[Jagannath] Why Lahiri?

November 30, 1999

OM KRISHNA GURU OM

Dear Gauranga,

Krishnamurti's yearly precession is not higher than Lahiri. It is the

same old 50 seconds per year which has already been established as faulted.

The correction (seemingly) was only for the ayanamsa till the 1920's

thereafter the error again creeps in.

For the time being use Lahiri Ayanamsa.

Om Tat Sat

Best Wishes

Sanjay Rath

-

Gauranga Das <gauranga

Varahamihira <varahamihira >

Sunday, November 28, 1999 11:49 PM

[Jagannath] Re: Why Lahiri?

> JAYA JAGANNATHA!

>

> Dear Gurudeva,

>

> Pranaams.

>

> I'm so happy thay you are back to the list. So do You suggest using Lahiri

or Krishnamurti for the best accuracy? If we take 50 seconds per year, as

according to Lahiri, at which year is the coincidence of the two zodiacs to

be taken?

> Interesitngly, I tried switching to Krisnhamurti in my chart, and it gives

a few minutes less Ayanamsha than with Lahiri. How is this possible, if

Krishnamurti's yearly precession is larger than Lahiri's?

>

> Your shishya, Gauranga das

> ----------

> > JAYA JAGANNATH

> > Dear Gauranga,

> > The Litmus test of any ayanamsa is the accuracy of its working. The

> > Lahiri Ayanamsa is actually the one finally adopted by the Govt. of

India

> > after the Lahiri committee comprising of the ablest astrologers debated

on

> > the same. Its inherent drawback is the annual progression of 50 seconds

> > which is different from the actual rate of 50.23 Seconds per year. Hence

> > some very minor inconsistencies crop in. Krishnamurti ayanamsa is like

> > Lahiri plus the 0.23 seconds correction till 1920's.

> > We use this because we have not been able to better it. The rest of

the

> > stories on ayanamsa are exciting, seemingly full of arguments, but are

far

> > fetched. So, till we can better it, we stick to the best available.

> > Hare Krishna

> > Sanjay Rath