian astrology" or "Indian astrology(Jyotish)". Discuss with others too. -VJ

read Wikipedia:Naming conventions first. Possibilities are Jyotiṣa (scholarly term) or Hindu astrology (widely understood term) --dab (𒁳) 07:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jyotiṣa" may be the "scholarly" term, but it's in a foreign language and describes astrology in general, not a particular tradition as this one. Hindu astrology implies that this tradition is only practiced by Hindus and is exclusive to Hinduism, which isn't the case. I don't think there is any need for parentheses in the title; "Indian astrology" conveys to the reader that a) it's a specific type of astrology, and b) it has its point of origin in the area of India, which is truer to form than "Hindu" or "Vedic" astrology and more widely understood by anglophones than Jyotisha and its numerous variants. However, certainly there can be an elaboration on these different names for this tradition in the article itself. Samuel Grant 18:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Grant should consult the article astrology . The present article does not describe astrology in general, but merely Indian/Vedic astrology which is technically known as Jyotiṣa. Practitioners of Jyotiṣa have always called it a branch of Vedas, hence Vedic Jyotiṣa is also a correct name. Unlike science which is universal, astrology has regional variations. Leave the title as it is . DAB is right. -Vinay Jha 21:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the astrology article, actually, and you misunderstood me. The Indian term "Jyotish" simply means "astrology" without any specification of tradition, and anyway it is irrelevant in the face of Wikipedia guidelines. The title cannot stay as it is and be in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions, which put "readers over editors [...] and general audiences over specialists." That rules out Jyotisha and its variants, leaving:

• Hindu astrology, which erroneously declares this tradition is exclusive to Hinduism
• Vedic astrology, which is a misnomer that implies this tradition is found in the Vedas
• Indian astrology, which declares the tradition to be of Indian origin, making no questionable presuppositions. Samuel Grant 22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of the term vedic astrology. It reflects the ancient spiritual tradition that is at the heart of modern Jyotish. This term is what seperates tropical astrology (God centered, law of karma, etc) from the western (sidereal) astrology, which is at heart based on the materialist (20th century scienctific) world view. Leave the name as is. Wordup 10 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Indian term "Jyotiṣa" has always remained attached to the Vedic tradition; it is foremost of the six traditional limbs of Veda, the first Vedānga, and is called the Eye of Veda. Without Jyotiṣa Veda will become blind. That is why it was called Jyotiṣa. If the title is changed, traditional editors may not spend their time over improvement of this article. Samuel Grant wants to change the title because it is a foreign. Apply this logic to all such articles. Only Anglo-American artilces will be left in Wiki. -Vinay Jha 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no horoscopic astrology in the Vedas. It hadn't been invented yet. Thus, calling it Vedic astrology is misleading. --Chris Brennan 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First reference to 'Vedanga' can be dated to the Later Vedic Age itself. Therefore, Jyotiṣa as a limb (anga) of Veda can be and should be translated as Vedic Astrology. The term Vedic Astrology has a long tradition of over two millenia . As far as the question of horoscopic astrology in the Vedas is concerned, Vedas do not and could not deal with topics irrelevant to their own themes. Even when astrology was referred to, its use was mainly for determining the right time for performing the yajnic rituals and not for making individual horoscopes which was not the purpose of Vedas. We have no independent evidence for determining when horoscopic astrology began in India. Native tradition will put Parāshara Horāshāstra around 3200 BCE (four generations before the traditional date of Mahābhārata War),while modern scholars will like to place it after the Christ. Dating is important but not always possible, and emphasis on futile debates will deter us in understanding the subject-matter. PIE had a word for foot but lacked any common term for hand ; does it imply PIE speakers had foots before 3000 BCE but acquired hands after their divisions around 2000 BCE ? Vedas do not contain a large number of terms. We need not waste our time over topics which cannot lead us to anywhere. Dating is so important for many experts that it has occupied more space that the actual subject of topics at hand. If this article should be renamed as Indian Astrology on the grounds that Jyotiṣa is a foreign word, then Veda should be renamed as Ancient Books containing Religious Knowledge of Far Eastern Brach of Indo Europeans. How will one rename Qurān or Islam, another foreign word ? Britain is also a foreign word for Anglo-Saxons and Hinduism is a foreign word for Hindus. Talk pages are for improving an article, not for destroying it. One should not prevent experts of Jyotiṣa from improving this article by needlessly changing the title, which may be received by some as a token of hostility to this subject itself. -Vinay Jha 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha, I think there is a misunderstanding between us. I definitely do not hold any hostility towards this subject; my reason for creating this discussion is to improve the article, not be a detriment to it. Over the history of this article there have been numerous undiscussed moves, often undoing what another editor thought was the best action. These moves were not done on the grounds of following Wikipedia guidelines but of personal biases. I ask that we all lay our biases aside and examine the future of this article's title objectively and following Wikipedia guidelines.

From what I gather from your comments here I feel like you are threatened this article will lose a certain sense of authenticity if it no longer is titled the way Indians refer to it. That's certainly a valid concern. However, let us please keep in mind that this is English Wikipedia, and the rules agreed upon by the community explicitly state that article names should be accessible to lay-readers; after all, an encyclopedia is a resource for learning, not for experts. Jyotish may be an authentic name, but it is inaccessible to the average English reader. Allow me to reply to a specific comment of yours: "Apply this logic to all such articles. Only Anglo-American artilces will be left in Wiki." That's simply not true. Articles do not get deleted on the grounds they are about a foreign topic; a quick survey of the articles here will testify to that. Let me remind you this discussion is about the title, not the content, and any concerns regarding the content need not be discussed here.

This tradition may be mentioned in the Vedas, but to which extent is questionable. Let me direct you to the comment left by Chris Brennan; horoscopic astrology (which this tradition is) did not even exist yet during the writing of the Vedas. Thus, calling it Vedic astrology is a misnomer which erroneously suggests that this tradition owes its origins to the Vedic scriptures. Simply not true, and calling this tradition Vedic or Hindu astrology is a bias towards a particular religious view considering there are religious groups outside of Hinduism that were involved in this tradition.

Another one of your comments: "Veda should be renamed as Ancient Books containing Religious Knowledge of Far Eastern Brach of Indo Europeans. How will one rename Qurān or Islam, another foreign word ? Britain is also a foreign word for Anglo-Saxons and Hinduism is a foreign word for Hindus." You are missing a vital factor in your reasoning: Vedas, Qurān, Islam, and Britain are all familiar words in the average anglophone lexicon. Jyotisha, however, is not. Samuel Grant 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly some misunderstanding as I gather from Samuel Grant's talk above. Physical science is universal, but Chaldean Astrololy, Indian Astrology, Chinese Astrology, etc are distinct entities, although many features are common. Separate articles may be started over these topics, or a general article astrology may describe these variations too. Jyotiṣa is certainly a part and parcel of Vedic or Hindu tradition and saying so is not a bias towards a particular religious view, and no religious group outside of Hinduism was ever involved in this tradition, although some Greek and Islamic influences were adopted in modified forms by Hindus, and now European and Chinese influences are also being adopted by some westernised Hindus. Jyotiṣa may be a less known term, but it is first of the six limbs ( Vedanga )of Vedas and therefore an essential ingredient of Hinduism. This article does not reflect the actual history and theory of Indian Jyotisha and is tilted in favour of some modern astrologers who have invented their own novel systems. It is actual history and theory of Jyotiṣa which this article ought to depict. There are full-fledged faculties of Jyotiṣa in all Sanskrit and some general universities of India (all of them are government universities). None of the textbooks and their translations / commentaries prescribed in the syllabus of Jyotiṣa for teaching computational methods of ancient masters are even mentioned in as sources in this article. Some of the sources cited in this article are professional astrologers (without any degrees, they are professional because astrology is their private enterprise or profession) who abuse ancient texts as being "outdated" (because they do not know the methods of these ancient texts). Jyotiṣa has two branches : Siddhānta (Theory) or Ganita (mathematics or traditional astronomy), and Phalit. Siddhānta is the foundation of Jyotiṣa , which finds a single mention in this article, without naming any of the 18 (by some sources 19) Siddhānta, most of which have vanished. Astrological computation according to modern astronomy is not recognized by any university in India where Jyotiṣa is taught, but all the contributors to this article have followed those "enlightened" (westernised) Indians or Westerners who base their computations on modern astronomy, on the plea that modern astronomy is scientific. These reformers forget that this whole field is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. Instead of reforming Jyotiṣa , the aim of this article should be to give a factual account, which is Wiki policy. My only concern is that the history and content of Jyotiṣa ought to be described factually. My unwillingness to edit this article has another reason : Endlish translations of ancient texts of Jyotiṣa are scanty and mostly unsatisfactory, I would have to rely upon Hindi commentaries of those primary sources which are prescribed in Sanskrit Universities, because these sources represent the tradition more truthfully, while the English books are written by reformers who want to modernise Jyotiṣa. Those who want to modernise Jyotiṣa may start a new article "Modern Indian Astrology", and I will not insist on proposing a title "Modern Jyotiṣa" there, because Jyotiṣa cannot be modernised according to all traditional pandits of Jyotiṣa, being a part of traditional religion. I do not want to argue whether this tradition is right or wrong, my only objective is a well sourced and factual description of this tradition. These reformers of Jyotiṣa , mostly modernised Hindus, are hostile to traditional Jyotiṣa taught in Sanskrit Universities. I did not mean that Samuel Grant is hostile to Jyotiṣa. He shot not cite Chris Brennan as an authority on dating Veda or Jyotisha. Such discussions will lead one to the debate between proponents and opponents of Aryan Invasion Theory, which will not help in the present article. A relative dating of ancient texts will not be controversial, I and want to keep aloof from absolute dating, because it causes useless conflicts. Jyotiṣa is not merely horoscope astrology, the latter is a tertiary branch of Jyotiṣa . Vedic yajñas were religious rites which were performed for obtaining some boons from the deities, and these rites were performed only at specific astronomical concurrences which were thought to be more auspicious for the rites. The first Vedic yajña was Darśapaurnamāsa Yajña : which could be performed only at new and full moons as the very name implied. The very concept of auspiciousness of certain astronomical events for appeasing the gods implies that Jyotiṣa existed then, because this is the very essence of Jyotiṣa , but one is free to quote experts who say otherwise. I think Samuel Grant has a serious interest in astrology and he will not suggest such changes which will repel some scholars from contributing to this article. Opening paragraphs of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos describe something which cannot be understood unless it is compared to certain less known aspects of (Indian) Jyotiṣa. It is unwelcome to reform a thing before trying to understand it (this remark is not against Samuel Grant but against those Hindu evangelists who are trying to reform Jyotiṣa ). -Vinay Jha -18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article name cannot stay as it is and be in accordance with the guidelines. I much prefer a new title of "Indian astrology" for reasons that I've already discussed, but if the consensus here is for something else then so be it. But it cannot stay as "Jyotisa". "Vedic astrology" is the worst descriptor in my opinion as it erroneously suggests the tradition owes its origins to the Vedas. Outside of that, I am willing to compromise and support "Hindu astrology" if you feel so strongly about it and the facts support it. Samuel Grant 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not insisting for a title like Vedic astrology, but I must assert that the tradition owes its origins to the Vedas, cf. Darśapaurnamāsa Yajña in my post above. There are a lot of other proofs as well, but why Samuel Grant overlooks them is not clear to me. Some editors have started describing Indian astrology as a borrowing from Greece, which means they are not interested in understanding Indian astrology. On the other hand, there are editors who do not know the Indian mathematical tradition of Jyotisha and cite from self proclaimed experts having no degrees. I cannot argue against both these camps, hence I am unwilling to edit this lopsided article, which cites modern self imposed prophets only, instead of genuine ancient texts. -VJha 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of this tradition owes its origins to the Vedic scriptures. Indian horoscopic astrology, however, did not even exist until after the Vedic period. Hellenistic horoscopic astrology was integrated with pre-existing Indian astrology with the appearance of Greek horoscopic astrology literature in India in the second century CE. Calling it "Vedic astrology" implies the tradition can be found in the Vedas which simply isn't true, and calling it Vedic astrology would be about as fair as calling it Greek astrology. Samuel Grant 23:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So what will it be? Samuel Grant 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed being propagated by some persons that Indian horoscopic astrology did not exist until after the Vedic period. What was not explicitly not mentioned in the Vedas did not exist. Why the Vedas should discuss horoscopes? Pārāśara Horāśāstra may have later additions, but the bulk is an ancient work and it is foolish to date the sage Parāśara after 2nd century AD. Yavaneśvara was 17th of the 18 founders of astrology in India, and why only he should be acknowledged as a real person is not difficult to understand. Since Samuel Grant has decided to give a wrong turn to the argument, instead of emphasizing the importance of describing Jyotisha as it was/is, I must keep away from editing this article. He is free to prove what he likes. Cheers ! I want to keep away from useless questions whether Greece taught India or India taught Greece. -VJha 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay Jha, you're misunderstanding my motives here. The title of this article is not in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions. These guidelines exist to help an article and its readers. What do laypeople know of the word "Jyotisha"? They have no idea what this article is about before coming to it. Vedic astrology, Hindu astrology, Indian astrology, whatever — my point is, it needs to be accessible. If you take a look at some of the astrology articles, there are numerous variants for this tradition's name. Jyotish, jyotisha, jyotisa, jyotiṣa (I don't know how they expect those of us with a Latin-only keyboard to type that), Indian astrology, Vedic astrology, Hindu astrology, and so on ad nauseam. All this constant undiscussed renaming causes confusion and headaches for editors and readers alike. We really need to come together, work out the disputes, and come to a final decision.

All I want to do is change the article's title. I am pushing for nothing else. You've expressed multiple times that you have issues with the way the article's body deals with the tradition, but that's not anything this discussion is concerned about. These are two separate entities: the article's title can be accessible to the general anglophone population and the body can be as faithful and true to the alternative names for this tradition as it wants to be. Samuel Grant 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to what Samuel Grant wants with the title, because his purpose is sound. Only he should use "VJha" while calling me. -VJha 21:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• JYOTISH and VEDIC ASTROLOGY are the terms most used by those English speakers actually using this body of knowledge. There are many reasons for it. For those not using this knowledge or only cursorily familiar with it it is also referred to with the terms Hindu and Indian astrology. In the English version of Wikipedia the frequently used terms by English speakers using the knowledge should be chosen. Wordup 10 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you prefer "Vedic astrology", then? The problem with that name has been discussed multiple times. When this tradition does not owe its existence as a complex horoscopic tradition to the Vedas, calling it Vedic astrology is misleading and simply inaccurate. Jyotish and its variants are out of the question, and in my opinion "Vedic astrology" merely serves a religious group's own personal biases instead of following the tradition's historical origins. Samuel Grant 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian astrology versus Vedic astrology :

There are two aspects of this problem. (A) "Vedic astrology" refers to the entire collection of ancient and modern astrological literature which form a part of the Vedic tradition. Not all Indians believe in this Vedic tradition. Over 12% of Indians follow Islamic astrology. Jains use vedic astrology without acknowledging it and assert that Jain astrological tradition is 2 billion years old ! Modernised Hindus can be classified into following groups in this matter :(1) atheists, who have no interest in or want to banish astrology, (2) westernised Hindus who follow European astrological traditions (this trend is bolstered by some English newspapers, but has failed to influence the public at large), (3) half-modernised Hindus, who use modern astronomy and traditional astrology, (4) traditional Hindus who use traditional astronomy and astrology and refuse to modernise anything. Most of computer using folks belong to the third group, because completely traditional horoscopic softwares have not been released in the market and are being circulater freely only among selected pandits. But the bulk of Hindu masses believes in the words of traditional pandits, most of whom neither know nor want to know modern (European) practices. Almost all such people would vote for a title "Vedic astrology". Even the third category would prefer this title, although they do not use traditional astronomy. The reason is that Jyotisha is regarded as a part of Vedas from ancient ages. If a title "Indian astrology" is used, should it describe non-Indian traditions too (Islamic, European ) ? If not, then practically there is no difference in Vedic astrology and Indian astrology. (B) There are six Vedangas and Jyotiṣa is the first of them. There were 18 (according to some 19) founders of Jyotiṣa, and all the extant texts of these founders include horoscopic astrology as one of three essential parts of Jyotiṣa. None of the ancient texts say that horoscopic astrology was a later invention or borrowing. There is no proof that Pārāśara Horāśāstra is a later work. Bhrigu Samhita is believed to be an earlier work. Many concepts in Indian astrology are found in astrological traditions of China, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece too. There may be some common prehistoric source behind these shared characteristics. According to Burgess, Greek tradition is the youngest one and it is improper to assert that India learnt astrology or astronomy from Greece. It is wrong to assert that horoscopic astrology cannot be related to the Vedas. For instance, Vedas do not mention signs of the zodiac or Rāshis. Hence, some modern writers say Rāshi was borrowed from Greece. But Vedas mention 12 solar months which are same as 12 Rāshis. RV-1.24.10 mentions ṛkṣa which was a synonym of Rāshi. RV-1.164.48 mentions 360 days and 360 nights in a cycle comprising of 12 divisions ; even today traditional almanacs divide a solar year into 360 divisions, each of one degree. Chāndogyopaniṣada explicitly mentions Rāshi-vidyā. The ancient text Rg-Jyotiṣa mentions Lagna (first house in horoscope) in 19th verse, which is a proof of horoscopic astrology. These texts predate Greek contacts. Vedas are not directly concerned with horoscopic astrology, but there are ample evidences to show that even Indian horoscopic astrology evolved out of the Vedic tradition. Those who insist on non-Vedic origin of "Vedic astrology" are interested in not learning but censuring or distorting Vedic astrology. Those who do not tolerate a single word Jyotiṣa will never understand the content of Jyotiṣa. Samuel Grant has already removed the word Jyotiṣa from all section heads of this article. Has he anything positive to contribute, or has he arrived merely to revove "Vedic" and "Jyotiṣa" from this article ? (I thank him for removing spams). First, he objected to the use of Jyotiṣa. Then he objected to any association with Vedic tradition. What will he object to next ? I warned him that such a behaviour will repel knowledgeable contributors. But He does not care. If a factual article describing Vedic Jyotiṣa comes here, what harm will it do ? You can add a bold sub-title Indian astrology. Separate articles like Indian astrology or Hindu astrology may also be redirected here. We may avoid quarreling over Greek versus Vedic influences. The emphasis should be on factual description and not upon proving something irrelevant. -VJha 17:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Jyotish" and others from the headings because it's totally inconsistent throughout the article and headings need not be so verbose and redundant. I still do not see what is so terribly upsetting about "Indian astrology". It's clear, it's faithful to the region in which this tradition arose, and, as you mentioned, it avoids any debate about historical origins. There's nothing questionable about "Indian astrology" unless you want to go further in making a claim about the tradition. e.g., that is is Vedic (that is, can be found in entirety in the Vedas) or Hindu or whatever the current trendy name happens to be.

For some reason you still appear rather bitter about this whole proposition. Why? Because I oppose a title that requires editors and readers to open their system's character map to actually type? Because anything English is not up to your standards of rigid authenticity? Read the naming conventions guideline and understand my whole reasoning for this discussion. I'd also appreciate it if you remember to assume good faith instead of labeling my actions as detrimental simply because you disagree. Samuel Grant 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Vedic astrology in the title. It has a clear reference to the historical origins and this body of knowledge. Indian or Hindu astrology are catch-all names that have a more imprecise relation to the history or body of work being studied. Indian refers to the country and Hindu to the modern culture. Budfin 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

a lot of confusion here concerning the term "Vedic". "Vedic" is not synonymous to either "Hindu" or "Indian", and in strict application refers exclusively to texts of the Vedic period (down to and including the Shulva Sutras). "Vedic astrology" is what little hints of astrology we can extract from these. "Hindu astrology" or "Jyotisha" is a much larger topic, and mostly post-Vedic, including the Indian reception of Hellenistic astrology. If you're going to move this, move it to either "Hindu astrology" (excluding Jaini), or "Indian astrology" (including everything). But drop the "Vedic", which is mostly used incorrectly, and usually just serves to make people all emotional and unreasonable. --dab (𒁳) 17:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! --Chris Brennan 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Any google search for Vedic Astrology/Hindu Astrology/Indian Astrology inevitably shows links to sites that have Jyotish in them, so Jyotish may not be a bad name 12.47.208.34 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac signs

I have created links for each of the zodiac signs, highlighting the fact that no such articles actually exist. I tried to get some basic information on them, but all the websites on Indian astrolgy/Jyotish I could find use the Western signs and most don't even mention the Indian names! I know that they have probably tried to make things easier for Westerners but what's that about? It makes the need for Wikipedia articles all the more important. If someone with the right knowledge could set up even stub articles with some basic information it would be a vast improvement. I have named them all Mesha (astrology) etc, as articles with just the names already exist for half of them, including two disambiguation pages, and ones on a middle eastern king,a Hungarian village and an Indian actress! Can someone please help? Neelmack 18:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Neelmack's idea is good (but please wait); this article has some other problems too and I am working out a plan. This article ought to depict Jyotiṣa as it is , and not as it ought to be. Jyotiṣa is being remodelled by some commercial organisations / individuals in order to attract Western clients. Most of the websites mentioned by Neelmack fall in commercial categories and are not reliable sources. There are full-fledged departments of Jyotiṣa in all recognised Sanskrit universities and some general universities, and all of them have more or less same syllabus. We ought to use these academically recognised and traditionally handed down sources as reliable ones, instead of those who are determined to reform Jyotiṣa along Western lines. Vinay Jha _{Vinay Jha} 06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is some material on the meaning of the symbols (Mithuna, Makara, Kumbha etc) elsewhere in Wikipedia in the Hindu mythology articles, so I might set up some stubs purely with that information. Rest assured though, that I will not put in any material from those commercial websites. Even when the Indian names are used it is obvious the material relates to the Western signs.Neelmack 09:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panchanga

This is the fundemantal information on the five elements of 'Thithi', 'Vara', 'Karana', 'Nakshtra' and 'Yoga'. It is published every year almost in each state of India in regional languages (now published in USA also in English). This is the basis of all Indian horoscopy. This has not been explained in the article. Please add an initial para explaining what is "Panchanga" and its significance.--Nvvchar (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can somebody please adopt this article??

this article is in absolutely appalling shape. Every now and again, it is hit with large amounts of unformated, uncited and unsorted additions. It is absolutely unclear which parts are reliable and which aren't, and it is basically unreadable. Somebody will need to establish a strict regimen of WP:CITE and WP:RS. Once the article has been cleaned up into minimal compliance with WP guidelines, it should be semiprotected, or it will degenerate into a mess again within a few weeks (it is pointless to semiprotect it at its current stage). dab (𒁳) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One basic problem with this article is cultural: the traditional Indian passion, bordering on mania, for lists, where the longer a list is, the more impressive it automatically is (which encourages making stuff up on the spot too.) I've moved some of the excess to a separate article, Jyotiṣa resources, where a lot of it may eventually die the natural death that might not happen if the stuff remained here. rudra (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize this. However, listmania is rampant among many Wikipedians, and we have many brilliant Wikipedia:Featured lists. The cultural divide we appear to run against when dealing with Indian listmaniacs rather appears to be a notion that the less accessible (the more confused, jumbled and cryptic) a list is, the more impressive it is. This truly medieval (or Renaissance) attitude is of course the precise opposite of the idea of an encyclopedia. It results in unreadable articles, which doesn't bother the obscurantists, since an impressive article is evidently not intended for reading but for impressing the peons. I would find this charming in any context except as background noise to an encyclopedia project (in fact, I am also charmed by Western obscurantism of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Eco's The Island of the Day Before and Baudolino are excellent reminders that this mentality was ubiquitous in "the West" as well, before the great intellectual leap known as the Enlightenment). If Wikipedia has one purpose beyond those that are project-immanent, it is the spreading the great successes of this period to corners of the globe that haven't been much exposed to it yet, without all the nasty bits (colonialism, slavery, religious war, etc.) that were historically attached to it. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's Jyotisha, not Jyotishya

The drive-bys insisting that Monier-Williams gives "jyotishya"[8] are wrong. See p.427, towards the top of column 3, in the MLBD reprint. rudra (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• jyotishya is just an adjective meaning "illumined", apparently a hapax in the TS[9] this usage predates the proper name of the Vedanga discipline, as does the athematic jyotis "brightness". dab (𒁳) 09:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • quite likely jyotis is a very early prakritism (from dyau and/or dyut). rudra (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • yes, Mayrhofer says the same (jyot for dyot), although he seems to be at a loss to explain this properly Middle Indic change appearing in the Rigveda. dab (𒁳) 11:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

the huge list of books under "Bibliography" has no apparent relation to the article content, and is essentially spam. We need to clean it up, and add what encyclopedic tertiary sources we can find, and base the article body on these. The Britannica unfortunately has very limited coverage of the topic. It has a short page on "astrology in India" under "history of astrology", and a brief mention that astrology continues to be important in India today under "astrology in modern times". Then there is a short mention of the importance of astrological calculations in the development of medieval Indian mathematics, and that's basically it. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

this may be useful: David Pingree, Astronomy and Astrology in India and Iran, Isis, The History of Science Society (1963), 18 pp. [10].

For use in a section on current issues, there appears to have been a "recent Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgement on vedic astrology as a science." (Mohan Rao, Female foeticide: where do we go? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics Oct-Dec2001-9(4) [11]) --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Googling a bit has somewhat convinced me that we have a serious sourcing problem. Virtually all of the "detail" in this article seems to derive ultimately from a work called the Brhat Parashara Horashastra (BPHS), which is neither old nor by Parāśara, and apparently dates to the 16th CE at the improbably earliest. (There seem to be nuggets of verifiable information in all the ranting and raving here, e.g.) The critical factor seems to be the availability of an English translation, with the result that a historically speaking WP:FRINGE approach has swept the field among modern afficionados, especially on the internet. Never mind that "Vedic astrology" is an outright misnomer (if not also somewhat deliberately fraudulent), we aren't likely to find citations for the material here in serious scholarly works that do deal with Indian astrology sensibly. rudra (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, wrong again. Looks like the BPHS is legit. Pingree vouches for it in his fascicle on Jyotihshastra in Gonda's History of Indian Literature series. However, it's a composite work of 71 chapters, with interpolations too. The first part (chapters 1-51) Pingree dates to 600-750 CE, the second part (ch. 52-71) to later than the first but before 800 CE. He cites an English translation by N.N. Krishna Rau and V.B. Choudhari, 2 vols, Bombay 1963. The other major classical text Pingree gives is the Sārāvalī by Kalyāṇavarman of about 800 CE, also translated by the same gentlemen above in 1961. rudra (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

very good. things are beginning to fall into place now. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] progress

we seem to be making progress. Mostly by exporting problems (Panchangam, Jyotiṣa resources). Still, most of the current content could possibly be referenced to quotable sources. Once this takes a readable shape, we should semiprotect it and/or watch it closely, or it will look the way it did in a week or two. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Converting this article to WP:SS may actually be its salvation. rudra (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the ToC is beginning to look reasonable. rudra (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, but at the price of a flurry of crippled sub-articles... plus I just found Hindu constellation :o/ --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The original for Hindu constellation, e.g., is obviously an encyclopedia article from somewhere (EB1911?), with the footnotes mashed into the main text (page breaks are relatively obvious, though.) I suppose it should be refactored along with the other articles. The crippled sub-articles, meanwhile, could die off, which would be no great loss if they remain inscrutable. rudra (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it. At some places, though, it looks as if summary sidebars have also gotten mashed in. A scan of the original might be useful to figure out the bogons. rudra (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

let's just kill it and redirect "Hindu constellations" here. People cannot dump jumbled EB1911 content here and expect us to sort it out. Let them format it properly, or accept that it is thrown out again. "Hindu chronology" can redirect to Hindu calendar. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. If we can get the attributions straightened out, we could use it as a citation source instead. rudra (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Charts

As far as I can tell, the two charts are identical. They do not clearly describe a difference. And what about a chart for the third (Eastern) system? rudra (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

in fact, I have a vague memory that the South Indian chart scheme has 12 squares arranged as a hollow square, 4 squares to a side, with Aries fixed at one corner. i.e. a fundamentally different diagram. rudra (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] graha and navagraha

While the graha table is pretty, it seems to have more detail about each graha than navagraha which is dedicated to the subject. This is not a good distribution. Rather, the graha section here should be converted to WP:SS-style, and some of the information moved over. The problem is that the navagraha article has a lot of prose accompanying each graha, so somewhere along the line we may lose the table format altogether. The counterargument to a move is that the table here is a true summary, as it also includes material from the articles on the individual graha (e.g. the yantra diagrams.) Should we leave it as is? rudra (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of "Image" and "Yantra" columns. They seem purely decorative here, and they're available in more appropriate articles anyway. We have enough clutter as it is, I think they should go. rudra (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more of the same

unsurprisingly, Ayurveda and related articles (Research and innovations in Ayurveda...) look much like this one used to. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting gender for Shani in wikipedia entries

While the article remains very informative, I wish to draw attention to the table outlining the various Grahas or planets and their genders. Shani is indicated as being female, yet the hyperlinked wikipedia entry for Shani clearly emphasises the gender of Shani as male. I'm definitely not an astrologer, though throughout my South Indian Hindu upbringing Shani has always been personified as male in temples and in various stories. Has this been raised before? I don't want to edit the gender myself in case someone else knows something better. 88.113.53.172 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Informative? Not really. This and related articles are chock full of material "sourced" from random dime-a-dozen websites, astrology being a thriving cottage industry where just about anyone can pass as an instant expert. No progress will be made until reliable sources are found. rudra (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I second Rudra's comment above. Wikipedia has many outstanding achievements to its credit, including emphasis on "neutral point of view". But when it comes to dealing effectively with controversial subjects, the effort though huge and sincere still yields no success. Some of the statements in this article, which for the knowledgeable run not just utterly but shamefully counter to any authentic jyotisa history or methods or knowledge, are to me just obvious launching points for Strawman Attacks or other well known Fallacies as means to prevent advancement of knowledge. The reliable sources we need have, I think, finding no progressive discussion, withdrawn from the filthy atmosphere of needless and useless controversy to more peaceful places. Wikipedia is wonderful, surely it is time we found a better way. Ramdasa (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

we just need to be more strict in enforcing the rules. Check if there is a WP:RS. If not, delete the claim, or if necessary the entire article, without remorse. It is better to have less articles on Jyotisha than to have the crap piling up to the point where what little valid content we have is drowned out by the online bullshit (that said, the situation is much better than it used to be[12] before our cleanup effort in February). dab (𒁳) 08:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

eh? the entire article! Throw out the good with the bad? Substitute my own judgment for that of other contributors? such violence with the efforts of people who are all trying to do some good each in their own way ... surely you jest? ... but after looking through your links, I see not. Never mind, we will find common ground some other place and time.

For 88.113.53.172, if still looking for that information on gender which started this section, here is a note of my present understanding. Shani and other grahas (planetary forces, or planetary deities per older language), are themselves neither male or female. In Hinduism and in all religions that mention deities or angels, very few indeed are actually exclusively characterized as only male or only female, only we (and our predecessors) have tended to make assumptions. In Jyotisa characterization and stories, you will find Sun and Moon each often switch back and forth between male and female without blinking an eye. This is mentioned, for instance, by BV Raman in his introductory books on astrology, and in recent times has been talked about by the saint Ramakrishna, "When the One moves, I call it Shakti or the One as Goddess; when the One is still, I call it Brahman or the One as God", from where he goes on to comment about the deities as taking on whatever shape (male or female, human or otherwise) may be temporarily needed for a task at hand, and (as I understand from the translation) implies that we as people or souls do the same in taking human birth. Likewise, with much underlying consistency one to another, books of recorded talks by several Christian and Muslim saints of different times and places record them each saying much the same thing about God, and about the angels. ... Trust this is good food for thought. Ramdasa (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

you misunderstand. My judgement or the judgement of other editors has nothing to do with it. I am just saying: no source, no coverage. If you want something to stay in the article, provide some quotable source backing it up. Also known as WP:CITE. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reply; if there is need for more discussion, is there some way we can take it offline? ...

I write in friendship. The words above "my own judgment" referred to my judgment, not your judgment or that of editors in general -- no challenge was meant.

Far from misunderstanding, I understand perfectly. Years of dealing with everything from verbal to written battles to breaking up actual fistfights over "a few words" has left a residue of experience.

As for "no source, no coverage", it is clear from reading the links in your previous comment that despite cases where sources and citations are provided, even outstanding content remains liable to being tossed by any clown with zero expertise but a big chip on the shoulder who decides to make completely unnecessary controversy for their own purposes. And so many clowns!

What happens? As I see it, the very people everybody might want to contribute, good people who have delved deep into a subject and make a well balanced contribution (and which can evolve as others add their insights), see their work and contribution rather literally going to hell. So such good people leave!

Left holding the bag are people like you, who have already put countless hours into Wikipedia, far beyond the call of volunteer duty, for what I can only assume is sheer love of knowledge and the joy of interaction with like-minded people. Perhaps you are an exception, but under such circumstances, most editors would hold frustration bottled up only to risk explosion some day. Am I right?

We don't want no explosions. Something should be done, and there is at least one way out, I think, not easy or initially popular but simple. Begin with a recognition that when the written equivalent of a real fistfight occurs on Wikipedia, invariably at least one if not both parties are at fault, and, rightly or wrongly, let the one (if identifiable) or otherwise both be instantly banned for long enough to cool down and think again, simply banned, with neither heat nor discussion beyond a pointer to cause and clause. ... After an initial outburst (what! you actually ENFORCE the rules equally for all!?), within a few months I expect most of the heat and controversy will dissipate, and the hurt of the few wrongly banned. ... Any difficulty in making a ban effective has to be treated as a separate problem. ... Such bans have to be at the sole discretion of the editor concerned, who is of course trusted as mature enough to always first take a deep breath, and also first seek counsel from some other independent editor, or some such.

So I would suggest -- pardon my bluntness, but it is prompted by Wikipedia being a wonderful work in progress, and far from receiving abuse & becoming frustrated, the editors and genuine contributors should derive much pleasure out of it. May Wikipedia rise to yet another level of goodness and happiness for all. Ramdasa (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

you are most welcome to contribute to improving the article. Just remember to cite your sources. Wikipedia cannot use statements that are not attributed to some verifiable source. I am sorry, but I do not understand what you want to debate here. Wikipedia isn't the world. You have a source, great, cite it. You don't have a source? Then just publish your material somewhere else. Even "outstanding content" will be tossed if on source is cited. If there is a source, otoh, you may insist on its inclusion provided it is on-topic and the source has a certain notability. dab (𒁳) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Contribute? Hey, it's been educational talking to the wall, goodbye. Ramdasa (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)