This is getting off the topic a bit, but just to clarify: both Babylonian and early Greek-language astrology was explicitly sidereal in the sense that it defined the vernal equinoctial point as falling somewhere within the sign Aries rather than Aries commencing from it. The same seems to have been true of pre-Islamic Persian astrology. So I agree with Luis that 'sidereal' won't do as a synonym of 'Indian'. Indian astrology differs in many other technical respects from its cousin traditions further west: some aspects of the Hellenistic system never made it to India, or only did so a millennium later with the Perso-Arabic transmission, and new methods were developed in India, some on the basis of indigenous lore such as the nakṣatras.

Martin

Den 2016-11-14 kl. 23:19, skrev Luis Gonzalez-Reimann:

Nagaraj,

It may also be a good idea to use 'Tropical' , 'Sidereal' in the names of the two traditions since that indicates the method difference rather than giving scope for questions such as which part of the world Mesopotamia or Greece is the origin of western Astrology or whether the so called Vedic Astrology has got to do with the Vedas (alone) or not etc.

There is also sidereal astrology in the " West," so that is not really a good marker of the difference. Also, at the time of Greek influence on Indian astronomy the two zodiacs more or less coincided, so there was no difference between sidereal and tropical (this applies to both Indian/South Asian astrology and to "Mediterranean" astrology). The date of when that happened will depend of exactly where one considers the beginning of Aries (the constellation) to be.

Horoscopic astrology was mainly imported into India and then adapted, as shown by the Yāvana Jataka.

Luis