Skyscript Astrology Forum

Graham wrote:

As I said, I think the best available option I've found is Babylon Kugler III, the second best Krishnamurti. For practical purposes Krishnamurti is good as many others use it, so it's usually worth making the compromise.

Graham, can you give us the background on the Babylon Kugler ayanamsas? I had never heard of them before. What is the difference in a planet's position between Krishnamurti and Babylon Kugler III?

Hi Therese
No sorry, I know nothing about it, except that it's the closest, of the ready-made ones I've found in programs, to the value I find works best for me (practically and "theoretically", if you like). So if there's no custom ayanamsa option, that's the one I use (e.g. in Morinus). But Krishnamurti is also nearly always close enough in practice. Kugler III puts chart factors 10' ahead of KM.
Graham

Therese Hamilton wrote:

These questions can probably best be answered with excerpts from an article I wrote in 2010, "When Did Dwapara Yuga Really Begin?"http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aayugacycles.htm

Thanks Therese. I have previously read your article in regards the issue of the re-calculation of the yugas proposed by Sri Yukteswar. You have reminded me I would like to discuss this topic further on the Indian forum at some point.

However, I somewhat neglected the significance of your article regarding the topic of the ayanamsa. Thanks for that.

"...The zero ayanamsa date in Surya Siddhanta does not come from India's most ancient texts, but rather is the product of a Sassanian (Persian) reform of astronomical tables in the year 556.
(...)

So are you saying the the Sassanian ayanamsa didn?t actually start in 556 but was retrospective to the year 499CE?

Therese Hamilton wrote:

"The ayanamsa eventually chosen by B.V. Raman gives a zero date of 397, so he apparently took the figures from astronomical references and adjusted them slightly to find his zero date. Thus, the Raman ayanamsa is very close to the figure cited in The Holy Science, and is still used today by his family and staunch followers." (End quoted article.)

So you believe Raman determined his ayanamsa from the astronomical references The Holy Science? I assume B.V. Raman doesn't explicitly state that anywhere?

Therese Hamilton wrote:

The Lahiri tables didn't exist before the 1956 committee report, though some astrologers could have been using anti-Spica as the first point of Aries. We know that before 1956 the various Indian panchanga calculations were many, varied and unreliable.

That?s an interesting topic in itself. Several traditional Indian ayanamsa seem to have little in common with Lahiri.

Mark

A bit more on Kugler. Franz Xaver Kugler (1862-1929) was a German chemist, mathematician, Assyriologist, and Jesuit priest. He was the proponent of these 3 starting points of the Babylonian zodiac. I think (?) this was based on different historical periods.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Kugler

A full biography on Garry Thompson's website:
http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-davi ... ylon6.html

Note: Thompson has confused Konigsberg in East Prussia with Konigsbach in the Rhineland. The Russians came nowhere near Konigsbach!

Post WWII scholarship on the Babylonian astrology seems to indicate it actually being closer to the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa than Kugler III. For example the research by the Babylonian scholar Peter Huber came up an ayanamsa only 6' minutes from the Fagan-Allen ayanamsa.

Here is an interesting short piece by John Buzzard looking at Peter Huber's research indicating a proposed Babylonian ayanamsa:

http://radixpro.com/rpcomart/art_8.php#text1

Raymond Mercier also suggested a Babylonian ayanamsa close to this range. I think the zero point of his suggested ayanamsa was 237CE.

Mark

Mark wrote:

So are you saying the Sassanian ayanamsa didn?t actually start in 556 but was retrospective to the year 499CE?]

No, there is actually a confusion of dates here. This section of The Holy Science is concerned with the date the two zodiacs coincided. This is mathematically described in Surya Siddhanta, but to make it simple:

"The date of the scientific Hindu astronomy is indeed 421 years elapsed after the Saka era, or 499 A.D., the time of Aryabhata." (Surya Siddhanta, p. xliv)

This is the zero date used by Sri Yukteswar in his discussion of the yuga cycle. However:

"After the Sassanian reform of astronomical tables, we have a new definition of the Greek-Arabic-Hindu sidereal zodiac, and a very precise one (this is not explicitly stated by Mercier, however):

"ayanamsha = 0 18 Mar 564, 7:53:23 UT...Sassanian zePsc 29pi49'59"

"The same zero point then reappears with a precison of 1' in the Toledan tables, the Khwarizmain tables, the Surya Siddhanta, and the Ushashashi ayanamsha." (Swiss Ephemeris site, section 2.7)

However, the panchanga figure cited in The Holy Science doesn't mathematically compute to either of these dates, but to approximately A.D. 397. I cannot find my worksheet on obtaining that date, but anyone can work backwards from the figure given in The Holy Science:

"The astronomical reference books show the Vernal Equinox now to be 20 deg 54'36" distant from the first point of Aries (the fixed star Reveti...") (The Holy Science, p. 17) [A.D. 1894]

We can only speculate as to the reference books used to obtain that figure. However the same panchanga or a closely related one is apparently the source of the Raman ayanamsa.

Good morning,

May one recall that the 'Krishnamurti arc of precession' is part of the 'Krishnamurti School' that differs in several ways, not only regarding the equal-sign zodiac employed, from the various schools of 'traditional Indian astrology', ex. gr. by used of the system of houses usually named after Placido di Titi? Most of the other schools of Indian astrology, to the best of my feeble knowledge, apply the 'whole sign house system' for topical interpretation.

Since no-one has yet firmly established with a convincing degree of probability which of the numerous 'sidereal' precession factors, if any, are correct, for simplicity's sake my preliminary current hypothesis is to apply the two tropical equal zodiacs (north and south hemispheres), liberated from their mythological interpretations related to the various figures assigned to unequal astronomical constellations by different civilisations at different times. The working hypothesis is enriched by the directly astronomically derived relative rising etc. velocities and accelerations / decelerations of the signs. If, however, one wishes the chosen zodiac of equal signs to approximate zodiacal fixed star constellations, obviously some 'sidereal' zodiac will come closer than a tropical one.

Interpretations configurations with bright fixed stars (apparent magnitude not greater than say 1.9, Ar?s having a minimum of about 1.6, only Herm?s being dimmer at times) visible at the place of the event are included, their qualities determined analogically from their observable colours and constancy of magnitude, positions relative to the zodiac ('centre stage'), to the 'corners', to the horizons and to the wandering stars. Once again, mythology, although not of necessity invalid but having much variability by civilisation, belief-system and epoch, is regarded at best analogically to the astronomical observables. In practice, this results in less than a dozen fixed stars to be interpreted in a given chart.

Adding the observable motions, their rhythms and patters, one can similarly ascertain the astrological qualities of the wandering stars. Of course all such methods are inherently 'anthropomorphic'. How can humans be other than 'anthropomorphic'?

The number of astrological variables is, even when restricted to the seven visible wandering stars, quite high, which renders statistical research difficult. If one is interested in having a 'manageable' system, one does well by rigorously pruning the garden of astrological variables, thus keeping one's toolbox light but hopefully effective.

Best regards,

lihin

As stated in the description, this forum is meant for discussion on the practice and theory of sidereal astrology. If, for whatever reason, you do not approve of sidereal astrology, this is not the place to say so. Descriptions of your favoured non-sidereal approach may be posted in the Nativities & General Astrology or Philosophy & Science forums, but not here. Any further inapproapriate posts will be considered trolling and will be deleted without prior warning or subsequent discussion.

Therese Hamilton: wrote:

No, there is actually a confusion of dates here. This section of The Holy Science is concerned with the date the two zodiacs coincided. This is mathematically described in Surya Siddhanta, but to make it simple:

"The date of the scientific Hindu astronomy is indeed 421 years elapsed after the Saka era, or 499 A.D., the time of Aryabhata." (Surya Siddhanta, p. xliv)

This is the zero date used by Sri Yukteswar in his discussion of the yuga cycle.

Thanks. I find the whole topic most intriguing. David Pingree suggested this date and the other one more commonly used in south India of 522 CE reflect rival traditions of trepidation theory dating from the supposed date of the Kali Yuga in 3102 BCE. Several Siddhantic astronomers assumed a precessional cycle of 3600 years where the equinoxes moved through two equal nakshatras (27 degrees) and then backwards again. This seems to have been the view of the Surya Siddhanta and some other commentators. However, according to Siddhantic commentators in the tradition stemming from Aryabhata the arc was only thought to extend 24 degrees each side of the vernal point and the rate of precession was calculated differently. Varahamihirah states a very similar arc of precession to this but doesn't list a rate of precession.

So the zero dates of 499CE or 522CE were based on rival methods of calculating the rate of precessional return in this arc of trepidation to the nakshatra of Ashwini and the beginning of sidereal Aries. A later astronomer Amaraja (circa 1200) modified the assumed rate of precession put forward by earlier Siddantic astronomers and calculated a different date of 589CE for the zero point of the vernal equinox and sidereal zodiac. We now know that all these schools were incorrect not just in their use of trepidation theory (as originally found in earlier Greek writers such as Theon of Alexandria circa 361 CE and Proclus 410-485 CE ) but also the rates of precession they used. Hence, even with bija corrections of all these zodiacs became increasingly inaccurate.

The junction star used for these calculations appears to have been Beta (?) Aries, or Sheratan which was always the junction star of the nakshatra of Ashwini. It was believed a great conjunction had occured in 3102 BCE when this star marked the vernal equinox at the beginning of Aswini and sidereal Aries.

In reality, (?) Aries didn't coincide with the vernal equinox at either 499CE , 522CE or 589CE. It actually coincided with the vernal equinox in the 2nd-1st century BCE during the time of Hipparchus.

I can only assume I have made an error and the Siddhantic astrologers used another star in Ashwini to calculate the precessional return from the Kali Yuga. It has to be in Aswini though and (?) Aries seemed the logical choice supported by the texts themselves. Looks like I need to do more research on the chart for the Kali Yuga commencement used by these astronomers!

Therese Hamilton wrote:

However:

"After the Sassanian reform of astronomical tables, we have a new definition of the Greek-Arabic-Hindu sidereal zodiac, and a very precise one (this is not explicitly stated by Mercier, however):

"ayanamsha = 0 18 Mar 564, 7:53:23 UT...Sassanian zePsc 29pi49'59"

"The same zero point then reappears with a precison of 1' in the Toledan tables, the Khwarizmain tables, the Surya Siddhanta, and the Ushashashi ayanamsha." (Swiss Ephemeris site, section 2.7)

I have read extensive quotes of Mercier's book provided by Juan Revilla. However, Its not at all clear how many Indian astrologers actually adopted this Persian ayanamsa. There seem to have been several rival ayanamsa ideas being used from the medieval period onwards in India. Judging by comments of Siddhantic astronomers it seems the original version of the Surya Siddhanta advocated the date 499 as the zero point. The introduction of the Persian ayanamsa was presumably a later interpolation in the text of the Surya Siddhanta.

Ultimately, this topic is probably more appropriate on the Indian forum and I intend to open a fresh thread on this whole topic there to discuss the historical roots of the ayanamsa used in Indian astrology today and in the past.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

However, the panchanga figure cited in The Holy Science doesn't mathematically compute to either of these dates, but to approximately A.D. 397. I cannot find my worksheet on obtaining that date, but anyone can work backwards from the figure given in The Holy Science:

"The astronomical reference books show the Vernal Equinox now to be 20 deg 54'36" distant from the first point of Aries (the fixed star Reveti...") (The Holy Science, p. 17) [A.D. 1894]

We can only speculate as to the reference books used to obtain that figure. However the same panchanga or a closely related one is apparently the source of the Raman ayanamsa.

I would be most interested in seeing how you calculated this to reach that date. Assuming your calculations are correct regarding the date 397 CE, derived from The Holy science, it does seem highly unlikely to just be a coincidence.

Although, I have seen the suggestion on a Jyotish forum that Raman actually derived this date by the use of some tables used by Nadi astrologers from the medieval period. However, without regular bija these would have been totally inaccurate by Raman?s time.

Mark

Mark wrote: (...)
I would be most interested in seeing how you calculated this to reach that date. Assuming your calculations are correct regarding the date 397 CE, derived from The Holy science, it does seem highly unlikely to just be a coincidence.

Although, I have seen the suggestion on a Jyotish forum that Raman actually derived this date by the use of some tables used by Nadi astrologers from the medieval period. However, without regular bija these would have been totally inaccurate by Raman?s time.

Mark

Mark, thanks for your historical remarks. I also find this topic very interesting. As for the zero date for the figure given in The Holy Science, I cannot remember how I obtained "approximately 397," however for now I tried this:

22 16 50 Krishnamurti ayanamsa for 1894 (from printed tables)
20 54 36 Ayanamsa for 1894 from The Holy Science
01 22 14 Difference between these two figures

1 22 14 = 1.37 percent of 60 minutes (one degree)

Current accepted precessional rate is one degree every 72 years, so:
1.37 times 72 years = 98.64 years

Adding this figure to the zero ayanamsa date for Krishnamurti gives:

291 plus 98.64 = 389.64 AD or 390 AD for a zero date based on The Holy Science figure taken from 1894 almanacs. So the 397 figure was indeed only an approximation.

Thanks Therese,

Thats very helpful of you. Of course there are those that suggest Sri Yukteswar was not really proposing an astrological ayanamsa at all. Foremost amongst those is the astrologer Ernst Wilhelm.

Here is a quote apparently made by Ernst Wilhelm replying to a question on this:

''Sri Yuktesvar never used the ayanamsa named after him. When he wrote the Holy Science and talked about the Yugas he used Mean Motions of the precession, which is 24000 years, just like Manu Samhita uses the same mean motions. Talking in mean motions makes truth for all time. However, in this particular cycle, it will take 25600 years for the equinoxes to progress through the zodiac. And Sri Yuktesvar knew this of course as it was known during that time. He then goes on to say that the revati star marks the first point of sidereal aries, which is what the galactic center middle of mula ayanamsa comes to by the way. The then uses mean motions to arrive at a revati position that is not true from observation, but true from a mean motion point of view. Yuktesvar was not talking about precession in respect to

astrologers calculating an ayanamsa, but about mean motions of the great cycle. Readers did not understand this and so derived an ayanamsa based on mean motions in his book ? not what he intended. But that is the norm, people take wise words and do the unintentional with them.

Additionally, Tara Ma, a disciple of Yogananda who was very much into occult sciences and who Yogananda said that if he wanted to talk of metaphysical things and could not talk to Yuktesvar, his favorite person to talk to was Tara Ma. Tara Ma derived an ayanamsa based on the true motion of this period?s precession, 25600 years, and the actual position of Revati and in so doing came up with an ayanamsa very close to dhruva galactic center middle of Mula.

One thing that has to be kept in mind is that no star marks the ayanamsa. Ancients just used stars as reference points, Yukteswar actually said 10 mintues from Revati. But now that we have discovered the galactic center we can use what is actually fixed, the galactic center. NO stars are really fixed, they all move, decay, burn out, etc. Only the GC, the galactic center, will be here through the entirety of our galaxy?s existence. But the dhruva galactic center middle of Mula ayanamsa is marked by Revati, the star chosen by Sri Yuktesvar.?

Getting back to my comments above it would make more sense if the precessional cycle described by the Siddhantic astrologers coincided with the equinox at Revati (zeta Pisces rather than beta Aries. Otherwise it would mean these astronomers were unable to calculate the stars aligned to the vernal point!

This would require Revati to be considered the beginning of sidereal Aries rather than in sidereal Pisces. The problem is that that they indicate the cycle had returned to its starting point established in the Kali yuga with the vernal point at the beginning of Aswini and sidereal Aries. I dont think Revati has ever been linked to this nakshatra has it? Its obviously, the 27th Nakshatra today and quite separate from Ashwini.

Pingree is quite clear the Siddhantic astronomers believed the chosen zero date was when the equinox point had returned to both the beginning of sidereal Aries and Ashwini. They simply disagreed what date this occurred.

This has led a few people such as Ernst Wilhelm to actually suggest the basic logic of the original 12 sign zodiac in India was really tropical. In other words the zero point of 499CE , 522CE or 589CE coincided with when the Siddhantic astronomers thought that the two zodiacs coincided. If the outlook was not essentially tropical (or perhaps proto-tropical is more accurate due to their faulty understanding of precession) why concern themselves with aligning the zero point of their zodiac around the vernal point in the first place? Siderealists are usually keen to point out the astrology of India is fully sidereal and has no connection to seasonal considerations found in western astrology. Why then did the Siddhantic astronomers devote so much time and energy to seek a zero date which aligned their zero point with the vernal point? Logically, what interest has a fully sidereal astrology got with coinciding with the vernal point? Shouldn't such considerations have been totally irrelevant from a purely sidereal outlook?

I guess these comments will set the cat amongst the pigeons here! Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

One additional point. The Aryabhata of Aryabhata I is our main source for dating the beginning of the yuga. He states in the text that he was 23 years old at the time of composition of the text and dates his work from the time since the yuga began. Intriguingly the popular date for this text is 499CE! Another tradition claims it was written in 522 CE. Coincidence or what?

Also Aryabhata nowhere refers to the Kali yuga in his work. In fact the sequence of yugas he describes is the Jain sequence of yugas.

The 9th sloka in the 3rd chapter of Aryabhata states-

Utsarpini Yugartham Paschadapasarpini Yugardham cha
Madhye Yugasya sushama Adavante dushamenduchaat

This has been translated as: ''... the first half of a Yuga is Utsarpini and the second half is Apasarpini. Sushama is the middle of the Yuga and Dushama is the start and end of the Yuga. All the calculations related to Yuga must be done considering the Apogee of Moon.''

What is striking here is that terms like the Utsarpini, Apasarpini divisions of Yuga and the Sushama, Dushama middle divisions are not related to the Hindu system of time division, but a Jain system. The astronomer K Chandra Hari has written very convincingly on this topic. However, here is a more basic article discussing the issue:

http://jainology.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12 ... ose_button

This leads to two interesting conclusions. Firstly, Aryabhata was almost certainly a Jain and secondly the date used to calculate the beginning of the Kali Yuga by Hindus across the world from medieval times (The Aryabhata) is actually based on Jain cosmology! In medieval Hinduism the Vaishnavites seem to have appropriated this chronology as the assumed time when Sri Krishna ascended to heaven at the beginning of the Kali yuga.

Mark

Mark wrote:If the outlook was not essentially tropical (or perhaps proto-tropical is more accurate due to their faulty understanding of precession) why concern themselves with aligning the zero point of their zodiac around the vernal point in the first place?

Because astronomers were concerned with other things besides astrology, such as constructing/maintaining a calendar in alignment with the seasons?

To me, 'Indian-astrology-was-tropical-ists' are right in there with Genesis creationists and flat-earthers, but to each his own. That particular discussion might be more suited for the Indian forum, though.

Martin Gansten wrote.

Because astronomers were concerned with other things besides astrology, such as constructing/maintaining a calendar in alignment with the seasons?

As I have suggested before Martin the fields of astronomy and astrology are not hermetically sealed from each other. Hence you seem to have missed an important point here. We are not just discussing calenders. We are discussing the origin of Indian astrological ayanamsa! The Vakya ayanamsa used extensively by astrologers in Tamil Nadu derived from a Keralan astronomical tradition which set the ayanamsa at 522CE. See my comments above for the origins of this ayanamsa and its links to the assumed vernal point.

Martin Gansten wrote:

To me, 'Indian-astrology-was-tropical-ists' are right in there with Genesis creationists and flat-earthers, but to each his own.

While it has polemical effect labelling a position you disagree with in this way is not a very constructive approach. I dont think simply exploring such topics consigns one to the lunatic fringe as you seem to be suggesting. I concede my comments on the tropical basis of the Siddhantic ayanamsa were slightly tongue in cheek. I am fully aware from previous discussions on the history of the zodiac on Skyscript that both siderealists and tropicalists can cherry pick the evidence to support their preconceived beliefs. Still, a fuller exploration of such topics can be useful in the context of a dialectic where such theories are fully critiqued.

Martin Gansten wrote:

That particular discussion might be more suited for the Indian forum, though.

Agreed. Although I have a feeling the moderator over there will not approve of such a thread topic.