statistical survey of the zodiac - tropical or sidereal?

April 26, 2009

Dear All,

Vedic astrologer Ernst Wilhelm is conducting a test (statistical survey)

designed to evaluate the applicability of the tropical versus sidereal zodiacs.

Those of you who know their accurate time of birth are very welcome to

participate. I personally think this is very exciting and may lead to

interesting insights as the study evolves. The web site is www.isjyotish.com.

For a very interesting free class + articles on the question of the zodiacs

please see: http://www.vedic astrology.net/FreeClasses/Ayanamsa-and-Rasis.asp

Thank you in advance for your participation,

Boaz

April 26, 2009

Hello Boaz,

Welcome to SAMVA and thank you for sharing information. Please note, however, that it is considered good etiquette to join a list and first examine the material of the list being joined to see if it needs enhancing, rather than immediately starting to advertise some other knowledge or activity. While the intention is undoubtedly honorable, such as to present knowledge to remove confusion, this is not always the result. Sometimes the contrbitutions of well-meaning astrologers only add to the confusion. It all depends on the quality of the insight of the astrologer(s) in question.

In this regard, I would like to offer you some feedback on the information you share. For instance, Mr. Wilhem offers a wealth of information in a learned essay about the two zodiacs. He then offers a conclusion about the historical evolution of the ayanamsa correction. He finds that likely it was Indian astrologers in 1-5 century BC that were in error by not correcting for the precession of the equinoxes and in doing so they failed to follow the tropical zodiac while the two zodiacs were broadly aligned and then just kept it up afterwards. In the words of Mr. Wilhelm:

"The very fact that the Greeks were aware of precession at this time and that the Indians were not, points to a greater possibility of the Indians making mistakes in their calculations. One such mistake

has been the miscalculation of the Saura year and, as a result, of the Solar Months, Sankrantis and Ayanas, as mentioned previously. The most important question is, however, did the Indians also make the mistake of adopting Sidereal Rasis when they lost sight of precession?"

http://www.vedic astrology.net/Articles/Mystery-of-the-Zodiac.pdf

It seems to me that Mr. Wilhelm makes the mistake himself to ignore the simplest explanation, and which revolves around the fact that the sidereal zodiac is visible in the night sky while the tropical zodiac is not, or is invisible. Why does Mr. Wilhelm not consider the possibility that the Indian astrologers just continued to follow the visible zodiac as they had done for centuries or millennia? Perhaps the knowledge they had earlier of the precession was used for other purposes? In this regard, please consider a more probable thesis, which is that it was the western civilization which lost track of astrology during the dark ages and in reinventing modern astrology medieval astrologers had lost sight of "horoscopic astrology" and in replacing it with the modern emphasis on sun-sign astrology, which may have been based on

some agricultural planting requirements. Whatever the real reason, western astrologers adopted a drifting invisible tropical zodiac by mistakenly correcting for the precession on the zodiac. In short, the error was that of the medieval astrologers reinventing astrology from scraps of knowledge inherited from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

For further thoughts along these lines, please feel free to consult for instance:

Roman astrology in the ascendant

http://cosmologer.blogspot.com/2009/03/roman-astrology-in-ascendant.html

Astrology of the visible

http://cosmologer.blogspot.com/2008/12/astrology-of-visible.html

Other conclusions in the material you share also do not conform with time tested insights in SA. For instance there is following statement about tallness:

"If a person is tall, we would expect the Lagna and Lagna lord of the Rasi and Trimsamsa to be in the large Rasis (Aries, Leo and Capricorn), if a person is small, we would expect small and slender Scorpio."

http://www.vedic astrology.net/Articles/Mystery-of-the-Zodiac.pdf

You are welcome to read about the characteristics of different lagnas based on the tested insights of : http://www.yournetastrologer.com/impact.htm

To this we can add that according to SA, Leo's are more likely to be tall but those with Aries rising to be of more moderate stature. Further, the influence of Sun, Saturn or Jupiter on the 1st or 3rd houses, especially during growing years, would be important to explain tall height.

That said, feel free to explore the information on SAMVA and the SA material on 's list.

Best wishes,

Thor

zaobnali <zaob16SAMVA Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 8:21:15 PM statistical survey of the zodiac - tropical or sidereal?Dear All,Vedic astrologer Ernst Wilhelm is conducting a test (statistical survey)designed to evaluate the applicability of the tropical versus sidereal zodiacs. Those of you who know their accurate time of birth are very welcome to participate. I personally think this is very exciting and may lead to interesting insights as the study evolves. The web site is www.isjyotish.com.For a very interesting free class + articles on the question of the zodiacs please see:

http://www.vedic astrology.net/FreeClasses/Ayanamsa-and-Rasis.aspThank you in advance for your participation,Boaz---

April 27, 2009

Hello Thor,

Thank you for your informative reply and consideration of this important topic

into your forum. I am very interested in learning more about the SAMVA system

and am exploring the forum as well as the links you have provided. Myself I am a

scientist by profession and my experience with astrology is rather basic

unfortunately, due to lack of available time. I used to work with the sidereal

zodiac but Ernst's argument make sense to me and I would love to see the results

of his statistical survey.

Ernst does seem to discuss the fact that steller nakshatras are visible against

the night sky but that the solar rasis are not. You can not see stars behind the

sun – but you can see the sun in relationship to the heavens based on how far

north or south it is, which is the tropical zodiac.

For a recent discussion on the issue of tropical vs. sidereal zodiac, the

members of this forum are invited to read: " Examining Charts with Tropical and

Sidereal Zodaics "

http://actastrology.com/viewforum.php?f=10

with best wishes,

Boaz

SAMVA , Cosmologer <cosmologer wrote:

>

> Hello Boaz,

>

> Welcome to SAMVA and thank you for sharing information. Please note,

however, that it is considered good etiquette to join a list and first examine

the material of the list being joined to see if it needs enhancing, rather than

immediately starting to advertise some other knowledge or activity. While

the intention is undoubtedly honorable, such as to present knowledge to remove

confusion, this is not always the result. Sometimes the contrbitutions of

well-meaning astrologers only add to the confusion. It all depends on the

quality of the insight of the astrologer(s) in question.

>

> In this regard, I would like to offer you some feedback on the information you

share. For instance, Mr. Wilhem offers a wealth of information in a learned

essay about the two zodiacs. He then offers a conclusion about the historical

evolution of the ayanamsa correction. He finds that likely it was Indian

astrologers in 1-5 century BC that were in error by not correcting for the

precession of the equinoxes and in doing so they failed to follow the tropical

zodiac while the two zodiacs were broadly aligned and then just kept it up

afterwards. In the words of Mr. Wilhelm:

>

> " The very fact that the Greeks were aware of precession at this time and that

the Indians were not, points to a greater possibility of the Indians making

mistakes in their calculations. One such mistake

> has been the miscalculation of the Saura year and, as a result, of the Solar

Months, Sankrantis and Ayanas, as mentioned previously. The most important

question is, however, did the Indians also make the mistake of adopting Sidereal

Rasis when they lost sight of precession? "

> http://www.vedic astrology.net/Articles/Mystery-of-the-Zodiac.pdf

> It seems to me that Mr. Wilhelm makes the mistake himself to ignore the

simplest explanation, and which revolves around the fact that the sidereal

zodiac is visible in the night sky while the tropical zodiac is not, or

is invisible. Why does Mr. Wilhelm not consider the possibility that the Indian

astrologers just continued to follow the visible zodiac as they had done for

centuries or millennia? Perhaps the knowledge they had earlier of the precession

was used for other purposes? In this regard, please consider a more probable

thesis, which is that it was the western civilization which lost track of

astrology during the dark ages and in reinventing modern astrology medieval

astrologers had lost sight of " horoscopic astrology " and in replacing it

with the modern emphasis on sun-sign astrology, which may have been based on

some agricultural planting requirements. Whatever the real reason, western

astrologers adopted a drifting invisible

> tropical zodiac by mistakenly correcting for the precession on the zodiac. In

short, the error was that of the medieval astrologers reinventing astrology

from scraps of knowledge inherited from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

>

> For further thoughts along these lines, please feel free to consult for

instance:

> Roman astrology in the ascendant

> http://cosmologer.blogspot.com/2009/03/roman-astrology-in-ascendant.html

> Astrology of the visible

> http://cosmologer.blogspot.com/2008/12/astrology-of-visible.html

>

> Other conclusions in the material you share also do not conform with time

tested insights in SA. For instance there is following statement about tallness:

>

> " If a person is tall, we would expect the Lagna and Lagna lord of the Rasi and

Trimsamsa to be in the large Rasis (Aries, Leo and Capricorn), if a person is

small, we would expect small and slender Scorpio. "

> http://www.vedic astrology.net/Articles/Mystery-of-the-Zodiac.pdf

>

> You are welcome to read about the characteristics of different lagnas based on

the tested insights of Professor

Choudhry: http://www.yournetastrologer.com/impact.htm

> To this we can add that according to SA, Leo's are more likely to be tall

but those with Aries rising to be of more moderate stature. Further, the

influence of Sun, Saturn or Jupiter on the 1st or 3rd houses, especially during

growing years, would be important to explain tall height.

>

> That said, feel free to explore the information on SAMVA and the SA material

on 's list.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Thor

>