Planetary theory such as VSOP89 and Moshier etc refer orbital elements to the precesing equinox and ecliptic to facilitate coversion to equatoiral coordinates."

Both VSOP87 and Moshier's are built on a sidereal (non-precessing) reference frame. Since precessed planetary positions are a yuxtaposition of the planet's movement and the precessional movement, a non-precessing reference frame is needed to build a really accurate theory of motion. Astronomers call this a "quasi-inertial" frame, considered to be fixed in space and time.

Note the similarity between this concept and the idea of a "radix" in Astrology...

(Note: Martin is referring probably to the "mean orbital elements" of VSOP87 which are available for both the fixed and the moving (precessing) ecliptic, or to the variant called VSOP87-D which is a little less bulky and a truncated version of which appeared in Meeus "Astronomical Algorithms", but which is based on a now obsolete and inaccurate estimate of precession. Moshier's theory is sidereal and does not include orbital elements. From my personal perspective a sidereal theory is more accurate because it alllows the incorporation of improved precession values at the final step of the calculation.)

The issue of "sidereal vs tropical" is unfortunately usually considered from a spatial perpective only, i.e., "I am Gemini or I am Cancer". This is, in part, a consequence of the common and simplified conversion procedure which consists of adding or subtracting the ayanamsa, the equivalent of a simple displacement in space. But precession is a space AND time phenomenon, and there are important differences in the timing of events when you work sidereally or tropically.

Present transits of slow-moving planets to the USA chart will happen several years later in the sidereal perspective, and when you use --for example-- the chart of Islam from A.D. 622, any transit you calculate in one perspective will be inexistent in the other. In natal Astrology, a retrograding trasiting planet often changes dramatically the time-picture of an ordinary transit when it is seen sidereally, and significant differences always appear in the timing of progression as the the person gets older.

Why do astrologers so consistently forget these differences in the timing of events when engaging in the "sidereal vs tropical" debate?

Working "sidereally" does not require the use of any of the different historical sidereal zodiacs. A precession-corrected chart (such as a solar return), for example, is strictly sidereal. Some astrologers have the notion that precession-corrected charts are a mixture of sidereal and tropical. This notion is the result of identifying the word "sidereal" with "a sidereal zodiac", failing to see that a precession-corrected chart is based on a sidereal zodiac the starting point of which is the moment of birth (time) and the position of the ecliptic at the moment of birth (space), and forgetting that the usual ayanamsa displacement in space is a function of a difference in time.

Software programmers are sometimes to blame for the confusion. Some programs calculate precession-corrected charts or returns but present the positions tropically, others offer the calculation of "sidereal" progressions "without bija", i.e., using the tropical year as parameter. Both are in my opinion mathematical absurdities that result from the habit of artificially separating the time and space dimensions of precession.

A sidereal perspective comes naturally from the observation of the night sky, in which celestial events are correlated between themselves and not with the Earth. From an astrological perspective, the concept of "distance" when dealing with the fixed stars is meaningless, they are the "eternal", beyond space and time. A tropical perspective, on the other hand, is a derivation of the observation of solar phenomena with respect to the Earth.

Personally, I think there is a place in modern Astrology for both the sidereal and the tropical perspectives (even though I work with "precession-correction" --sidereally-- all the time and ignore the signs of zodiac). If only the debate were less exclusively focused on differences between one sign position or the other and time were less subdued by space in the minds of astrologers...

... a habit that in my opinion reflects the differences between Babylonian and Greek modes of thought from which the change between tropical and sidereal paradigms originated. Where is our synthesis?

Juan

Great posts - thanks.

Hi SaturnReturn,

You've had some excellent replies here.

Any ideas why it all still works?

Thought I'd add a few herbs and spices into the pot!!! ... works because tropical is part of sidereal and regardless of how the frame of reference shifts, gets reduced or numbering inverted it's still all connected when perspective is taken from the boundary of the celestial sphere.

Gives rise to confusion no doubt, and the trudging through various things, but the order is still there ... in the absence of it being clearly presented in theory then there's always the option of reverting to observing Nature direct, as the ancients did.

Astrology is based upon the logic found in Nature's order (cosmos), from the outer sphere of stars down and in to earth.

The Moon, it's passage and light was primary to finding the stars, their groupings, associated images etc.

Time keeping, calendars and interpreting the nature and quality of time started with the Moon. Lunar calendar.
Considerations and interpretation of the higher realms began with the Moon.

The Sun defined the angles and boundaries of earth and the divisions of earth under it's apparent passage. The Sun obscures for the main the light of the stars and brings into focus that emerging into realization on the material plane - Earth. Solar calendar.

The conjunctions between these two lights (new Moon) were the 3 or so dark days of transition between the end of one month and start to a new month. The start to a new month was heralded by the rise of new crescent Moon and the star/constellation it was seen to align with.

Civil calendars related to the order of day - Sun-Earth.
Ecclesiastical calendars related to the order of the night, preceding and infusing that of the day - Moon-Stars.

The monthly conjunctions between the Moon & Sun gave the 12-fold divisions of alignment between heaven and earth.

These conjunctions were a point of convergence between the divisions of the heavens (Moon & stars) and earth (Sun-earth) ... the regular heavenly seeding of the earth plane, so to speak .... significant times being eclipses of the Moon due to the Moon's connection with the volume, flow and release of the waters (inundation).

This order and frame of reference applying in smaller divisions of time to the greater divisions of time.

The 12-fold division as relates to the cycle of a year wasn't based upon the span of a constellation. It's related to the convergence of the Moon and Sun each month in aligning the heavens with earth. The 30 degree divisions demarcated by the union between Moon & Sun along the ecliptic - the ecliptic being earth's passage, passage of eclipses and during the inversion of day, the apparant passage of the Sun.

In certain culturs, the 12-fold divisions were also demarcated in accordance with each Full Moon, a point from where it would descend over the course of days to converge with Sun and rise again.

In an effort to keep time on earth in accord with the "whole" of Nature, to keep earth and its inhabitants in alignment with the natural cosmos (order), a great deal of effort was expended first on studying the stars via the Moon, then in synchronising Moon with Sun - eventuating in the luni-solar calendar and a focus on the middle path, the ecliptic.

The order of considerations relating to the stars - calendrically and interpretively - started with the Moon.

Ref Hipparchus per Ptolemy (Almagest):

Hipparchus used certain Lunar eclipses which were observed to take place near stars to compare the distance of the star Spica in advance of the autumnal equinox at each [eclipse].

In order to carry out the computations for the above [ref. Kallipic cycle] he adduces the spring equinox he had accurately observed in those years. This was in order that from the latter he could find the position of the sun at the middle of each eclipse, from these the positions of the moon, and from the positions of the moon those of the stars.

Starting with the Moon in relation to the sphere of fixed stars was carried through in many writings referencing the cosmos, eg. "A true lover measures the wind during the day and counts the stars and measures the moon during the night." The Conference of the Birds.

The sphere of fixed stars being viewed as the bounds of a "cosmic egg", eg. "egg of Baraham" as per Biruni, or Brahma's golden egg etc.

As per our predecessors, Hipparchus etc, Sidereal still uses fixed star Spica, or -180 degrees from Spica and of prime consideration is the Moon.

If we use only a lunar calendar, we lose sight of the significance of the role of the local sun.

If we use only a solar calendar (which the Gregorian calendar is, which is what the dates of the days you gave above apply to) we lose sight of the significance of the stars and the Moon. They slip from view under the rays of the local sun.

The Gregorian solar calendar was a revision in keeping with the Council of Nicea under the rule of an emperor who adopted Christianity and was of the order of Sol Invictus (prime orientation was to the Sun). The Gregorian calendar did not take into account the Moon & the Stars in its revision - so in context of keeping time natural as relates to the whole cosmos it's somewhat out of sync insofar as the sines of the stars are concerned.
In calculating Easter during time at Nicea it was based on the Hebrew calculations of "Pesach" which is tied to the Moon, under the emperor of the day a date was chosen to strengthen the rule of the Sun over that of the Moon.
This in an effort to consolidate rule over the local culture, and local politics.

Today easter is still based on the Moon. In the Gregorian calendar, the date of Easter is the first Sunday after the ecclesiastical full moon which occurs after the ecclesiastical vernal equinox. The date of the full moon (together with the date of the vernal equinox) is calculated not according to actual astronomical phenomena, but according to a calendrical approximation of these phenomena. Going back it was calculated in line with actual astronomical phenomena.

The luni-solar calendar brought both Moon & Sun together, in order, commencing with the Moon.

In addition, going back the Moon was considered "male" and the Sun was "female". Under the adoption of the solar rule there was a change of gender (as well as agenda) as relates to Moon & Sun.

In going back we find Moon attributed as being "male" in Nanna or Sin of the Mesopotamians, Mani of the Germanic tribes, Thoth of the Egyptians, the Japanese Tsukuyomi, Rahko of Finns and Tecciztecatl of the Aztecs. Also in Persian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Indian, Tibetan, Celtic and also among the Australian Aborigines.

In Australian Aboriginal culture which goes back some 50,000 years there are many stories of a male Moon who was once a slim young man (the waxing crescent Moon) who grew fat and lazy (the full Moon) but then broke the law, was attacked by his people, resulting in his death (the new Moon). After remaining dead for 3 days, he rose again to repeat the cycle.

Moon as masculine also applying to things such as the "grim reaper" in a yin (taking energy in) sine - considerations involving the height of the Full Moon relative to earth & Sun, month & constellation etc.

The Sun featured as female.

The Moon was also implicitly linked to women's cycles by many cultures - it's waxing and waning in relation to Earth (fem) & Sun (fem) having a direct impact on volumes and flow of liquids/water in and upon Earth and the release and stemming of the flow of vital energy waves the Sun provided in its primary bond to earth which the Sun also pumped through the whole living cosmos. Moon was key to the fluidity of the seasons and was looked to for when waters from above or below upon earth would release etc.

In the Mithras cult the Moon was also originally considered male - the Moon represented by the Horns of the Bull and there's the Harvest Moon and the Hunter's Moon to consider.
Constellation Aries was also the Hired Hand - the hiring of young men to herd etc.

Differences occurring in how months were ordered and seen to commence between peak (Full Moon) which was what many festivities were linked to and New. In the larger scheme of time, in the cycle of Full Moons over the year the Moon is seen to ascend and descend, grow larger and smaller against respective constellations.

The Sun is seen to ascend and descend, however it's ascension masks the greater sphere of outer suns (stars) which were key.

With the shift towards luni-solar this primary orientation started to change, with adoption of solar rule and Ptolemy's documentation there was a gender (as well as an agenda) change between Moon & Sun, to Moon being considered as feminine and Sun being male.

Under Greek rule the older orders were tolerated and integrated, under the newly establishing solar rule much was destroyed.

If we wind the clock forward to another peak in geomagnetic activity and the transmission of writings from Arabic sources to climes further north and west around the 9th century this saw another inversion, this being in numbers.

Arabic was written right to left, Latin written left to right. In initially transcribing numbers, the Arabic was not reversed to correspond with the Latin numbers but kept in original sequence which resulted in correspondences between numbers being back-to-front, out of order. This, at the very least, contributing some initial confusion as to what numbers related to in interpreting the old scheme of things.

Then later adoption of the "solar" system by Western science as a primary frame of reference for which life, the system of life, was organized around thus solidifying further the earlier emphasis on the Sun and empirical rules and the re-orienting of interpretations.

However, even in the old diagrams of the spheres the Sun was seen as the central regulating force of energies from top (celestial sphere of stars) to bottom (earth), ie. Sun 4th sphere below the celestial sphere, 4th above earth.

These illustrations of the order illuminating direction of descent to where things coalesced on earth, the reverse direction being one of ascent.
And earth pictured at the centre of all these influences pressing down on it, also indicative that the Sun was not the be-all and end-all.

The reticence in adopting the order of the solar-system as the prevailing order also goes back somewhat to the older philosophical connections that the Sun had as the prime representative of the "feminine" and its attachment or primary bond to matter, form ("materialism" ..."mater"). Sun as feminine corresponding to the primary role women played on earth in bringing souls into form, into matter, birth, from which point they would be primary caretakers until such time as initiation into manhood/womanhood which involved a severing of this primary bond via which the soul was seen to be "reborn" into a new level of knowledge/wisdom.

When considering "seasons" as relates to the sines (trigonometric function) and signs (images) of the stars and that of earth - clime is an essential part of considerations. Climate varies according to lattitude, longitude.
Like shining a pen light on a tennis ball, the plane illuminated on the tennis ball gets hit first with the energy, absorbs it, from which point it then disperses into and around the sphere. So stars that were visible on a particular plane at particular latitudes of earth were of prime consideration relative to the other intermediary bodies in the order of spheres.


Tropical is primarily about the Sun-Earth bond, and the divisions of earth under the Sun, each section numbered and attributed a corresponding sign (image) on earth under the arc of the Sun.

In charts today for example, planets are seen to revolve around the outside of this primary construct between Sun & earth.
It's a zodiac that shows the circle of life upon earth, the directions of living creatures under the arc of the Sun ... subjected to the planetary influences around them but not bounded by or aligned with the celestial sphere.

To align it with the greater sphere over the Sun that encompasses all involves a shift in considerations towards Moon & Stars.

Moon was viewed as Earth's "soul" mate - and by certain cultures the first place souls ascended to after dispensing with matter. Moon also considered as the "soul" which, from time to time, gets incorporated with "self", Sun, and spirit (Jupiter) to continue the journey on and up.

Tropical masks precession. Under the rays of the Sun, or aligning the days just to the vernal crossing under the Sun, we do not see the actual constellation which this crossing aligns to.
Under the light of the Moon we see the rays of the outer suns.

The divergence between first point of Aries constellation and the vernal crossing reveals what astrological age we're in, to what point in what astrological age earth has precessed to -- the over-riding season indicated by the groupings of the outer suns.
It was known the seasonal calendar wanders, and in ages past this wandering was calculated and efforts made to accommodate the changes.

As a result of the stars slipping from view in Tropical, increasing emphasis was placed on the planets - the intermediary bodies - and other bodies and with "quality" shifting to focus on more aspects.

As the over-riding qualities indicated by the stars studied primarily via the Moon slipped from view, it also saw a proliferation in quantity. There was a change from quality to quantity from which qualities have again been extracted.

So what to do?

To me the ongoing debate between sidereal and tropical is pretty much like the left hand arguing with the right ... or the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

There comes a time for shaking hands and making up.

From a synthesis pov, the signs of the Tropical construct relates to the quality of attachment to matter (earth), the realization of self in matter, and reveals an attachment to a point in the past (emanating from some 2000 years ago) from which earth, in reality, has since progressed.

If we're to see where we're currently at in this progression then I'm inclined to think at some point we need to step outside and do what they ancients did - take the alignments starting from the actual sphere of fixed stars and work our way back in and down to earth from there, in accordance with local climes.

Thinking out loud here, but as those in ages past judged the autumn equinox from lunar eclipse relative to fixed star Spica (cusp of constellation Virgo-Libra where it still resides), I'm not sure that the hiring of hands for the spring harvest would have commenced with Sun aligning through approx. 5 Pisces (vernal crossing).

As full moon's on its annual descent when this constellation arose, would it not have been generally considered too early and wet in places above the equator?
Wouldn't they have left the hiring and taxing of labour until the new moon following the Sun's crossing into alignment with the actual constellation of Aries? Hmmm ...

Am I a Cancer, or a Gemini?

How about you've the heart of a celestial twin (Gemini) which is disguised as a Crab (Cancer) during the day under the order of the Gregorian calendar?

Mercury & Moon ... but as always, there's more ...

Hi Martin,

I realise the conversation has moved on, but I?ve been meaning to come back to this for ages. You wrote:

You can make anything fit...

Eg for south hemisphere

Capricorn at height of summer. Sun climbs gradually to the the peak near zenith, like Capricorns are climbers.

Cancer at depths of winter. Cold, rain and wet. Cancer is a water sign. And as the crab moves side ways at bottom of the sea the Sun creeps low along the north horizon.

Aries at autumn. Time for lighting fires. Cold weather is approaching time to gather fire wood for heat and cooking.

Libra at spring. Days are becomig fine and time to appreciate the outdoors and beautify surrounds, restore balance.

All a bit abstruse I know, but it serves to illustrate that I think the signs have an intrinsic meaning and the parochial attributions of the seasons is an overlay due to the experience of a people in a particular region.

I?m trying to be wary of a northern hemisphere bias, but I don?t think you can make anything fit like that. You have to get very loose and abstruse to make it work.
Rightly or wrongly, calendrical symbolism is at the heart of the zodiac sign meanings ? which is hardly surprising because it originated largely out of calendrical purposes.
The relationship is not just in the signs, but in the traditional rulers of those signs and the relationships they bear to the Sun and Moon.

You might squeeze Capricorn to summer with lose arguments about climbing, but it would not be convincing, and for everything you suggest there would be a stronger contradiction. And it would be a real squeeze to demonstrate the relationship between summer and the planetary ruler Saturn. One snippet remark is not going to work. If you say summer is destructively hot here, and that?s Saturn; no it?s not; Saturn is cold, dry, heavy; it causes things to decay. If you go out of the house or walk through a wood here in the middle of winter, it is very hard not to see and feel the presence of Saturn everywhere. You just don?t get that essence of Saturn in summer, even when the heat is oppressive.

The Arien aspect of Mars is not appropriate for autumn, because it?s a very active energy, whereas autumn is a season of decline. There is a real distinction between the qualities of spring and autumn, just as there is a real distinction between the qualities of Mars in Aries and those of Mars in Scorpio.

You could take the two signs Taurus and Scorpio, and explore them inside out, and from every angle, and nothing about Taurus will contradict the essence of late spring when the weather is pleasant and there is a sense of fertile growth that is still very gentle and moist and full of blossom. Every aspect of Scorpio has a reflection in the sudden emphasis on darkness, and the images of traditional festivals like Halloween night that fill that month. I would be really impressed if you could take those two signs and swap their associated seasons over and make anything fit. Or rather, make everything fit as it does in the northern hemisphere.

I am not sure where that leaves the messy argument of zodiacal symbolism in the southern hemisphere. I agree that it causes problems, but I have occasionally been accused of personal bias because I refer to calendrical significance in explaining the origin of some of the symbolism we expect to be expressed by the signs. To me, that?s like saying I am sexist by referring to men as masculine; or politically incorrect for referring to black as a dark colour.

Ptolemy and other classical astrologers must have been aware of this but unconcerned about anything other than only the seasonal experience in their own region.

Very possibly. But the fact is that astrology as we understand it, and much of its associated symbolism, did develop out of a northern hemisphere bias. So if anyone wishes to strip that out of their work, then they are going to have to strip out of their astrology a great deal of the symbolic attachments that are taken for granted.

Deb

All your points taken. For a long time I would also justify the symbolic NH seasonal attribution of the signs and that they culturally imported to our essentailly Eurpoean society here down south. But there is that bit of dissonace I feel about this attribution nowadays.

A bit of study of Australian aboriginal skylore shows how differently they see the sky from their regional and climatic persective. Do indigenous people carry the NH sesonal charcteristics of the tropical signs? Is an aboriginal Leo like a Leo, having their cultural heritage in a southern land?

I prefer to attribute say Leo to "Leo" because it is intrinsically Leo rather than a follow through of a NH seasonal atribution or even an abstruse SH seasonal atribution (I was being a little mischiefous with that). This is like magnetic north staying north even when we cross the equator southward. the compass does not swing around.

Martin

A bit of study of Australian aboriginal skylore shows how differently they see the sky from their regional and climatic persective. Do indigenous people carry the NH sesonal charcteristics of the tropical signs? Is an aboriginal Leo like a Leo, having their cultural heritage in a southern land?

This is the dilemma isn?t it? I?m only aware of the problem of this, I couldn?t claim to know the answer. But I once made the argument myself that you wouldn?t expect to import Aboriginal symbolism over to the northern regions of Europe and America without feeling that something was lost in the transmission. There is a relationship to space and direction, and the element of from where light increases and declines that informs so much of what we are working with. I?m just reluctant to take the view that these differences don?t exist, or that because we don?t have a neat philosophical solution, the problem is not there.

I get a headache actually, when I think about things like this ?

I prefer to attribute say Leo to "Leo" because it is intrinsically Leo rather than a follow through of a NH seasonal atribution or even an abstruse SH seasonal atribution (I was being a little mischiefous with that). This is like magnetic north staying north even when we cross the equator southward. the compass does not swing around.

Let us suppose that the birth took place at 4 p.m. in Melbourne ... take out the cusps of the houses ... always remembering to change the signs to the opposite ones. This simple method ... makes a single set of tables for North latitudes of universal utility. ~ Sepharial, The Manual of Astrology

To cast a horoscope for a place in South latitude ... use Tables of Houses for the same latitude North as the birthplace is South ... write on the diagram the same degrees but the opposite signs. ~ Vivian Robson, A Beginners' Guide to Practical Astrology

I have always thought this was a problematic area.

This takes me back to my very first post on skyscript:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... hemisphere

If we accept an intrinsic relationship between the hellenistic scheme of sign rulerships and the seasons Maurice McCann's argument makes a lot of sense. However, as far as I know no southern hemisphere astrologer have come out supporting this idea. Perhaps that is telling us something.

I have studied Feng Shui a little and I know there are interminable arguments there too about whether certain techniques need to be reversed in the SH.

As for 'importing' other cultural ideas into western astrology that is difficult when a world view is so totally different. One area I do think we need to explore more though is ancient SH cultures take on fixed stars that were never observed by NH astrologers. It makes more sense to me to study Aboriginal, Polynesian, Inca and South African myths for such stars rather than the ideas of secular NH astronomers of the 17th century onwards.

I don't know if I understand -- does this mean if one were born Jan 1 in Melbourne, one would be a CANCER????

What does Bernadette Brady (or any of the Aussie astrologers) say on this?

SGFoxe wrote:I don't know if I understand -- does this mean if one were born Jan 1 in Melbourne, one would be a CANCER????

What does Bernadette Brady (or any of the Aussie astrologers) say on this?

I say no, you'd still be Capricorn. As in my earlier post, I submit that the signs are instrinsic to themselves. Thier seasonal attributes are "accidental" and rather parochial.

They do not flip at the equator which otherwise presents problems in itself. It is possible to stradle the equtor with both feet north and south of the equator thus be in both hemispheres and opposite season at once!

In my observations and that of other SH astrolgers, the signs work as in NH.

Martin down under

The sidereal zodiac makes a lot of sense with the Vedic horoscopes that I look at. The sun is de-emphasized in Jyotish in terms of archetypes, and the Moon and ascendent (or Lagna) nakshatras take precedence. I think this is where a lot of western folks run into trouble.

The question, "Am I a Cancer or a Gemini?" is a perfect example of this.
Confusion abounds (and tends to perpetuate itself) with a question like this.

If you are a western Cancer, you probably have very few or none of the traits of a Vedic Gemini. Why? First of all, it's the Moon sign that counts, not the Sun.

I am a western Capricorn, with my Vedic moon in Ashwini, the first of 27 nakshatras, situated in early Aries. This has nothing to do with my sidereal sun in Sagittarius. According to my self-assesment, I have few or no Sagittarian traits except for the way that I decorate (and this is due to western 4th house Sag cusp of home decorating).

Second, there really is no such thing as Vedic Gemini, or sidereal Gemini within a Vedic construct. There are three nakshatras within Gemini: Mrigashira, Ardra, and Punarvasu. They each have their own distinct traits, many of which are unaffiliated with western Gemini.

Put all three of this nakshatras together, and the composite starts to look a little like western Gemini (as a lot of the finer details of the individual nakshatra archetypes fall away). But it would be a lot more accurate to say that one's sun is in Mrigashira, Ardra, or Punarvasu, which means something very different from a Gemini sun.

The trouble is that even westerners who are familiar with Vedic don't do this, because our twelve sign framework is so emmeshed in our psyche. Its really hard to memorize 27 nakshatras - I haven't done it, and I've been studying Jyotish for three years.

Use of a sidereal zodiac for western astrology doesn't make much sense to me, although I am aware that some astrologers feel comfortable with it. Use of a sidereal zodiac for Jyotish makes total sense. If sidereal doesn't work for you in western analysis, don't assume that it won't work in Jyotish.

Hi Sunny Dawn,

Use of a sidereal zodiac for Jyotish makes total sense. If sidereal doesn't work for you in western analysis, don't assume that it won't work in Jyotish.

I found your post very interesting. I agree with your main point. As a tropicalist my first reaction to sidereal is to say no way can I accept my placid Taurus rising becoming a fiery Aries rising!

However, in its own terms through the Nakshatras the Vedic placements in my chart seem spookily accurate. For example my tropical Aquarian sun is a sidereal Capricorn in the 22nd Nakshatra of Shravana linked to teaching. As I work as a trainer this seems quite apt! I have just got delivery of Dennis Harness's book 'The Nakshatras' and its seems an excellent introduction to Vedic lunar mansions.