skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Accurate Ayanamsa in Sidereal Astrology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which of the following is the most accurate and the widely used ayanamsa?
Lahiri
40%
 40% 
Krishnamurti
20%
 20% 
Thirukanitham
0%
 0% 
Chitra Paksha
10%
 10% 
Fagan/Bradley
10%
 10% 
Other
20%
 20% 

Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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-david-thompson/babylon6.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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
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.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
lihin



Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Mount Kailash

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:07 am    Post subject: Simplicity Reply with quote

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, Arès having a minimum of about 1.6, only Hermès 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
_________________
Non esse nihil non est.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:25 am    Post subject: Re: Simplicity Reply with quote

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.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton: wrote:
Quote:
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 (β) 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, (β) 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 (β) 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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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:

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. 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? Confused 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-

Quote:
Utsarpini Yugartham Paschadapasarpini Yugardham cha
Madhye Yugasya sushama Adavante dushamenduchaat


Quote:
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/aryabhata-and-jain-yuga-system.html#chitika_close_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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. Smile
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
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.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
I dont think simply exploring such topics consigns one to the lunatic fringe as you seem to be suggesting.


Martin Gansten wrote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
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.")
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
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.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/257/.

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/forum/index.php?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:
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.")


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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5030
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/vedic-astrology-jyotisha/291948-jyotish-question-re-ayanamsha.html

Quote:
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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 319
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Phâlguna (full moon), for that full moon of Phâlguna, that is, the second (Phâlguna) 1, is the first night of the year; and that first (Phâlguna) 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated