James M. wrote:

you will also get a different rahu position if you use true, verses mean node... it changes into scorpio with use of true node in the D10 chart - all lahiri..

using parallax moon, i can get moon in libra in the D10 chart with kp as well...

Hi James,

The so-called 'true' node and considering the parallax Moon are modern tropical innovations. Most Indian astrologers have stayed with the mean node which has been used for centuries. The mean node has been supported by a few small modern research projects such as Linchi has posted here on Skyscript. I've also found the mean node degree to be the only one that is partile in transits for timed events using natal charts. I've posted a few examples here on Skyscript.

Indian astrology is so incredibly complex as it is that I can do without another position of the nodes and considering parallax Moon!

Without meaning to weigh in at all on the main issue here, let me just say that there is nothing inherently tropical (or sidereal) about the choice between 'true' and mean node, nor between the geocentric and topocentric positions of the moon (lunar parallax). Presumably Therese just meant to say that using 'true' nodes and lunar parallax correction in astrology are practices that developed in the west, which is true as far as I know, but the concepts as such are zodiac-independent.

The two concepts are also rather different. The nodes, not being bodies, cannot really be said to have a true (apparent) position except at the time of an eclipse. The apparent position of the moon, on the other hand, differs demonstrably when taken from the actual place of observation (topocentric = corrected for parallax) or from a theoretical point at the centre of the earth (geocentric = not corrected for parallax).

Correction for parallax is essential for things like predicting eclipses, and has been used in India at least since the 7th century. That doesn't mean it was used in astrology: as far as I know it wasn't, but presumably only because it's quite cumbersome to calculate without computers etc. Personally, I only ever use the topocentric moon, as I find that it gives far more correct results (in addition to fitting in better with the underlying philosophy of astrology, where everything is observed from the place where an event takes place).

Martin Gansten wrote:

Presumably Therese just meant to say that using 'true' nodes and lunar parallax correction in astrology are practices that developed in the west, which is true as far as I know, but the concepts as such are zodiac-independent.

Yes, that is what I meant, that those two practices developed in the context of western Tropical astrology, although neither practice is related to a particular zodiac.

Personally, I only ever use the topocentric moon, as I find that it gives far more correct results (in addition to fitting in better with the underlying philosophy of astrology, where everything is observed from the place where an event takes place).

Martin, I’m a little confused by this statement. Do you mean that you use the topocentric Moon only for physical mundane events such as earthquakes or floods? But you would not use this Moon position for say, a news event concerning a political leader? (Such as the swearing in of a new president of a country.)

therese and martin

thanks for your comments...

i can't speak for martin therese, but my impression is martin uses the topocentric moon in all of his astrology...

I always use the topocentric moon, for everything. The practice of doing so in the context of astrology was introduced as a result of the increased emphasis on mathematical precision in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries (both Morin and Placidus advocated it, though their published works show that they didn't necessarily practise what they preached, at least not all the time). I have never seen it discussed in Sanskrit sources, but then again, astrological Sanskrit texts very rarely concern themselves with any kind of astronomical calculations.