Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi,

I have a question that I would like to share, and know the opinion of the members of this Forum when using sidereal Astrology.

Kind regards,

Kepler

There's a problem with your question, Kepler. "Most widely used" and "most accurate" aren't necessarily the same. Lahiri is the most widely used ayanamsa these days, but Martin, I and some others have found that Krishnamurti is the most accurate. You have two questions here:

(1) What is the most widely used ayanamsa today? This is really not a poll question. This might be a question for discussion.

(2) What do you believe is the most accurate ayanamsa. Why?

This is also a good question for discussion.

Therese

Hi,

You are absolutly right; I mean "most accurate" only. How can I change the question poll?

Kind regards,

Kepler

Hello all,

I would ask, how would you define ?most accurate?? Therese, you say that you, Martin and some others have found Krishnamurti to be the most accurate ayanamsa. How have you found it?

As a part of the study about the zodiacs I published recently (can be downloaded here http://sdrv.ms/1bUPxgP ) eight different ayanamsas were compared with seven different groups and in four cases out of seven it was Lahiri that gave the biggest effect. In five cases out of seven Lahiri gave a better result than Krishnamurti. A valid observation or a mere coincidence ? you decide.

Of course further studies are needed, but at this point Lahiri seems to be a strong nominate for the most accurate ayanamsa.

Hello Papretis,

There are two ways I've found that Krishnamurti works best:

(1) Dasa and bhukti timing: The earlier Krishnamurti dates are more accurate than the later Lahiri dates for events that fit into the periods. Lahiri has often been too late.

(2) I frequently use navamsa to natal crossovers, and the Krishnamurti values are closer by degree.

I realize that I should be able to give examples for (1) and (2). This is an individual approach to ayanamsa whereas you have used statistics with groups.

Trying to remember many years ago, I believe I began to experiment with the Krishnamurti ayanamsa after reading that Krishnamurti himself adjusted the Lahiri value to obtain very precise timing for horary questions. (Such as the exact time a letter would arrive in his office.)

Just a quick note with a smile - this horary anecdote from Krishnamurti sounds a bit spooky. I would not like to adopt an idea of a completely predestinated world where everything including arriving of letters is programmed in advance and where we only imagine having a free will, when actually we don't... especially when having a lot of experience in carrying letters myself . Having some inclinations that show in a birth horoscope is a different thing, we still can act with those inclinations in the way we like.

Hello
Could you please tell me what the Thirakanitham ayanamsa value is (e.g. what is the offset + or - in ?'" from Lahiri or krishnamurti, for a given year?).
After experimenting over some years and getting conflicting advice from different teachers, I have found Krishnamurti the most effective of the well-known ones, but Babylon Kugler III (available on Swiss Ephemeris based programs) better. Best I find is a little smaller offset from tropical still, at Lahiri -30', which is almost exactly halfway between Lahiri and Basin/Krushna. I find this gives the most consistent results, for example, for K.N. Rao's rules for predicting periods possible childbirth based on the mother's ascendant (using co-transits of Jupiter and Saturn, and transits of Mars and Moon.
I'd be interested to know where Thirakanitham (Tamil, I understand) puts things, before voting for Krishnamurti in your options.
Thanks
Graham

Sorry but I have so many questions in regards the topic of ayanamsa!

Firstly, I am interested in the prevalence of a few other other ayanamsas I have seen reference to in Jyotish discussions on the ayanamsas.

In particular the Raman ayanamsa , Yukteshvar ayanamsa and the Vakya ayanamsa.

Like the Thirakanitham ayanamsa the Vakya ayanamsa seems to have a following in south India. I am wondering whether these ayanamsa have support located in specific regions of India? For example Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andra Pradesh or Karnataka? Moreover, is Lahiri still the dominant ayanamsa amongst astrologers in the south?

Regarding other Indian ayanamsa how close is the Vakya , Raman and Yukteshvar ayanamsa to Lahiri? In other words what is the offset from Lahiri for these ayanamsa for a given year?.

Does anyone know where all these ayanamsa are listed? The Swiss ephemeris piece on doesn't go into much detail.

On a separate point I am wondering does anyone work with the ayanamsa used in Sassnanian astrology?

By the way surely the Lahiri and Chitra Paksa ayanamsa listed above as choices amount to exactly the same thing? As I understand its based on the star of Spica (Chitra) as the 0?Libra?

Finally, I have read that the Revati-paksha ayanamsa is like the Lahiri/Chitra Paksa derived from a supposed ancient Jyotosh text. In the case of Lahiri the star Chitra corresponds to the star Spica, whilst Revati corresponds to the star Zeta Piscium. 180 degrees opposite the star Chitra is said to be 0 degrees of Aries, whilst 180 degrees opposite Revati is 0 degrees of Libra.

Firstly, what is this text the Revati-paksa is derived from? Secondly, do any of the popular ayanamsas already referred to above use the fixed star ayanamsa derived from Revati (Zeta Piscium)?

Mark

Hello Mark
The best way to answer your questions about the relative offset from tropical of the best known and less well known ayanamsas is to download Jagannatha Hora software at http://www.vedicastrologer.org/jh/
Then cast a chart, and look at it again choosing each of the many ayanamsa in the preferences menu. As you will see, there are 3 variants of Lahiri. Revati is Usha-Shashi (some would put it a minute or two out), but I'd really forget that one unles you've got lots of time, it's so obviously wrong and based on a historical misunderstanding. Too long to go into now, I've got stuff I wrote in French on this some years ago when I was more interested in this question, it's not really worht translating.
For yet more options (e.g. 5 ones worked out by scholars of ancient Babylonian astronomy) see the freeware Morinus, or Curtis Mainwaring's programs (Delphic Oracle etc) which use the Swiss Ephemeris ayanamsa options.
I haven't been able to download the freeware featuring Thirukanitham or Vakya, so I don't know wherre these stand in relation to Lahiri etc. I'd like to know.
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.
But I agree with Addey in "Harmonics in Astrology", that the starting point of the zodiac, for harmonic i.e. subdivision, purposes, must be the intersection of two great circles, not some "fixed" star, and that the best option fitting that requirement in the sidereal zodiac is the intersection of the ecliptic and the galactic equator. The argument would then be about where to put this calculable point (or rather axis): Lahiri puts it about 6?10' Sagittarius/Gemini, Krishnamurti about 6?30'. I find 6?40' Sg/Ge better ("rooting" it exactly in the middle of the nakshatra Mula, "the root", and falling precisely on a harmonic 9th navamsa division). This is close to Babylon Kugler III, and also close enough to Krishnamurti for most practical purposes.
Graham

Mark, I only have time for a short note this morning. The Swiss Ephemeris site gives information on the Sassanian ayanamsa (zero date AD 564, 10 minutes east of zeta Piscium). Reference: Raymond Mercier

The Yukteswar and Raman ayanamsas seem to be derived from the Sassanian value.

Chitra Paksa is the Lahiri value. But I've read that different atrologers use slightly different values for Lahiri. For anyone else interested in ayanamsa values, a discussion is here:

http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph. ... c354497541

Hello Therese,

Thank you for all your comments! I was aware of the comments on the Swiss Ephemeris site. Unfortunately I never had any joy downloading Morinus and no money to buy Delphic Oracle at present. I will certainly try downloading Jagannatha Hora!

From various online sources I have compiled a list that presents the zero ayanamsa date for numerous sidereal zodiacs in progressive chronological order:

Babylonian, Kugler 1 143 CE
Fagan/Bradley 221 CE
Babylonian, Huber 229 CE
Mula/Chandra Hari (2003) 231 CE
Babylonian, Mercier 237 CE
Mula/Chandra Hari (1996) 238 CE
Babylonian, Kugler 2 243 CE
Dulakara 244CE
Lahiri 285 CE
Krishnamurti 292 CE
Babylonian, Kugler 3 305 CE
JN Bhasin 364 CE
Raman 397 CE
Yukteshwar 499 CE
Keralan/Vakya 522 CE
Ushashashi 559 CE
Sassanian 564 CE

I can see what you mean about Krisnamurti and Kugler III being quite close together. However, judging by its zero ayanamsa with the tropical zodiac I dont think the Raman ayanamsa can be derived from a Sassanian ayanamsa source as you suggest. Not clear about the Yukteshwar either.

I cant seem to find any reference online to the zero ayanamsa of the Thirakanitham zodiac.

I am intrigued by the historical issue of how popular Lahiri was as an ayanamsa before its adoption by the Indian Calendar committee in 1956? How much is the predominance of Lahiri a product of post indepedence India?

Mark

Mark wrote:

I can see what you mean about Krisnamurti and Kugler III being quite close together. However, judging by its zero ayanamsa with the tropical zodiac I don't think the Raman ayanamsa can be derived from a Sassanian ayanamsa source as you suggest. Not clear about the Yukteshwar either.

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

"How did Sri Yukteswar arrive at his zero date of 499 A.D., the very bottom of the cycle, the junction between the descending and ascending Kali yugas? The key phrase in The Holy Science is on page 17: "The astronomical reference books show the vernal equinox now to be 20?54' 36" distant from the first point of Aries (the fixed star Revati)..."

"...Sri Yukteswar very likely obtained the calculation of the lowest or zero date from Surya Siddhanta, one of the oldest and most revered Sanskrit astronomical texts... This astronomical reference (along with others at the time) places the zero ayanamsa date, the date when the tropical zodiac of the west aligned exactly with the sidereal zodiac of the east, at 499 A.D.

"...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.
(...)
"As a matter of fact, using a more correct precessional value, the figure taken from the cited astronomical reference books in The Holy Science (20?54' 36") does not compute to a 499 zero date, but a date of approximately 397 [The Raman zero date according to http://www.barbarapijan.com/bpa/Amsha/Ayanamsha.htm].

"The zero ayanamsa date of 499 was not universally accepted by astrologers, even though the date was found in so respected a work as Surya Siddhanta. This is evident from commentary by India's foremost astrologer, B.V. Raman in A Manual of Hindu Astrology (1935). By Raman's time it was understood that the zero point of Aries lay somewhere in the Reveti group of stars (lunar mansion), but was not connected to a specific star. Raman has a section of text in his book titled 'Exact Date of Calculation not known.'

The exact period when both the zodiacs coincided in the first point is not definitely known and accordingly the ayanamsa,the precessional distance, varies from 19? to 23?. The star which marked the first point seems to have somehow disappeared, [!!] though some believe it to be 11 minutes east of the star Pisces. A number of dates are given as the year of coincidence...which to accept, and which to reject, has been a matter of considerable debate. No definite proof is available in favor of any one of the dates given...No amount of mere speculation would be of any use......(p. 51)

"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.)

I remember working with the ayanamsas in the past and recall a one minute difference between Raman and Yukteswar using modern calculations. This memory was the basis of my comment, but at this time I can't find the relevant file. I do have a note on my Krishnamurti tables that there was a one minute difference between the two. The problem with finding precise zero dates is that precessional values are most likely not constant.

I was also interested in the historical issue of how popular Lahiri was as an ayanamsa before its adoption by the Indian Calendar committee in 1956?

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.