Skyscript Astrology Forum

AJ wrote:

Anyway just thought this might interest you.

Yes, this is all very interesting to me. I've been puzzled about the AstroSage/SE differences in calculated values. I was so pleased that an AstroSage value exactly matched a Solar Fire Lahiri/KP adjustment, but the SE value is different. I'll describe this in my next post.

A corrected KP zero ayanamsa year?

Since back in the 1980s in the days of DOS (before Microsoft Windows) I have been very satisfied with the Krishnamurti (KP) ayanamsa as calculated with Swiss Ephemeris (SE) paremeters. I’ve found this ayanamsa accurate for timing solar ingress charts, various events and the placement of planets in signs and India’s divisional charts. I began with Rob Hand’s Nova software and am still using Nova’s off-spring, Solar Fire.

This ayanamsa followed me into two later Indian astrology programs: Parshara’s Light (DOS, Windows) and True Astrology Software (programmed for S.P. Khullar). I’ve been blissfully unaware of the controversy surrounding the KP (Krishnamurti Padhdhati) ayansmsa until AJ posted related notes here on Skyscript. So as an astrologer unschooled in precession theory I took a more basic approach to my question: “How do I know if the ayanamsa I’ve been relying on for more than 50 years is valid????

K. S. Krishnamurti (KSK) left two pieces of information for his followers:

(1) ayanamsa tables calculated only to the arcminute published in KP (Krishnamurti Paddhdhati) Reader #1 (no arcseconds).

(2) a statement that the zero KP ayanamsa year is 291

We know that KSK himself used the arcminutes from this table for his personal work as examples are given in his books were he specifically notes the date and degree and minute of the ayanamsa he is using.

Step 1
In order to give a sense of structure to the KP arcminute values, the arcminutes can be deducted from Lahiri ayanamsa values which we know are correctly calculated to the arcsecond. The offset from the Lahiri ayanamsa represents the accumulated precession from the zero Lahiri ayanamsa year of 285 to the zero KP ayanamsa year. The figures of the 1960s especially represent a decade when Krishnamurti was actively testing and using his ayanamsa and teaching students.

Below is a selection of arcminute differences between Lahiri (SE, 1 January) and the KP Reader #1 ayanamsa table. We can use the Lahiri arcseconds since there are no seconds in the Reader #1 table, but there obviously are arcseconds between the annual figures in the table.

1900: KP 22' Lahiri 27' 38" Difference 5' 38"
1966: KP 17' Lahiri 22' 56" Difference 5' 56"
1967: KP 18' Lahiri 23' 46" Difference 5' 46"
1980: KP 29' Lahiri 34' 40" Difference 5' 40"
1990: KP 37' Lahiri 43' 03" Difference 6' 03"

Figure differences from Lahiri in KP Reader #1 fall in the 5 to 6 arcminute range except for a few figures in the low 6 arcminute range such as the 1990 figure of 6' 03 above. There are no differences below 5 arcminutes. These difference figures are the key to the KP ayanamsa zero year since they represent accumulated precession from the Lahiri zero year of 285.

Step 2
The next step is to find the year when Lahiri ayanamsa values fall between 5 and 6 arcminutes. Values below are from the Swiss Ephemeris (SE). (Figures in parenthesis are from the online AstroSage calculator, calculation parameters unknown.)

Year 291: March 4' 34" April 4' 38" (4'55")
Year 292: March 5' 24" April 5'28" (5'45")
Year 293: March 6' 14" April 6'18" (6'35")

It is obvious from these figures that Year 292 matches the published KP table rather than 291. Year 291 values are too low, less than 5 arcminutes, and year 293 figures are too high, over 6 arcminutes. The actual KP/Lahiri difference in Swiss Ephemeris calculations is 5' 48", so conforms to the 292 figures. Based on his own table, Krishnamurti seems to have been a year off in his zero ayanamsa date. This is perhaps not surprising in the pre-computer days of manual calculation. The 292 date suggests that any effort to synchronize 291 with the KP table values is an exercise in futility.

With its current algorithm, The Swiss Ephemeris verifies 292 as the zero KP year with these Krishnamurti ayanamsa figures:

Year 292: March 00'25" April 00'20" September 00'01"

We don’t know how the AstroSage 15 April 292 figure of 5'45" was computed, but it’s interesting that 5'45" is only three arcseconds from the current Swiss Ephemeris value of 5'48", the difference between the Lahiri and Krishnamurti ayanamsas.

It’s also very interesting that the 1980s Astral11 Indian astrology program manual instructed users to add 5'47" to Lahiri to obtain the Krishnamurti ayanamsa.

5'48" is also the value difference for the year 1900 between the Lahiri ayanamsa and the unsourced ‘Enhanced’ 1980s Krishnamurti table. It is possible (even probable?) that there is a link between this table and the Krishnamurti value that made its way into Nova and Solar Fire software and then into the Swiss Ephemeris. The SE documentation lists the original source and calculation parameters for this ayanamsa as ‘unknown’.

Taking all this data together, and based on many years experience in using the KP Swiss Ephemeris ayanamsa values in my work, for me the SE ayanamsa is the perfect candidate for the 'true' KP ayanamsa, and 292 is the corrected year for the KP zero ayanamsa.

According to AstroSage, 291 is the zero ayanamsa year (02" arcseconds on 15 April) for the latest accepted KP standard ayanamsa in the KP community, ‘KP New’, but this value cannot match Krishnamurti’s published ayanamsa table in Reader #1. (AJ will know how this KP New ayanamsa was computed.) Many thanks to AJ for providing Swiss Ephemeris ayanamsa tables which made this study possible!

After all this work, I wait to see if AJ points out some glaring error in my thinking and calculations that I somehow overlooked in this analysis!

Hi Therese: Here are some thoughts below and some running commentary too. Some will be stuff we already went over but a good refresher at certain points.

Therese Hamilton wrote: K. S. Krishnamurti (KSK) left two pieces of information for his followers:
(1) ayanamsa tables calculated only to the arcminute published in KP (Krishnamurti Paddhdhati) Reader #1 (no arcseconds).
(2) a statement that the zero KP ayanamsa year is 291
We know that KSK himself used the arcminutes from this table for his personal work as examples are given in his books were he specifically notes the date and degree and minute of the ayanamsa he is using.

KSK does not give an exact date for his table which leaves an uncertainty of 50 arcseconds in his in ayanamsa. His ayanamsa table was not constructed by using, or correctly applying Newcomb's Precessional theory with 291 as zero year for the coincidence of the tropical and sidereal zodiac.
Or, using the precession rate of value 50.2388475" presented by himself on Reader No.1. Too complicated to go into here but that is incorrect per Newcomb's theory too.

Therese Hamilton wrote:The 292 date suggests that any effort to synchronize 291 with the KP table values is an exercise in futility. ...

With its current algorithm, The Swiss Ephemeris verifies 292 as the zero KP year with these Krishnamurti ayanamsa figures:...

This is confirmed using Newcomb's precessional theory (the only one available to KSK in his day) using the 291 zero year, as the values by the time you reach 1900 are about an arc minute too high. If you use a modern precessional model it's even worse.
KP Paddhati society keeps trying to keep KSKs original zero year though! I know they see it as given by 'Guruji' so it must have been divinely inspired, but facts are facts.

Therese Hamilton wrote:It’s also very interesting that the 1980s Astral11 Indian astrology program manual instructed users to add 5'47" to Lahiri to obtain the Krishnamurti ayanamsa.

The use of offsets to obtain values for your own ayanamsa against a rigorously calculated ayanamsa makes the best sense (and easiest) in the whirling confusion of the many Krishnamurti ayanamsas. It was known pretty early I think after KSKs death and even while he was alive that 291 just didn't work though there were before and since KSKs time complex arguments based on the Surya Siddhanta and other ancient texts what was the zero year. KSK perhaps picked up on one of these arguments for his assigning 291 as the zero.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Taking all this data together, and based on many years experience in using the KP Swiss Ephemeris ayanamsa values in my work, for me the SE ayanamsa is the perfect candidate for the 'true' KP ayanamsa, and 292 is the corrected year for the KP zero ayanamsa.

There are 5 or more KP ayanamsas that are currently available in some form either through software, online calculators, tables etc. and each KP user or other researcher is forced to use one based on their own conviction or faith even if it is the right one. I'll say again that none of them are correct per Newcomb's precessional theory. They all differ from a few seconds to 4 to 5 minutes of each other. In KP society there is no getting around KSKs zero year (291).
Which is the correct ayanamsa? This is beyond my original research. My goal was to bring awareness that the KP ayanamsa is not a settled 'given'.

I am glad that you have been able to come to a firm conclusion in this regard. The discussion will always be with us, that is, which is the right ayanamsa? Personally, as I have mentioned in our personal correspondence, I think SE or Solar Fire Krishnamurti ayanamsa, Lahiri and Chitrapaksha are pretty close. This is based on using sign ingresses (including Panoti Yoga), Vimshottari dasha, and vargas over many many years.

Note though, that KSK writes in his Reader No.1, the difference between CG Rajan’s and Lahiri’s ayanamsa to his own is ‘negligible’ (p. 57). Yet in the same paragraph extols his own ayanamsa as "...very correct..."

Here again is another juxtaposition by KSK that is a mystery throughout his works. He's writing this knowing that his table was only accurate to an arcminute, the other two were calculated to the arcsecond. On the one hand he seems unconcerned with the 'negligible' difference and then declares his is 'very correct'. Which is it? Is the accuracy of an ayanamsa okay within 5-6 minutes or not?
Since KSK didn't share any information with us we will never know. Perhaps when he wrote this he was overconfident that he would eventually settle the issue down to the second, who knows?
Maybe at the end of the day the accuracy issue wasn't that important. Martin presented some great ideas on this. See the previous threads.

Can we do astrology better than let's say Thrasyllus? who worked with what a degree of accuracy in the first century? Raman is said to have based his ayanamsa on a statement by the medieval astronomer Bhaskara and the accuracy of the information he started with was 11° in the year 1183.

What I think is important is KSKs students and devotees have spent over 4 decades trying to 'cut the mustard' to rigidly define the KP ayanamsa.

Therese Hamilton wrote:According to AstroSage, 291 is the zero ayanamsa year (02" arcseconds on 15 April) for the latest accepted KP standard ayanamsa in the KP community, ‘KP New’, but this value cannot match Krishnamurti’s published ayanamsa table in Reader #1. (AJ will know how this KP New ayanamsa was computed.)

There are still KP practitioners using others and even derivative systems that have their own ayanamsa too. Yes you are right KP New cannot really match 291, none of them can, it salvages the zero year of 291 by applying an offset to make it 'jive' exactly with the 291 year given by KSK. Yes, a 'fudge factor' if you will.

Well how close it is to KSKs Original ayanamsa (KPO) is hard to say. KPNew is 22-22-30 for 4/15/1900, and all we know is that KPO is 22-22. though it is very likely that KSK meant 4/15 when the sidereal Sun entered Misha. This is assuming a lot though, which years in KSKs table were on the whole minute for that year, maybe everyone taking the round figure of 1900 is one of the worst years? What if it was 22-21-31??? It all gets back to KSKs cloud of unknowing he left surrounding a lot of things.

Blessings.
~AJ

Martin, I think it was a good idea to remove "Houck" from this topic title, but I also think that a better title would be simply "The KP Ayanamsa" or "The KP Ayanamsa Controversy". This is because from the point of view of western astrologers, we rely on the Swiss Ephemeris KP ayanamsa, and don't really know the details (and probably don't care) of the KP controversy in India. AJ has let us know that the controversy exists, but the details apparently remain in a close-knit KP community.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just registering an unimportant suggestion!

AJ, as usual I'm very happy to have the additional KP ayanamsa details in your post to add to my file. The insistence of remaining with 291 as the zero KP ayanamsa year due to the statement of the 'Guru" is similar to the insistence of Sri Yukteswar's disciples to remain with Yuga timing from the year 500 (as discussed in The Holy Science) rather than the updated Indian value of the Lahiri year of 285. So a fictitious "Sri Yukteswar" ayanamsa has been invented to conform to the written words of the Guru. A while ago I wrote a paper on this problem:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aayugacycles.htm

It may be that the only way to verify the utility of a KP ayanamsa is in the contest of India's varga or divisional charts. For example, looking at the birth chart of Queen Elizabeth II, do we really see a the longest reigning monarch in England's history? Do we see a Queen in her birth chart at all? The Queen's ascendant is Sagittarius. Isn't it helpful to note that the navamsa degree of the radix ascendant lord, Jupiter, is the precise degree (28° Virgo) of the radix nonagesimal (zenith point) at the top of the birth chart?

With Lahiri the navamsa degree drops to 27. Anyway, it's this type of precision that has convinced me of the utility of the Swiss Ephemeris values. So if astrologers ever get to the place where they want to genuinely test an ayanamsa, I think India's divisional charts may be the best path to take along with Vimshottari timing and solar ingress charts.

AJ wrote:

Note though, that KSK writes in his Reader No.1, the difference between CG Rajan’s and Lahiri’s ayanamsa to his own is ‘negligible’ (p. 57). Yet in the same paragraph extols his own ayanamsa as "...very correct..."

Of course this statement makes no sense at all, and can only confuse Krishnamurti's students. The difference is far from negligible. Otherwise why didn't KSK simply use the Lahiri value for his work? This simply reminds us that all we can do is rely on modern calculation perimeters and honestly question the words of the accepted authority on this topic.

Therese Hamilton wrote:AJ, as usual I'm very happy to have the additional KP ayanamsa details in your post to add to my file. The insistence of remaining with 291 as the zero KP ayanamsa year due to the statement of the 'Guru" is similar to the insistence of Sri Yukteswar's disciples to remain with Yuga timing from the year 500 (as discussed in The Holy Science) rather than the updated Indian value of the Lahiri year of 285. So a fictitious "Sri Yukteswar" ayanamsa has been invented to conform to the written words of the Guru. A while ago I wrote a paper on this problem:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aayugacycles.htm

Yes, don't get me started. lol... SriYukteswar ayanamsa is another can of worms and a truly a big tumble down the rabbit hole. A whole topic by itself!

Therese Hamilton wrote:It may be that the only way to verify the utility of a KP ayanamsa is in the contest of India's varga or divisional charts. For example, looking at the birth chart of Queen Elizabeth II, do we really see a the longest reigning monarch in England's history? Do we see a Queen in her birth chart at all? The Queen's ascendant is Sagittarius. Isn't it helpful to note that the navamsa degree of the radix ascendant lord, Jupiter, is the precise degree (28° Virgo) of the radix nonagesimal (zenith point) at the top of the birth chart?
With Lahiri the navamsa degree drops to 27. Anyway, it's this type of precision that has convinced me of the utility of the Swiss Ephemeris values. So if astrologers ever get to the place where they want to genuinely test an ayanamsa, I think India's divisional charts may be the best path to take along with Vimshottari timing and solar ingress charts.

Yes, I see what you mean. Very nice example of the use of the navamsa or D9. Especially considering her natal 10L Mercury is neecha. Though her 5L Mars (Exalted Sun is in the 5th too) is very closely conjunct Lagna Lord Jupiter, Mars is in the exaltation degree in the second house of status and wealth and also exactly aspects its own house, the 5th, the 8th of old money and power, and the auspicious 9th. Ruler of the 5th in the 2nd shows a very positive poorvapunya. Jupiter even when neecha is not near as destroyed as other Grahas and receives a lot of Mars benefits. Jupiter closely aspects the Equal Bhava Madhya (EBM) of the 10th house. There are a number of powerful yogas as well as some negative: Adhama, Parivartana Dainya, and Dharma Yogas are the positive ones. But I would say your observation about Jupiter in D9 conjunct the 10th EBM is pretty conclusive when taken with all of the other factors. Jupiter and Mars are in Mars' Star too BTW.

AJ wrote:

Note though, that KSK writes in his Reader No.1, the difference between CG Rajan’s and Lahiri’s ayanamsa to his own is ‘negligible’ (p. 57). Yet in the same paragraph extols his own ayanamsa as "...very correct..."

[/quote]

Therese Hamilton wrote:Of course this statement makes no sense at all, and can only confuse Krishnamurti's students. The difference is far from negligible. Otherwise why didn't KSK simply use the Lahiri value for his work? This simply reminds us that all we can do is rely on modern calculation perimeters and honestly question the words of the accepted authority on this topic.

It is my feeling that KSK promoted these dichotomies on purpose for reasons that are more in the realm of psychology than astrology. It’s almost like KSK wanted this cloud of unknowing to enshroud the heart of his system.

AJ wrote:

Yes, I see what you mean. Very nice example of the use of the navamsa or D9. Especially considering her natal 10L Mercury is neecha. Though her 5L Mars (Exalted Sun is in the 5th too) is very closely conjunct Lagna Lord Jupiter, Mars is in the exaltation degree in the second house of status and wealth and also exactly aspects its own house, the 5th, the 8th of old money and power, and the auspicious 9th.

This example of a neecha (debilitated) 10th lord gives credit to Krishnamurti's principle that star lords are superior to sign lords. 10th cusp star lord is Mars with the dignities you mentioned. It's significant too that the Mars/Jupiter conjunction is on the equal house cusp, Mars at 28 degrees just as D9 Jupiter is at 28 degrees of 10th cusp Virgo. it would seem that the powerful Mars eclipses the neecha position of Jupiter.

But Jupiter on the 2nd house can act as a maraka (death inflicting planet)? Elizabeth is currently in Jupiter's long dasa period. but Rahu's bhukti is also running. Rahu is in the 7th house, a maraka placement. Saturn's dasa doesn't begin until the 25th of October, 2023. (SE KP ayanamsa)

Jupiter even when neecha Jupiter closely aspects the Equal Bhava Madhya (EBM) of the 10th house.

Do you consistently use the equal house cusps (Equal Bhava Madhya--EBM)? I've pretty much given up looking at other house cusps even though Krishnamurti used Placidus cusps. I think he was probably wrong with that choice even though he gives examples in his books. But with the use of sub lords, it's easy to find cusp relationships that 'work'.

On Skyscript I often translate Indian terms as some members aren't familiar with the meaning of those words.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Mars at 28 degrees just as D9 Jupiter is at 28 degrees of 10th cusp Virgo. it would seem that the powerful Mars eclipses the neecha position of Jupiter.

For Sagittarius ascendant Mars and Jupiter also create a royal union.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Do you consistently use the equal house cusps (Equal Bhava Madhya--EBM)?

Yes.

Regards.
~AJ