Varuna,

Fagan provides in at least two of his books a table by means of which one can ascertain the navamsha position of any factor ? planet, nodes, ascending degree ? in a chart but taking 0? Taurus as the beginning of the zodiac. In one book he gives the navamsha (he calls it the novenic equivalent) for a timed birth and discusses some of the chart?s features.

I am not aware that his idea of the novenic equivalent caught on but I have no contact currently with the western sidereal movement so could be wrong. Back in the day, I read Carl Stahl and James Eshelman and do not recall either dealing with the novenic equivalent. However, at my age the memory isn?t what it was and so stand open to correction.

What I remember is that, back in the ?70s western siderealists showed more interest in the dwad, as they often termed it: the dwadachamsha.

I wonder about the decision to base it at the start of Taurus, since krittika goes into Aries 3 degrees and 20 minutes.

Fagan, Bradley et al would not have been using the lunar mansions as a basis for what they were doing. They would stoutly have defended the view expressed by Rupert Gleadow in The Origin of the Zodiac. Gleadow traces the origin of the zodiac (i.e. a circle of 12 ?signs? named after the Ram, the Bull, Twins or Couple, and so on) to the Middle East ? the Assyrian civilization, I believe ? as late as (approximately) 650 b.c.e. This partly on the basis that the 12 signs are not in evidence on the mulAPIN tablet (c. 700 b.c.e.). Gleadow deals with India and the nakshatras in one chapter of his book but looks primarily for the birthplace of the zodiac where most western minds of the mid-twentieth century would expect to find it: the Near or Middle East, Babylon or Egypt.

The early western siderealists of the Fagan school tossed around a number of ideas that never caught on with those who followed them. Two of these ideas were the novien chart (the 9th harmonic chart calculated from Taurus), and a zodiac that began with Libra! This was Fagan's idea which he based on his research into Egyptian symbols.

Today's followers of the Fagan school have mostly dispensed with everything but the planets and angles of the chart, plus work with a number of different return charts and systems of progressions. Even signs of the zodiac are given little or no emphasis by some practitioners. The Fagan school of sidereal astrology is very different from Jyotish. Jyotish itself is much closer in some ways to Tropical and early western Classical astrology than to the Fagan system.

Therese

A point to clear up first, Therese. When you say 'the Fagan school', do you mean western siderealists in general (give or take the odd individualist who has gone off to plow her/his own furrow)? Or are you distinguishing between the Fagan school and other western siderealists?

I suspect you mean the former, which makes me very depressed. As does the following:

Today's followers of the Fagan school have mostly dispensed with everything but the planets and angles of the chart, plus work with a number of different return charts and systems of progressions. Even signs of the zodiac are given little or no emphasis by some practitioners.

That's close to the approach of UK astrologers of the '50s & early '60s. Astrologers like Lyndoe (see his Everyman's Astrology). It's the attitude that drove me out of the Tropical milieu into a Sidereal world, with a push from Gleadow's Origin of the Zodiac. Ironic, then, that a realm that seemed so rich and varied compared to the arid state of Tropicalism has now become something of an intellectual desert itself.

It was the attitude also that drew others to re-examine the status of Traditional Astrology. Lyndoe had no time for concepts such as Fertile Signs and Human Signs and the rest. But then he had no time for horary astrology, where these terms have a use. I don't remember him ever mentioning horary, either in his articles or his books.

I recall Fagan's idea that the first sign of the zodiac ought to be Libra - something about Librans being keen on hats (first sign = head)? That last part could be a misremembering.

Thanks for bringing me up to date on the Fagan system as it is used today. I'm shocked, but would rather know truth than not know.

Melissa

delaforge wrote:A point to clear up first, Therese. When you say 'the Fagan school', do you mean western siderealists in general (give or take the odd individualist who has gone off to plow her/his own furrow)? Or are you distinguishing between the Fagan school and other western siderealists?

In the past when I used the term "western sidereal," Martin felt that the term was confusing, so I now identify the Fagan school using his name. In the United States "western sidereal" has come to identify the Fagan school. There are no other siderealits except those who practice Jyotish. Cyril Fagan planted a tree, but the tree has branched out to individual practices. But all use the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa.

I recall Fagan's idea that the first sign of the zodiac ought to be Libra - something about Librans being keen on hats (first sign = head)? That last part could be a misremembering.

Yes, one of Fagan's quirky ideas.

Thanks for bringing me up to date on the Fagan system as it is used today. I'm shocked, but would rather know truth than not know.

You're welcome, Melissa. Today's Fagan school astrologers depend on the planets, angles and return charts in the analysis of birth charts. The main spokespeople for this system are Jim Eshelman (whose site has been referred to in discussions here), Ken Bowser, whose book is planned to be released soon, and here on Skyscript Dave Monroe has developed his own system of progressing charts.

Therese

Diego Alejandro Torres wrote:Hi all.

Ayanamsa What is the most accurate for use in Mundane Astrology?

It is important to use a precise ayanamsa mundane astrology, for 1 minute difference can make a sign be given different topics Ascending mundi solar income, etc.. For this reason it is important to know what the ayanamsa more accurate to use in mundane astrology.

Please if anyone has experience in mundane astrology using the sidereal zodiac, please reply to this message.

Thank you very much in advance!

The ayanamsa what would be the most precise for mundane astrology would be the same ayanamsa that works best for natal, elective, and horary astrology. The opinions of astrologers differ on this. I've used the KP ayanamsa to relate sign ingress charts to large earthquakes that bring much loss of life.

Lahiri does not work at all for those charts. Because the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa is almost a degree different (59 minutes), sometimes those charts work fairly well, but the Moon will be a day off. The sign and degree of the Moon is a key to relating the ingress chart to the quake chart.

Otherwise I haven't worked much with mundane astrology. It would be a fertile area of research to test the ayanamsa, especially if we're testing sign ingress charts.

Therese

Therese,

You've added to my store of knowledge - in more ways than one.

I have been referring to 'western siderealists' in posts (and haven't yet been pulled up because of it). Will try to remember to speak in future of the Fagan school - which is, after all, the area of western siderealism I know something about.

Am familiar with Eshelman's work. Or was. Back then I rather liked what he was saying. Bowser is new to me. (I've been away from the area a long time.) Will keep an eye out for his book.

Melissa

Regarding the Fagan-Allen ayanamsha: it was honed statistically on disasters, i.e. so-called "Acts of God," more than rainfall. Further, work by Peter Huber at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology that was published in Centaurus volume 5, (1958) in an article entitled "Uber Den Nullpunkt Der Babylonischen Ekliptik," (On the Zero Point of the Babylonian Ecliptic) provided rough corroboration of the Fagan-Allen ayanamsha. That is, what Bradley arrived at circa 1950 was close to what the 1st millennium B.C. Babylonians used.

I often hear and read that the first bhukti of a new dasa often does not give what are called "full results." My view is that such less than full results must be due to the wrong ayanmsha, because in my experience, a new dasa (with Fagan-Allen) makes one's circumstances turn on a dime.

I, for one, use the navamsa and find it a useful supplement to the natus.

My opinion is that the acid test of the accuracy of an ayanamsha is not in divisional charts however, but in the transits to and directions of the angles of solar and lunar returns.
Ken Bowser
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

delete

By directions I mean the movement of the horizon and meridian. With progressions you move the planets. With directions you move the angles.
Directing the angles is pretty close to primary directions which is done in the equatorial system.

No I haven't used tithis for anything that relates to directing because you can't direct angles in longitude. It produces a classic apples and oranges problem. That is, the angles are reckoned in right ascension but tithis are reckoned in longitude. To add tithis to a mid-heaven or an ascendant would be like adding dollars to euros. There is no such animal.
Aloha,
Ken

delete

Welcome to the forum, Ken! The following is slightly off-topic, and might more properly belong in the Indian forum, but I'll pose the question here for now:

Ken Bowser wrote:I often hear and read that the first bhukti of a new dasa often does not give what are called "full results." My view is that such less than full results must be due to the wrong ayanmsha, because in my experience, a new dasa (with Fagan-Allen) makes one's circumstances turn on a dime.

I presume you are speaking of Vimshottari dashas? There are a number of variables involved in calculating them apart from the ayanamsha. May I ask if your experiences have been based on the use of a geocentric or topocentric (parallax-corrected) Moon longitude?

There is a closer That the Ayanamsha Fagan in his article Huber published in 1958. The Ayanamsha to which I refer is the Ayanamsha "Chandra Hari".

The "Chandra Hari" Ayanamsha differs from Babylonian (Huber) for only 3' minutes of arc (three minutes).

The most interesting thing I see the Ayanamsha "Chandra Hari", is lift the astronomer-astrologer of India Mr. Chandra Hari makes his own Ayanamsha. This Ayanamsha also known as "Ayanamsha Mooladara".