The Relation of Hellenistic to Indian Astrology
by Robert H. Schmidt Of all the ancient astrologies, Indian Indian and Hellenistic Hellenistic are closer to one another in fundamental funda mental conception and a nd practice than tha n either of them is to Chinese or Meso-American Meso-American astrology, astrology, for for instance. They are a lso closer closer to one another a nother than tha n either is to modern astrology. astrology. Indian and Hellenistic Hellenistic astrology astrology may both be called c alled "horoscopic" in the sense tha t much of their chart cha rt analysis depends heavily on the determination det ermination of the rising rising degree at the time of birth, and not merely the zodiacal position of the planets on the year, month, or day of birth, as is the case in many other a ncient astrologies. astrologies. They are also very simil similar ar in their use of sign-based sign-based aspects and a nd in their fundamenta fundamentall house assignments. assignments. The Hellenistic Hellenistic time-lord procedures have a role analogous to that of the celebrated Indian dasas, although the procedures for determining the sequence and duration of the planetary plane tary rulers are different in the two t wo traditions. And they are ali a like ke in innumerable points of detail. Nevertheless, there are significant significant differences. Indian astrology astrology makes extensive use of the naksatras, which are a division division of the zodiac into 27 or 28 portions corresponding to the daily motion of the Moon. Although the "lunar mansions" are known kn own in Medieval Western astrology, astrology, they the y are not found in the original original Hellenistic Hellenistic material and seem to have been imported later from India. Then again, Indian astrology astrology does not have ha ve the fivefold irregular irregular division division of each sign sign into "bounds" (called "terms" in Medieval Latin), which is a c entral concept for Hellenistic Hellenistic astrology astrology. Indian astrology places far more importance on the lunar nodes than tha n does Hellenistic, Hellenistic, almost giving giving them the status of planets. p lanets. Hellenistic Hellenistic astrology has an elaborately developed dev eloped system of lots (often but mistakenly called "Arabic P arts"), which are lacking in in Indian astrology proper, although they were introduced later as a result of Persian influence. Conversely, Indian astrology has an extensive development de velopment of divisional (or "harmonic" charts), while while Hellenistic Hellenistic basicall ba sically y employed only a version of the twelfth t welfth (and possibly thirteenth) harmonic. Then there is the nagging nagging problem of the choice of the begi be ginning nning of the zodiac, where Indian astrology has various alternative starting points for a sidereal zodiac; by contrast, contra st, there is reason to b elieve that many Hellenistic astrologers astrologers -- certainly those influenced by Ptolemy -- favored a tropical zodiac, although it is is still still unresolved unresolved whether the earliest e arliest Hellenis Hellenistic tic astrologers astrologers used a sidereal or a tropical zodiac. These two astrologies astrologies also differ on quite a number of points of detail deta il.. How are we to account for these likenesses and differences? There is an opinion current among many Indian astrologers astrologers that horoscopic astrology origi originated nated in India at some distant time in the past as the formulation formulation of insights insights obtained by certain c ertain enlightened "seers" in meditative states. stat es. From India, it spread throughout the t he Middle Middle East Ea st and was wa s introduced to the Hellenistic Hellenistic world by Indian c olonists, olonists, whereupon it underwent und erwent its own characteristic development. Compare this with the opinion of the Western scholar David Pingree, Pingree, who argues that th thee Yavanajataka, a Sanskrit Sanskrit translation made circa 150 C.E. of a Greek astrological astrological text, whose title he translates as The Horoscopy of the Greeks Greek s, is one of t he two primary source texts for all a ll later later Indian astrology, astrology, along with a lost translation from a second Greek text. te xt. In support of his thesis he cites in detail many parallels parallels between particular Indian doctrines and those of Hellenistic Hellenistic astrology astrology. In particular, he demonstrates that much of the technical Sanskrit Sanskrit astrological astrological and an d astronomi a stronomical cal vocabulary voc abulary consis c onsists ts of simple simple transliterations of tthe he corresponding Greek terms, producing produc ing words that have no meaning in Sanskrit Sanskrit itself.
To one who approaches the evidence with an open mind, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that sometime in the first few centuries of the Christian era, Hellenistic astrology left an unmistakable imprint on Indian astrology, particularly in the terminology and practices concerned with the astrological houses. However, this still does not rule out the possibility that Indian astrology had undergone substantial indigenous development prior to this Hellenistic influence, especially since many of its concepts such as the naksatras have no clear Greek antecedents. We do not intend to go further into this divisive historical problem at this time. Even if Hellenistic astrology did ultimately derive from Indian sources, we take the view that it is effectively a fresh starting point in the development of astrology, which has enough internal consistency that it ca n be understood on its own terms and from its own presuppositions. In fact, we intend to show that Hellenistic astrology possessed a clear and coherent theoretical foundation that motivated the introduction of its concepts and techniques. It is true that the search for theoretical foundations is a uniquely Western obsession. Indian astrologers, with their view that astrological doctrine was communicated to ordinary mortals by enlightened beings, seem to e xhibit little interest in the question of theoretical foundations, although I have severa l times heard them say that astrology makes no sense without the the concept of karma and the doctrine of reincarnation. To us, the question is whether such a hypothesis gives a sufficient rationale for the astrological techniques they use, and whether it is capable of giving coherence to the dizzying array of concepts; for I believe that this can be said of the theoretical assumptions underlying Hellenistic astrology.
