It's funny how we both think the other person keeps missing our point, isn't it? I think you're creating problems by assuming that astronomy and astrology were less differentiated than the evidence, to me, seems to suggest.

I dont think simply exploring such topics consigns one to the lunatic fringe as you seem to be suggesting.

For the record, I don't think people who uphold these views are mentally ill, merely that they are compelled by their ideological stances to defend extremely unlikely positions in the face of the evidence. I'm not out to ban the topic, though (on this forum or the Indian one); I just won't participate.

Martin Gansten wrote:

It's funny how we both think the other person keeps missing our point, isn't it? I think you're creating problems by assuming that astronomy and astrology were less differentiated than the evidence, to me, seems to suggest.

I am not suggesting that the two disciplines were not differentiated. Simply that there is verified evidence of interaction regarding the development of ayanamsa from the tables provided by astronomers. I already cited the specific example of the Vakya ayanamsa used in Tamil Nadu astrology today. K Chandra Hari has written an article on this topic.

Mark wrote:

I dont think simply exploring such topics consigns one to the lunatic fringe as you seem to be suggesting.

Martin Gansten wrote:

For the record, I don't think people who uphold these views are mentally ill, merely that they are compelled by their ideological stances to defend extremely unlikely positions in the face of the evidence.

If you are talking about an argument that ancient Indian astrology was 'all tropical' I would probably agree. That would be a rather crude and nonsensical position. I dont think anyone can seriously deny the Nakshatras were always a sidereal frame of reference. Although their changing order may well have been motivated by changing seasonal alignments.

However, I do think there are some interesting issues about what was going in in Siddhantic astronomy. As I have indicated this had implications for the ayanamsas adopted by Indian astrology. The use of Lahiri as the default of Indian astrology seems quite odd considering the relative lack of historical authority for Chitra paksha one finds in most of the tradition.

I'm not out to ban the topic, though (on this forum or the Indian one); I just won't participate.

I do think further discussion of this topic is inappropriate on the sidereal forum.

In any case this whole topic is nowhere near the top of my to do list! Moreover, its the kind of topic I would only want to touch after considereably more time to research before I even dreamed to getting into a fuller discussion on it.

Still, its a pity you are already ruling out any participation before even seeing the title or slant of the thread. Well informed criticism is always the most useful.

Mark

Mark wrote:

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

Quote:
''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....(etc.)

I will just add a note here: I am not sure what is meant by the statement about the quote "apparently made by Ernst Wilhelm," but the content of that quote isn't in The Holy Science, and is apparently a personal conclusion reached by the author.

It's true, however, that this introductory section of The Holy Science was mainly concerned with correcting the mistaken dating of the Yuga cycle (in relation to human evolution) and not with an astrological ayanamsa. We also are not sure what changes or additions Tara Mata (editor) might have made to the text. However, Tara Mata was never referred to as "Tara Ma." So I'm suspicious of the origin and content of that quote. It's doubtful the the quote is Wilhelm's as he is too young to have been familiar with Tara Mata. I do have Tara Mata's (Laurie Pratt) Astrological World Cycles, and can check out some statements in the quote.

Ernst Wilhelm does not have the necessary academic education to fully understand the concepts he discusses. He has formed certain opinions, and then presents these opinions as facts. (This is in relation to the article on his web site, "The Mystery of the Zodiac.")

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I will just add a note here: I am not sure what is meant by the statement about the quote "apparently made by Ernst Wilhelm," but the content of that quote isn't in The Holy Science, and is apparently a personal conclusion reached by the author.

The link I got the quote from Ernst Wilhem was from Ryan Kurczak's site:

http://ashevillevedicastrology.wordpres ... 03/08/257/.

Like Ernst Wilhelm , Ryan Kurczak is part of the new generation of American 'Vedic' astrologers that have 'converted' to using the tropical zodiac with traditional Jyotish techniques.

http://tropical-vedic-astrology.net/for ... topic=59.0

One of the characteristics of this approach is an almost exclusive focus on the BPHS and Jaimini Sutras. Claims are made by both these astrologers that many of the obscure and relatively unused techniques in the BPHS and Jaimini Sutras work better with a tropical zodiac.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Ernst Wilhelm does not have the necessary academic education to fully understand the concepts he discusses. He has formed certain opinions, and then presents these opinions as facts. (This is in relation to the article on his web site, "The Mystery of the Zodiac.")

I dont hold lack of qualifications against someone if they have done the research. However, there is no denying Wilhelm often takes a rather cavalier attitude to the historical sources.

Mark

Hello Therese,

I have done a bit digging on the internet and found an old forum post by Ernst Wilhelm on the website IndiaDivine.org under a thread entitled 'Jyotish Question re Ayanamsa'. It confirms the quote provided by Ryan Kurczak is accurate:

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedi ... amsha.html

Dear Kasi and others,

Sri Yukteswar was a great astrologer and a realized soul, but in
writting the Holy Science he was not postulating the correct ayanamsa.

When he wrote the book he mentioned a 54 second per year progression resulting in a 24000 year cycle of yugas. His purpose was to make the public aware of the yugas that are based upon the revolution of the Sun around as yet an astronomically undiscovered point, star, etc. In the book for the purpose of his revealing the yugas he mentioned 54 seconds precesion rate, yet in his lifetime it was known that the current rate of preccession was 50.2 something, therefore any ayanamsa using a 54 second yearly precession could not be correct. Then others read his book and came up with an ayanamsa that they called Sri Yuktesware ayanamsa which is not an ayanamsa he ever used. In fact, his disciple, aramahamsa Yogananda had a disciple named Tara Ma, who wrote on the precession and ayanamsa and used the modern value of 50.3, she bascially refuted all of what is said in the Holy Science as far as the ayanamsa is concerned.

I went through this same ayanamsa dilemma years ago, and after I decided to go with Lahiri I met a friend who had been to Calcutta where he became good friends with an astrologer who used Lahiri ayanamsa. This friend of mine asked this astrologer why he did not use Sri Yukteswar ayanamsa and this astrolger said that his grandfather was friendly with Sri Yuktesware andthat this was the same ayanamsa that Sri Yukteswar used- the Lahiri.

I hope that helps clear things up a bit for you on the ayanamsa. The yugas
mentioned by Sri Yuktesware are baased upon the Sun revolution around some star, a dark star. The yugas of great length that most know of are based upon this around the galactic center.

Take Care,
Ernst

I should confirm I am not a supporter of Ernst Wilhelm's view. I am merely reporting it in the spirit of enriching the thread. Wilhelm does appear to be oblivious to mention of 499 CE in the Surya Siddhanta and the school of Indian trepidation theory which linked this with the the assumed date of the begining of the Kali Yuga in 3101 BCE.

Mark

Mark wrote: 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.

Is it not a matter of efficiency and convenience, to calculate the Solar Year (for calendar use) and then subtract the difference of the surrounding galaxy precession from that point? It is a Tropical perspective to contemplate this Zodiac matter by focusing on the idea of a zero date. It is not the moment in time that matters, it is the moment in space that matters. This is the first mistake in thinking of a Sidereal zodiac, unless one is a Tropicalist. The very description of this mathematical procedure and current use of substracting an ayanamsha from the Vernal Equinox at some zero point in time is analogous to stating that Rome is 2 hours from Naples - which is meaningless in a spatial (i.e. Sidereal) context. The reason this matters is because it is the positions of the stars (or galaxy) that is important to a Siderealist perspective and not the simple convenience of setting an artificial fixed date in time as a 'starting point' for an ayanamsha and subtracting another artificial and fixed rate of precession. It is simply mathematical simplicity using already existing Solar Year ephemerides and using two equations to set a Sidereal Zodiac starting point that gives an erroneous perception of what a Sidereal Zodiac actually is. It does not matter if the Vernal Equinox or any other point in the Tropical ephemerides is used to find a place in space if one is concerned with both the Solar Year and the stars.

Mark wrote: 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)

Hopefully you are correct they had a "faulty understanding of precession," since the possibility they did not have a faulty understanding is even worse for whoever is around when it switches.

Mark wrote: why concern themselves with aligning the zero point of their zodiac around the vernal point in the first place?

See above.

Mark wrote: 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?

Has anyone ever seen a bird fly with only one wing?

Mark wrote: If you are talking about an argument that ancient Indian astrology was 'all tropical' I would probably agree. That would be a rather crude and nonsensical position. I dont think anyone can seriously deny the Nakshatras were always a sidereal frame of reference. Although their changing order may well have been motivated by changing seasonal alignments.

There are 4 navamsha padas in each nakshatra and there are 9 navamsha padas in each Sign - try to separate these 3 things...although it could be done if one wished to.

Mark wrote: The use of Lahiri as the default of Indian astrology seems quite odd considering the relative lack of historical authority for Chitra paksha one finds in most of the tradition.

"...The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year..." (Taittiriya Sanhita 7.4.8 )

Mark wrote: One of the characteristics of this approach is an almost exclusive focus on the BPHS and Jaimini Sutras. Claims are made by both these astrologers that many of the obscure and relatively unused techniques in the BPHS and Jaimini Sutras work better with a tropical zodiac.

One wonders how well Ayana Bala from Chapter 29 verse 15-17 of the BPHS works for exclusive Tropicalists? It seems redundant? It also seems to contradict the notion that Siderealists do not care about the Solar Year?


One wonders also about the following 3 quotes in the context of these matters...


Shatapatha Brahmana 6.2.2.18: "And furthermore, at the Ph?lguna (full moon), for that full moon of Ph?lguna, that is, the second (Ph?lguna) 1, is the first night of the year; and that first (Ph?lguna) is the last (night of the year): he thus begins the year at the very mouth (beginning)."


"...The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year..." (Taittiriya Sanhita 7.4.8


"Who knows the one wheel with twelve fellies and three axles? Therein are set together the three hundred and sixty like spokes moving and unmoving" (rg veda I.164.48

Mark Wrote:

The link I got the quote from Ernst Wilhem was from Ryan Kurczak's site:

http://ashevillevedicastrology.wordpres ... 03/08/257/.

Like Ernst Wilhelm , Ryan Kurczak is part of the new generation of American 'Vedic' astrologers that have 'converted' to using the tropical zodiac with traditional Jyotish techniques.

http://tropical-vedic-astrology.net/for ... topic=59.0

I watched the 11 minute video and nowhere did Kurczak give an example of why Indian techniques work better in the tropical zodiac. Presumably a person has to take one of his classes to find out. I didn't have time to check out the discussion forum, but may do that later. I have to admit that the use of the misnomer "Vedic" was a turnoff on Kurczak's site and in his video.

There seems to be no underlying scholarship for his position. However if Kurczak is finding that his clients identify with tropical sign interpretations, this would be entirely correct as Jyotish astrologers have committed the error of copying these interpretations to the sidereal signs of the same name.

One of the characteristics of this approach is an almost exclusive focus on the BPHS and Jaimini Sutras.

A while ago Ernst Wilhelm determined that these were the only two texts worth considering as they contained "truth." He disposed of all his other books on India's astrology. Another indication that Wilhelm is not a scholar.

I dont hold lack of qualifications against someone if they have done the research.

Well, if Ernst Wilhelm is going to base his views on material in ancient Indian texts, he'd better have a good working knowledge of Sanskrit.

I have done a bit digging on the internet and found an old forum post by Ernst Wilhelm on the website IndiaDivine.org under a thread entitled 'Jyotish Question re Ayanamsa'. It confirms the quote provided by Ryan Kurczak is accurate:

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedi ... amsha.html

There are some incorrect statements in that quote, but this forum isn't the place to discuss mis-information from Ernst Wilhelm. Yukteswar did say that our Sun was part of a binary system, that the two stars revolved around each other, and in turn both revolved around a central point. There is a web site devoted to this theory with graphics and illustrations. (BRI, Binary Research Institute) The important point for this topic is that The Holy Science did not postulate a Yukteswar ayanamsa. Yukteswar was only correcting a misunderstanding in Yuga dates, and he used the zero ayanamsa year 499 from Surya Siddhanta.

Tara Mata fully supported the 499 date as discussed in her book, Astrological World Cycles (1933) I have no idea of the source of the information in Ernst Wilhelm's quote.

There was no Lahiri ayanamsa before the Indian Calendar Committee Report in the 50s. However, some astrologers may have been using anti Spica as the zero point of Aries.

The original Kurczak quotation doesn't match the second Wilhelm quote from the IndiaDivine web site. But there is general agreement that a Yukteswar ayanamsa is due to a misunderstanding of text in The Holy Science. There really is no Yukteswar ayanamsa.

Therese

Varuna 2 wrote:

The reason this matters is because it is the positions of the stars[/b] (or galaxy) that is important to a Siderealist perspective and not the simple convenience of setting an artificial fixed date in time as a 'starting point' for an ayanamsha and subtracting another artificial and fixed rate of precession.

Good to see you back on the forum. Precession can have an impact on the location of stars and over long periods even their visibility. For example, I understand the stars of the southern Cross (Crux) were once visible in Europe!

Another reason why many astrologers calculate the ayanamsa from the vernal point is in part due to concerns of over things like proper motion of fixed stars which was unknown to the ancients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion

This is much slower in its effects than precession. Especially, if a star is close to the galactic centre.

However, your quite right that the position of stars like this could be re-calculated regularly in just the same way the tropical zodiac is.

Varuna 2 wrote:

There are 4 navamsha padas in each nakshatra and there are 9 navamsha padas in each Sign - try to separate these 3 things...although it could be done if one wished to.

There are now. The 28 nakshatra system (still headed by Krittika not Ashwini) seems to have survived much longer in practice than many modern Jyotishis seem to appreciate. The preserved Jyotish texts in China confirm this as these can be dated. All the early texts list 28 nakshatras. According to Bill Mak's research of Jyotish texts in China the 27 nakshatra system seems to have first appeared around the 6th century CE although I am not clear if the padas and 9 graha rulerships were all worked out that early.

Have you seen this thread?

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7645

Check out the link to Bill Mak's article

Varuna 2 wrote:

"...The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year..." (Taittiriya Sanhita 7.4.8 )

Not sure how this really helps establish the start of the 12 sign zodiac let alone Chitra as its paksha star? This text was surely written long before the introduction of horoscopic astrology to India? Can you provide any specific reference to individual rasis in India before the Christian era?

Varuna 2 wrote:

"Who knows the one wheel with twelve fellies and three axles? Therein are set together the three hundred and sixty like spokes moving and unmoving" (rg veda I.164.48

This looks more calendrical than astrological to me. Maybe they were able to work with a basic solar calendar which was either indigenous or transmitted from elsewhere. So what? Its not horoscopic astrology is it? If this is an astrological zodiac why no mention of any specific rasi? And why three axles and not four as you expect with a horoscope? I dont know why this quote is trotted out so often by supporters of ancient 'Vedic astrology' like David Frawley. It proves absolutely nothing.

Varuna 2 wrote:

One wonders how well Ayana Bala from Chapter 29 verse 15-17 of the BPHS works for exclusive Tropicalists? It seems redundant? It also seems to contradict the notion that Siderealists do not care about the Solar Year?

Probably a question better addressed to Ernst Wilhelm or Ryan Kurczak. They are the advocates of this approach. I am fairly fresh in my Jyotish studies and only just started looking at Shad Bala techniques. However, why do you think looking at the declination of planets or their distance from the equinoctial points is problematic for tropicalists?


Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I watched the 11 minute video and nowhere did Kurczak give an example of why Indian techniques work better in the tropical zodiac. Presumably a person has to take one of his classes to find out. I didn't have time to check out the discussion forum, but may do that later. I have to admit that the use of the misnomer "Vedic" was a turnoff on Kurczak's site and in his video.

Yes I agree about the 'Vedic' issue. It irritates me a lot too. Although that seems to be an issue everywhere now. Its a pernicious meme that has acquired a life of its own.

I should probably confess I recently joined Ryan Kurczak Tropical Vedic Astrology Forum! However, I am there to discuss actual techniques with other tropicalists. However, I am thinking of opening a thread there questioning the use of the term Vedic!

Therese Hamilton wrote:

There seems to be no underlying scholarship for his position. However if Kurczak is finding that his clients identify with tropical sign interpretations, this would be entirely correct as Jyotish astrologers have committed the error of copying these interpretations to the sidereal signs of the same name.

To be fair to Ryan Kurczak I dont think he makes any pretense of being a scholar. He seems to me a sincere , pragmatic working astrologer. He apparently worked sidereally for 10 years in Jyotish before switching to tropical. He must have started very young! .

Mark wrote:

One of the characteristics of this approach is an almost exclusive focus on the BPHS and Jaimini Sutras.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

A while ago Ernst Wilhelm determined that these were the only two texts worth considering as they contained "truth." He disposed of all his other books on India's astrology. Another indication that Wilhelm is not a scholar.

I saw a recent You Tube video where Wilhelm stated that you only needed these two texts and could burn all the other texts as they dont work for practical astrology. I was totally appalled by this comment. I think what he was getting at was his strong personal conviction that he only found the techniques in these texts to be really effective. It doesn't seem to occur to him though that just because he cannot work with a text someone else could! I am afraid I lost respect for his comments after I heard that.

Wilhelm seems very focused on emprically testing out predictive techniques statistically. He has been helped in that process by his wife (whom he met in India) as she is a computer programmer and helped him develop the Jyotish software Kala.

Mark wrote:

I dont hold lack of qualifications against someone if they have done the research.

Therese wrote:

Well, if Ernst Wilhelm is going to base his views on material in ancient Indian texts, he'd better have a good working knowledge of Sanskrit.

mmm I have no idea. He claims to have unearthed all kinds of hidden ideas in the Jaimini Sutras especially. I haven't read his translations. It would take a good sankritist to critically evaluate his work.

Therese wrote:

There was no Lahiri ayanamsa before the Indian Calendar Committee Report in the 50s. However, some astrologers may have been using anti Spica as the zero point of Aries.

So why do so many people accept Lahiri as default? It was a calendar reform committee not an astrological reform committee! Clearly, many of the old Pachangas badly needed updating. Still Indians love to claim their techniques are ancient. I have yet to see a convincing text supporting the Chitra Paksha. I think the Surya Siddhanta mentions it being in the middle of the nakshatra but what does that tell us about rasis? We have assumed it represents 0 Libra but do we have a source for that assumption?

There seems a stronger argument for Beta Aries which was the junction star of Ashwini when the nakshatras were incorporated together with the 12 sign zodiac. However, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that Ashwini became the new lead nakshatra due to a recognition of precession in the nakshatras. Varahamihirah references the shifting location of the vernal equinox and that it had moved to Ashwini from Krittika. Otherwise why did Krittika not remain the lead Nakshatra? Possibly for some more traditional Jyotoshis it did with Alycone in the the Pleiades the key fiducial star of the nakshatras.

On another forum an astrologer told me that several decades ago he had travelled to India and spent some time with a group of Jaimini adepts near Ponmudi Forest in Kerala. They shared with him a few elements of what amounted to an oral astrological tradition. This included an ayanamsa based on the Pleiades in Krittika.

Actually, Cyril Fagan made the same point about the importance of Krittika before hellenistic/tropical ideas changed the focus to Ashwini:

All historical evidence incontestably establishes that the Hindu zodiac of the constellations commenced with the nakshatra krittika, which was that of the Pleiades and ended with that of rohini, the yogatara of which is a small star in the constellation Aries. Now the Hindu zodiac commences with aswini in 0 Aries and ends with ravati (Zeta Piscium), a small star in the constellation Pisces. Why? Even the most learned Hindu pundits have failed to answer this vitally important question. In an article by Professor B.V. Raman entitled the Parantellonta of Aswini, it was demonstrated that the Hindu zodiac of the classical maharishis--wrote and taught tropical astrology! Also the Hindu astrologers of yore--the beloved maharishis--wrote and taught tropical astrology. At least two of the writers of the famous siddhantas, the standard text books of Hindu astrology, were of western nationality and origin!

When Hindu astrologers were questioned as to why their zodiac was altered from 0 Taurus to 0 Aries, they either evaded the question or remained silent. Like our western brethren, being occult but not historically-minded, and having no records, they simply do not know! But to the historically-minded student not infected with chauvinism, it is platently obvious what happened, although not generally admitted by modern denizens of aryavarta. When in 326 B.C. at the battle of Hydaspes, Alexander the Great conquered Punjab, Greece became the master of India and Greeks infiltrated the land. At some time between that date and the epoch of aryavata (A.D. 499), the Hindu zodiac was Hellenized, that is to say it was converted in a sayana or tropical zodiac, and made to commence with 0 Aries, the vernal equinox being fixed in 8 Aries according to System B,or in 0 Aries according to the system of Hipparchus.

PRIMER OF SIDEREAL ASTROLOGY by Cyril Fagan and Brigadier R.C. Firebrace , page 114 to 115

One doesn't have to accept all Fagan's ideas to concur that the shift from Krittika to Aswini is why there is so much confusion on the fiducial star of Indian astrology. The attempt to combine the totally separate astrological traditions of the 12 sign zodiac and the nakshatras is where the confusion arose.

Here is my theory of what happened:

There was only ever one fiducial star in ancient Indian astrology. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Chitra (Spica).

Quite simply it was the Pleiades in in the nakshatra of Krittika.

The reason why the fiducial star of Indian horoscopic astrology is so elusive is that it never existed! The 12 sign zodiac introduced by the Greco-Indians never relied on a fixed star and was an amalgm of sidereal and tropical logic.

If we assume Fagan was right about the influence of hellenistic astrology it seems logical to conclude the Indians incorporated a Greek 12 sign zodiac similar to the 'Alexandrian zodiac' used in the west. In this system the equinox point was calculated but the sign of Aries started 8 degrees before this. The Greeks seem to have adopted this from the Babylonians but somehow any the notion of a fiducial fixed star was lost in transmission.

In the first century BCE when these ideas were first transmitted to India the star beta Aries was on the equinox point. So it probably wasn't a star to define the beginning of Aries but the equinox point. Possibly it was selected as the junction star of Ashwini as it coincided with the equinox point as this time too.

Over time though this link was lost due to precession. Strictly speaking there never was a fiducial star introduced by hellenistic astrology since it took the equinox as its default and offset from there. However, the indigenous Indian tradition relied on finding a fiducial star and this is where the confusion arose. Some of the Siddhantic astronomers only added to the mix up since they tried to work out a retrospective processional cycle going back to the equinox at Kali Yuga. Even if their understanding of precession had been accurate this religious world view had little to do with the original astrological logic of the Greco-Indian astrologers.

Add to this inaccurate tables and inadequate bija corrections and it is little wonder horoscopic astrology in India was in a royal mess by the time of the Calendar Reform committee in the 1950's.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

The original Kurczak quotation doesn't match the second Wilhelm quote from the IndiaDivine web site. Science.

I did my best.

Its clear the forum post is older and looks more informal ( I removed some typos from it). Wilhelm states he is working with Lahiri in the forum post. However he has been working tropically for several years now. I suggest you take up any further questions direct with Ryan Kurczak on the link I provided or communicate with Ernst Wilhelm yourself.

regards

Mark

Mark wrote: Good to see you back on the forum.

Thank you.

Mark wrote: Precession can have an impact on the location of stars and over long periods even their visibility. For example, I understand the stars of the southern Cross (Crux) were once visible in Europe! Another reason why many astrologers calculate the ayanamsa from the vernal point is in part due to concerns of over things like proper motion of fixed stars which was unknown to the ancients.

It depends on one's conception of what astrology is and how it works, and this varies amongst people and where they are in their studies. For example, I think of the earth as multiple energy fields and in particular with force lines running longitudinally, and so the shift of the background stars to the south does not matter to me because the energy fields of the surrounding galaxy (or stars) is interacting with the energy field longitudinal lines of the earth. I have not used fixed stars in my astrology, but I know you have. Does the declination affect the interpretation in your experience? Or does fixed star astrology work better with tight orbs both horizontally and vertically?

I will worry about proper motion in a hundred thousand years and readjust either my astrology or my paradigms then (e.g. it could be the galaxy and not the individual stars that is important).

Mark wrote: There are now. The 28 nakshatra system (still headed by Krittika not Ashwini) seems to have survived much longer in practice than many modern Jyotishis seem to appreciate. The preserved Jyotish texts in China confirm this as these can be dated. All the early texts list 28 nakshatras. According to Bill Mak's research of Jyotish texts in China the 27 nakshatra system seems to have first appeared around the 6th century CE although I am not clear if the padas and 9 graha rulerships were all worked out that early.

Have you seen this thread?

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7645

Check out the link to Bill Mak's article

Mark, it could be true that only 15% of astrology models have survived over the course of time. Everything is flux. I am likewise interested in the histories of things. However, insofar as my astrology practice goes, it does not matter to me whether krittika or ashwin or chitra or mula is used as a starting point in a list of nakshatras, unless a certain technique depends on the number of the nakshatra, but I have even experimented with changing that.

"...The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year..." (Taittiriya Sanhita 7.4.8 ) The most likely possible time this verse was spoken was 8000 years ago using standard rate of precession and the year based on the winter solstice - unless it is from a previous Great Year of Plato or a previous mahayuga. The very same text (4.4.10) gives a list of 27 nakshatras in an archaic manner. The Muhurta Chintamani by comparison, uses 27 nakshatras at times and 28 nakshatras at other times, and this text was compiled only several hundred years ago (the date is given in the text).

Ironically, the TS 7.4.8 could fit an unorthodox year starting at the vernal equinox at the same era of when Mak claims the 27 schemata started, except that would make the Veda far younger than Siddhartha Gautama...Pali transforming into archaic Sanskrit and other problems.

Mark wrote: Not sure how this really helps establish the start of the 12 sign zodiac let alone Chitra as its paksha star? This text was surely written long before the introduction of horoscopic astrology to India? Can you provide any specific reference to individual rasis in India before the Christian era?

It demonstrates the use of Chitra a long time ago (from a mayfly perspective) and establishes the traditional authority of a thing with the name Chitra. I live in my own world, Mark. In my world, I sometimes imagine (believe) the origin of Indian and other civilizations came from the same source eons ago and so it is not surprising to see the 12 idea in various places. I also sometimes imagine (believe) horoscopic astrology was created for degenerated kaliyuga humans since everything would have just been known, in, for example, the golden age, thus astrology would be superfluous then.

I can provide a reference to individual rasis if you want to fly (imagine) with me: twelve Adityas, found in, for example, the same text which was previously mentioned in this thread: Shatapatha Brahmana and the verse previously cited suggests a most likely astronomical dating of 6000 years ago.


Varuna 2 wrote:

"Who knows the one wheel with twelve fellies and three axles? Therein are set together the three hundred and sixty like spokes moving and unmoving" (rg veda I.164.48

Mark wrote: This looks more calendrical than astrological to me. Maybe they were able to work with a basic solar calendar which was either indigenous or transmitted from elsewhere. So what? Its not horoscopic astrology is it? If this is an astrological zodiac why no mention of any specific rasi? And why three axles and not four as you expect with a horoscope? I dont know why this quote is trotted out so often by supporters of ancient 'Vedic astrology' like David Frawley. It proves absolutely nothing.

Mark made a rant? Perhaps I believe the lack of proof of astrology in ancient times proves how degenerate we are. In all seriousness though, it is quite difficult to prove much of anything. Mostly, we just believe things. For example, I cannot prove that you exist outside of my own mind.

Mark wrote: Probably a question better addressed to Ernst Wilhelm or Ryan Kurczak. They are the advocates of this approach. I am fairly fresh in my Jyotish studies and only just started looking at Shad Bala techniques. However, why do you think looking at the declination of planets or their distance from the equinoctial points is problematic for tropicalists?

It would seem redundant if they were not using a Sidereal system, is all. It also shows that the Tropical Solar Year was important in two ways, for Siderealists. It does not bother me that some like their bread butter side down, i.e. that people exist who use jyotish with the sayana zodiac tropical solar year.

Hello Varuna,

Unfortunately, I dont have time to pick up all your points.

Let me just say I am not disputing the antiquity of astrological activity in India. We know in the time of the Buddha there is evidence of an indigenous astrological tradition no doubt based on working with the nakshatras. I am willing to accept many of these Vedic references may be describing such activity. Recorded history probably only goes back to the 4th millenium BCE with the invention of writing. In many parts of the world we are discussing much later than that before we have written records. Things like the earliest Vedas must have been verbally memorised for centuries before being committed to writing. Its very difficult therefore to be emphatic about dating. We end up relying on things like archealogy, genetics, linguistics and dendrochronology. We can also try to fathom dates from astronomical references as you have suggested through Astro-Archeology. Of course academic opinion is not immutable and can change in the light of new evidence. India certainly is one of the global areas of an advanced human civilisation stemming back a long way.

One interesting controversy concerns the Indus Script and theory of the Finnish scholar Asko Parpolo that the script may contain astrological references. Its a hotly debated academic controversy but it does raise interesting questions about the conventional history of astral belief in the Indus Valley/Harappan culture.

http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola0.html

Although this points more to a Dravidian speaking high culture rather than one based on Indo-European language like Sanskrit.

Notwithstanding all this I just have more difficulty accepting a specific tradition of horoscopic astrology was indigenous. I personally think the Greeks or more accurately Indo-Greeks introduced this to India.

Varuna 2 wrote:

I have not used fixed stars in my astrology, but I know you have. Does the declination affect the interpretation in your experience? Or does fixed star astrology work better with tight orbs both horizontally and vertically?

There are numerous ways of working with fixed stars.

1 Stars diurnally rising, culminating, setting etc.
Cultures like the Babylonians, Mayans and Egytians worked with stars
diurnally rising, culminating and setting in the local sky. In modern astrology the Australian astrologer Bernadette Brady has revived this approach in what she call 'parans'. This derives from the Greek term parantellonta meaning stars that were 'attendants' to the planets when rising, and culminating especially. In hellenistic astrology this approach is found in a source called 'Anonymous of 379' although he was in all probability an Egyptian astrologer based in Rome. In this approach you are working with local space. The only criticism I can think of this technique is it excludes working with circumpolar stars which many cultures-such as ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, and Indians utilsed extensively in their astrology.

2 Ecliptical Projection. Projecting stars co-ordinates on to an ecliptical degree and looking for planets closely conjunct. A popular method in western astrology. However, critics point out the ecliptical projection distorts their true position since many stars are far from the ecliptic. One can also have two stars miles apart in the sky that end up with the same position on the ecliptic e.g. Spica and Arcturus. You need to be aware that this method is symbolic not literal. Hence a star can look like it is rising in a specific location by ecliptical projection but be far away in local space and the sign a star is rising or culminating at in a specific location on earth can be totally different. Having said all that it can still be highly effective! I personally tend to use a tight orb of 1 degree for most stars and up to 1.5 for very prominent powerful stars like Regulus (Magdha) or Spica (Chitra). Traditional authorities like William Lilly used 5 degree orbs for very bright stars but that kind of approach isn't even favoured much by those applying his techniques today.

3 Declination. Seeing which stars have the same declination as a planet in terms of distance from the celestial equator. I tend to use very tight orbs of around 0.5-1.0 degrees.

4 Equatorial. In this method the position of stars is equatorially projected from the north (or south) celestial pole. Hence the position of stars is not squeezed into an ecliptical model. The Chinese made use of this method in their lunar mansions. In this approach the whole sky is divided up rather like an orange from the celestial pole to the celestial equator. This produces unequal sized mansions since the junction stars are all different distances from the North Celestial Pole and each other.

I think the ancient Indians worked very similarly to the Chinese and that the Nakshatras were originally intended to be projected from the poles. This explains odds and ends of Indian star lore that now seem stranded in modern Jyotish. For example, the important role of the Sapta Rishis (Ursa Major) , Canopus and the lost Nakshatra of Abhijit. However, when the Nakshatras got merged with horoscopic astrology they were rationalised into 27 equal sized sectors along the ecliptic. I think this bears little relationship to what the ancient Indian astrologers were doing.

I probably dont want to take up more space on the forum on this but if you wish to discuss this topic further please PM me.

regards

Mark

Mark wrote: I should probably confess I recently joined Ryan Kurczak Tropical Vedic Astrology Forum! However, I am there to discuss actual techniques with other tropicalists. However, I am thinking of opening a thread there questioning the use of the term Vedic!

If you are successful in discussing actual techniques on the forum, please let us know. Or open a topic here to review the discussion.

To be fair to Ryan Kurczak I dont think he makes any pretense of being a scholar. He seems to me a sincere , pragmatic working astrologer. He apparently worked sidereally for 10 years in Jyotish before switching to tropical. He must have started very young! .

The video didn't impress me, but I could see why some students and clients see Kurczak as charismatic. The testimonials section of Kurczak's web site is filled with statements about what a wonderful astrologer he is, but not a word about any actual technique.

Wilhelm seems very focused on emprically testing out predictive techniques statistically. He has been helped in that process by his wife (whom he met in India) as she is a computer programmer and helped him develop the Jyotish software Kala.

So where are these tests and their results?

So why do so many people accept Lahiri as default?

Readily available tables for everyone and a government standard. Also this ayanamsa seems to be working well for those astrologers who use varga charts.

Wilhelm states he is working with Lahiri in the forum post. However he has been working tropically for several years now. I suggest you take up any further questions direct with Ryan Kurczak on the link I provided or communicate with Ernst Wilhelm yourself.

I have no interest in communicating with two young men whom I believe have seriously gone off the deep end. It's my belief that astrology is a profound spiritual science, and there are many ways that those not quite ready for initiation are led down various diverse paths that lead nowhere. This protects the integrity of a great science that's far beyond most of us at this point in human evolution.

I'm leaving this topic now as it's becoming rather convoluted, and I have to complete the posting of my small sidereal sign research project, whether it suggests anything productive or not.

Thanks for your research and commentary, Mark. I am certainly not closed to looking at actual examples of Jyotish techniques in a "foreign" zodiac. However, I have not seen a single working example so far.

Therese