Therese Hamilton wrote:
But may I ask where you found the longitude of Bharani (41 Arietis)? Erlewine's list doesn't include stars that small, and I haven't been able to find the tropical longitudes of stars in that asterism (35, 39, 41 Arietis). On my star map they are well within the mansion of Bharani. (27-fold division)

I found this information also on Anne Wright's site - Constellation of Words.
Yes, these starts are inside Bharani, either on the 27 or 28 fold division.

Looking forward to read your thoughts.

Ricardo Moola wrote:

I found this information also on Anne Wright's site - Constellation of Words.

I had converted star longitudes from Michael Erlewine's list on Anne's old site. Later she made her new site, "Constellations of Words." I see that she has included a few stars that were not on the Erlewine list, and that list seems to be gone from her site. Perhaps there were copyright problems.

At any rate, it's cumbersome to adjust tropical to sidereal longitudes using the ayanamsa value. It's much easier to make the conversion by taking the difference between the ayanamsa and 30 degrees. Thus, the Lahiri conversion for the year 2000 (used on Anne's site) is 6? 8'. So:

41 Aries is 18? 12' tropical Taurus; Add 6? 8' = 24? 20' Aries Lahiri (going back one sign)

(It always strikes me as very silly to use stars in the tropical zodiac as they keep changing in longitude over the years. To my mind that is enough reason to use a sidereal zodiac.)

I will have comments later today.

Added note: (edit)
Ricardo, you aren't always using the nakshatra stars from the Burgess translation of Surya Siddhanta, which have generally been accepted as the ancient nakshatra marking stars. For example, under Mrigashirsha you have listed Bellatrix and Betelgeuse. But the SS primary star for that nakshatra is lamda Orion (Meissa) at 29? 56' Taurus plus two phi stars. (27-fold division, Krishnamurti) (Referred to as a Deer's Head.)

These three Orion stars are correctly placed in the 27-fold division. It's true, however, that Betelgeuse is also here, but is listed in the following nakshatra, Ardra, in ancient texts. So the stars of Mrig are correct. It's the Ardra mansion placement that doesn't match the ancient texts. Betelgeuse is at 5? Gemini, and Ardra starts at 6? 40' Gemini. (My placements are always Krishnamurti because my tables are set up with that ayanamsa.)

Your placement of Praesepe is incorrect. It's at 13? 34' in Cancer, correctly placed in Pushya.

I'm out of computer time for now, probably until this evening. I have only read through your 27-fold list up to Aslesha.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
At any rate, it's cumbersome to adjust tropical to sidereal longitudes using the ayanamsa value. It's much easier to make the conversion by taking the difference between the ayanamsa and 30 degrees. Thus, the Lahiri conversion for the year 2000 (used on Anne's site) is 6? 8'. So:

41 Aries is 18? 12' tropical Taurus; Add 6? 8' = 24? 20' Aries Lahiri (going back one sign)

Ahh!!! This is a great way to do it. Thanks for explanation. I was using the ayanamsa value and doing the counting by hand... which is a bit a nightmare...

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Ricardo, you aren't always using the nakshatra stars from the Burgess translation of Surya Siddhanta, which have generally been accepted as the ancient nakshatra marking stars. For example, under Mrigashirsha you have listed Bellatrix and Betelgeuse. But the SS primary star for that nakshatra is lamda Orion (Meissa) at 29? 56' Taurus plus two phi stars. (27-fold division, Krishnamurti) (Referred to as a Deer's Head.)

Yes, you are right. In this case I just used Bellatrix, because I had already the conversion to Sideral made. But in any case, Meissa will fall into Mrigashirsha in both 27 and 28-Fold. I will update my lists with the value you gave me. Thanks.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Your placement of Praesepe is incorrect. It's at 13? 34' in Cancer, correctly placed in Pushya. .

Ahh great !!! I'm happy !

Another great problem we are facing is the movement of the "fixed" stars. Praesepe is a runner . It's position in 1900 was 05?57' Leo (tropical values) and in 2000 it was 07?20'.
Arcturus is also a runner...
This might be one of the great reasons behind some misplacements inside the right mansions.

Ricardo wrote:

Ahh!!! This is a great way to do it. Thanks for explanation. I was using the ayanamsa value and doing the counting by hand... which is a bit a nightmare...

I learned that nifty way of converting from tropical to sidereal positions way back in the 1970s. The Fagan school of astrology has always used that shortcut method, and routinely publishes Synetic Vernal Point tables with the short value that needs to be added to tropical positions. I've been very puzzled why many books still use the cumbersome ayanamsa value to convert planets and stars to the sidereal. Trying to work with the large ayanamsa values is enough to drive any astrologer away from sidereal astrology.

Ricardo, it would be good to go back and check your star longitudes now that you have an easy way to make the conversion. Many of your stars are somewhat off in the calculation of minutes.

From studying the list of nakshatra stars in both the 27 and 28-fold equal divisions, it seems obvious that the ancient nakshatras were not equal divisions of the ecliptic. There never was a 28-fold equal mansion division in India. The Arabs invented that 28 equal mansion division. So experimenting with 28 Indian mansions or nakshatras is your invention, Ricardo!

Both these systems break down when trying to correlate all stars with equal sized mansions. With the Lahiri ayanamsa (rather than the old Persian ayanamsa) it's true that more nakshatra stars fit the 28 mansions rather than 27. The 27 mansion division has six misfits and three partial fits. That is, some stars of a nakshatra fall in the correct mansion, and others fall in an adjacent mansion. With the 28-fold division four mansions are misfits, and two are partial fits.

With the 27-fold division Ardra misses Betelgeuse, and of course, Swathi does not have Arcturus. Two Sagittarius mansions are misfits. Likewise Capricorn. This is where the 27-fold system breaks down.

Shaula and Lesath are correctly placed in early Sagittarius (Moola) with the 27-fold system. Laseth is at 15 minutes of Sagittarius (Krishnamurti) and Shaula is at 49 minutes. Lahiri keeps both stars in Moola as well.

In the 28-fold system Pushya loses the all important Praesepe (M 44) and its triangle of stars, and only one star of Corvus is in Hasta. Vega is misplaced from Abhijit, but this may be the only system (with the Lahiri ayanamsa) that manages to place Spica in Chitra and Arcturus in Swathi! This is impressive! (Swati begins at 0? Libra in this system.) The 28-fold system also breaks down in Capricorn.

Ricardo wrote:

In the Surya Siddanta it's mention that the star zeta Pis is the one that marks the begin of Revati, and this star is at the moment in 26? Pis - So this means that Revati should begin in 26? Pis and not in 16?40' Pis. ???

This old Persian zodiac has been supplanted by Lahiri values. The zeta Pisces zodiac fails when using the navamsa and other varga charts. It is a relic of history. Zeta Pisces at one time marked the beginning of the astrological zodiac or zero Aries.

My conclusion is that the nakshatra stars did not divide the ecliptic into equal portions, but remained as individual stars or asterisms. Later the 27-fold system was invented (or discovered) and made to fit the zodiac beginning with Aries. Much later the Arabs invented the 28 equal ecliptic divisions for their mansions. I am not familiar enough with the Chinese system to comment, except I know the Chinese mansions were measured on the equator.

Ricardo Moola wrote:

Another great problem we are facing is the movement of the "fixed" stars. Praesepe is a runner . It's position in 1900 was 05?57' Leo (tropical values) and in 2000 it was 07?20'.
Arcturus is also a runner...
This might be one of the great reasons behind some misplacements inside the right mansions.

These longitudes in the tropical zodiac from Anne Wright's site are due to precession. The stars haven't moved, but the initial point of the tropical zodiac has shifted due to precession. The proper motion of some stars is quite small in comparison, only a few seconds or minutes over the centuries. Arcturus is a star that has relatively rapid proper motion, so its position probably did vary by degree a few thousand years ago. But there would not have been nearly enough variation to place it in the equal 27-fold Swati of today's lunar mansions.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_p ... f_arcturus:

"[Arcturus:] 2.2794 arcseconds per year in the direction of position angle 208.7? as measured on the mean equatorial coordinate system of J2000.0. That implies that Arcturus traverses 1? (about twice the width of a Full Moon) in 1579 years."

Therese Hamilton wrote:There never was a 28-fold equal mansion division in India. The Arabs invented that 28 equal mansion division. So experimenting with 28 Indian mansions or nakshatras is your invention, Ricardo!

not really so. The Hindu astrologer K.T.Shubhakaran talks about 3 schools of thought regarding the division of the nakshatras:

a) 27 equal divisions of 13?20'
b) 28 equal division of 12?51' 3/7'' (with the inclusion of Abhijit)
c) Abhijit is placed between U.Ashada and Sravana, from 276?40 to 280?54.13. Because of this U.Ashada gets its space reduce to 10?00 and Sravana reduces to 12?25'27''

Therese Hamilton wrote: Both these systems break down when trying to correlate all stars with equal sized mansions.

Yes, I was trying to see what would happen in these other systems. I looks that none of them work fully.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
My conclusion is that the nakshatra stars did not divide the ecliptic into equal portions, but remained as individual stars or asterisms. Later the 27-fold system was invented (or discovered) and made to fit the zodiac beginning with Aries.

Agreed. Thanks for the nice comments and for bear it with me.

Ricardo Moola wrote:

The Hindu astrologer K.T.Shubhakaran talks about 3 schools of thought regarding the division of the nakshatras:

Is there an online reference where we can read Shubhakaran's thoughts on the nakshatras? If not, are they recorded in a book? I am interested in the origin of "the three schools of thought." I had never heard of an opinion that stated the Hindu nakshatras were 28 equal divisions.

a) 27 equal divisions of 13?20'
b) 28 equal division of 12?51' 3/7'' (with the inclusion of Abhijit)
c) Abhijit is placed between U.Ashada and Sravana, from 276?40 to 280?54.13. Because of this U.Ashada gets its space reduce to 10?00 and Sravana reduces to 12?25'27''

Then we don't really have 28 "equal" portions of the ecliptic? I suppose it depends on how an astrologer wants to view this division of the ecliptic.

Agreed. Thanks for the nice comments and for [bearing] with me.

This has been a good discussion. It's always interesting to discuss the differences between the ancient nakshatra stars and asterisms and their location in the 27 mansions today. It's a puzzle that has not yet been solved. That is, how do we interpret characteristics of the mansions? I'm currently taking all the ADB 4 Moon degrees in charts that are near the nonagesimal (90 degrees from the ascendant) to check against the biographical information.

I also have files of charts with the Moon on the ascendant in zodiacal order. Often, however, the traits we read about in the books on lunar mansions aren't mentioned in biographies. Working with the Moon is always problematic because the Moon responds to any aspecting planets which can overshadow possible traits of the nakshatras. So research in this area is difficult.

Ricardo Moola wrote:

The Hindu astrologer K.T.Shubhakaran talks about 3 schools of thought regarding the division of the nakshatras:

a) 27 equal divisions of 13?20'
b) 28 equal division of 12?51' 3/7'' (with the inclusion of Abhijit)
c) Abhijit is placed between U.Ashada and Sravana, from 276?40 to 280?54.13. Because of this U.Ashada gets its space reduce to 10?00 and Sravana reduces to 12?25'27''

Regarding K.T. Shubhakaran, you may be referring to the statement in his book, Nakshatra: Constellational Predictions with Remedial Measures (Sagar Publications 1991). He does make a vague statement in the Introduction on page 1: "According to a second method there are 28 divisions or nakshatras of 28.51-3/7 degrees of each..."

However, Shubhakaran gives no historical reference for that statement, and as he refers to the Arab mansions throughout his book, we can assume the Arab system is the origin of Shubhakaran's "second method." He has simply applied the Arab method of calculation to the Indian nakshatras as his own unique idea. There is no historical precedent for an equal 28-fold nakshatra division in India. Also his interpretations throughout the book are based on the usual 27-fold mansion division.

Shubhakaran's nakshatra texts (two books in the set) are highly questionable. He gives numerous interpretations for planets in each nakshatra quarter which have no verification or precedent that I'm aware of. One has only to begin reading anywhere in the book, and immediately questions arise in the mind as to the validity of what he writes. No doubt some concepts are the results of Shubhakaran's study, and others are based on theory. This nakshatra book set is nicely published in hardback, so can appear to be impressive.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Regarding K.T. Shubhakaran, you may be referring to the statement in his book, Nakshatra: Constellational Predictions with Remedial Measures (Sagar Publications 1991). He does make a vague statement in the Introduction on page 1: "According to a second method there are 28 divisions or nakshatras of 28.51-3/7 degrees of each..."

Yes. this is the book and the quote. I agree with you, he doesn't give any kind of extra reference, nevertheless I was intrigued by this idea. Yes, probably the method he is referring to is the Arab system of 28 houses.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Shubhakaran's nakshatra texts (two books in the set) are highly questionable. He gives numerous interpretations for planets in each nakshatra quarter which have no verification or precedent that I'm aware of.

Shubhakaran's book is the only one I found until now, where one have some clue of what is the meaning of the different planets in the nakshatras.
Although he doesn't say it, his interpretations are a copy of the Ravana Samihta.
I have compare his book with the translation made available by the Saptarishis Astrology website. Saptarishis Astrology website only translated the text until Purnavasu, but until now their text match with Shubhakaran's. So I would assume that the rest is also rightly translated.

I'm aware that there is a lot of controversy around the Ravana Samihta, but It's the only source where we can have some glimpse regarding this matter.

According with my research, there are only two version of the Ravana Samihta. One in Varanasi and other is a lost village somewhere in India ( can't recall now, exactly where....)
I find this so sad... that this information is lost or hard to get. When studying the Nakshatras, the question that usually pops ups is: Ok.. this for the moon.. and what about the rest of the planets?

But more research on this area is needed - that is for sure.

Ricardo Moola wrote:

Although he doesn't say it, his interpretations are a copy of the Ravana Samhita.
I have compare his book with the translation made available by the Saptarishis Astrology website. Saptarishis Astrology website only translated the text until Purnavasu, but until now their text match with Shubhakaran's. So I would assume that the rest is also rightly translated.

That is interesting!! Do you have a link to the material on Saptarishis Astrology? It is so typical of Indian authors to copy from other writers, and give no reference to their work. Outright plagiarism is common. For example, I have some books by Manik Chand Jain (now deceased) that are direct copies of other authors with a few sentences added here and there. Some illustrations in Zodiacal Constellations are simply photocopies from a western book on the same topic.

So I'm interested in seeing the translation of Ravana Samhita. Can you tell us about the controversy surrounding this text? What is the dating of the text, and what is the original language? It would seem that it is a modern text as there is so much detail describing planets in nakshatras.

Edit:
I see that the book is available on Amazon in Hindi, supposedly translated from the Sanskrit by a Dr. Surkant Jha (2013) I would say this book is highly suspect as to its validity.

Shubhakaran's Nakshatra books were published in 1991 and 1994. That is 20 years ago. Is it possible that someone has translated these two books into Hindi which someone else is now translating back into English? (for Saptarishis Astrology Journal) When did "Ravana Samhita" first see the light of day?

Ricardo, you may have made a very valuable detective discovery!