What Ayanamsa you use?

[Guest guest]

What Ayanamsa you use?

And why?

Whether always Ayanamsa Lahiri the rights?

[Guest guest]

Ayanamsha is originally a Suryasiddhantic concept, in which it is defined as

libration of the " bhachakra " (orbit of lunar asterisms) within a maximum range

of 27 degrees, full cycle being of 108 degrees which is derived by multiplying

360 with 0.3 ; someone multiplied again and got a maximum value of 8 degrees

which is found in the oldest Western record in Theon. Later Islamic astrologers

put its value aound 9-10 degrees. Copernicus also used this librating ayanamsha.

 

Physical astronomy found there is no such thing as libration of the equinoxes,

and therefore removed the very notion of libration / trepidation. They were

right. Ayanamsha is not a phenomenon of physical world.

 

Later, Colebrooke & c imposed the physical concept of precession on Indian

concept of ayanamsha. Burgess also followed this line , as did Lahiri and all

those who wrongly believe Suryasiddhanta to be a work of physical astronomy.

Unfortunately, these socalled experts did not even care to translate the

original verses of Suryasiddhanta honestly, in which ayanamsha has no relation

with movement of equinoxes, but is defined as to and fro libration of the

bhachakra. There is no means in physical astronomy through which we can test the

validity of this Suryasiddhantic claim, because there is no physical entity at

the orbit of 60 years which is said to be the orbit of bhachakra in

Suryasiddhanta, and beyond which all objects are deemed to be non-planets,

includeing Uranus, Neptune, etc.

 

Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used modern

value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha, and

failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. This he

declared to be the zero date of ayanamsha, which was slavishly accepted by

" supporters " of physical astronomy, whio forgot that Chitra was never reference

point in any system of astrology or astronomy. The reference point is first

point of Ashvini in most cases and Krittika in some cases, but never Chitra.

This prompted Chandrahari to propound his alternative concept of ayanamsha.

Chandrahari's view was conceptually better than Lahiri's, but he followed the

false reasonimg of Burgess who deliberately mis-translated relevant verses of

Suryasiddhanta and cited some portions of Siddhanta Shiromani to im[pose modern

concept of precession on Suryasiddhantic

ayanamsha, because Burgess could not believe in the existence of a trepidating

equinox and guessed that the verses were mutilated which was the duty of Burgess

to rectify. In his zeal, Burgess quoted a verse from Siddhanta Shiromani in

which it was said that sampaat point has a periodicity of once revolution per

144000 years. Burgess omitted the whole context, which gives a formula for

computing precession of the equinoxes. It was the most accurate formula for

preccession till modern times. Hipparchus had a much crude computation, but

Bhaskar's accurate formula ( ClickHere ) is never cited by these enthusiasts.

 

It is noteworthy that while giving an accurate period of precession, Bhaskar-II

cites Suryasiddhanta as a source of this ancient formula. This formula of

physical or Drikpakshiya worls was known to ancient experts, but they never

caleed it ayanamsha. All of them believed in the Suryasiddhantic notion of

librating ayanamsha, from India to Europe. Had they no knowledge of actual

precession, we could believe in false propaganda of Colebrooke, Burgess,

Whitney, Lahiri & c about the mistake of ancients in believing in a vibrating

equinox. But Bhaskar makes it clear that chakraayana or circular motion of

equinox in ~25500 years was known to Indians since Vedic times, he makes it

amply clear by referring to Shruti for his source of Suryasiddhantic formula of

precession of equinoxes.

 

Before Colebrooke, Burgess, Whitney, Lahiri & c , all Indians believed in

trepidating ayanamsa, ie ayanamsha as a trepidation of bhachakra and not as

precession of equinoxes. Precession of equinox takes place along the full circle

which is known as chakraayana in ancient terminilogy, while ayanamsha moves like

a pendulum within a maximum range of +27 and -27 degrees which was known as

dolaayana. When Suryasiddhantic planetary positions and ayanamsha had great

differences with planets of physical world, Suryasiddhanta was universally

acclaimed as the best of all siddhantas. Other siddhantas were not even

preserved, while astrologically most essential portions of Suryasiddhanta have

been preserved. Suryasiddhanta deals with non-physical world or Bhuva-loka on

which deities like Surya Deva and Chandra Deva reside, whom we cannot see

sensorily, while physical planets reside in the physical world which is open to

sense perception. Hence, the only proof of

Suryasiddhanta is its astrological test, for which Suryasiddhantic software of

horoscope can be freely downloaded from Kundalee and messages posted at Support

..

 

-VJ

================= =================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

acubens_1 <acubens

vedic astrology

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:14:47 AM

[vedic astrology] What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Ayanamsa you use?

And why?

Whether always Ayanamsa Lahiri the rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Jhaji,

 

Thanks for your wonderfull write up.

 

One thing i want to put in notice:-

 

< Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. >

 

I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal Aries,zero

point as decided in 285 AD.

 

I agree with your points, In the name of ayanamsa ppl are using precession

definition.Nobody is finding zero point by SS which we should.Parampara from

Varanasi and BHU still using SS to find out the zero point and longitudes and

latitudes.Others are making fool in the name of ayanamsa(Lahiri also come under

that party).

 

Thanks for very nice write up with truth.

 

Keep going..........

 

vedic astrology , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> Ayanamsha is originally a Suryasiddhantic concept, in which it is defined as

libration of the " bhachakra " (orbit of lunar asterisms) within a maximum range

of 27 degrees, full cycle being of 108 degrees which is derived by multiplying

360 with 0.3 ; someone multiplied again and got a maximum value of 8 degrees

which is found in the oldest Western record in Theon. Later Islamic astrologers

put its value aound 9-10 degrees. Copernicus also used this librating ayanamsha.

>

> Physical astronomy found there is no such thing as libration of the equinoxes,

and therefore removed the very notion of libration / trepidation. They were

right. Ayanamsha is not a phenomenon of physical world.

>

> Later, Colebrooke & c imposed the physical concept of precession on Indian

concept of ayanamsha. Burgess also followed this line , as did Lahiri and all

those who wrongly believe Suryasiddhanta to be a work of physical astronomy.

Unfortunately, these socalled experts did not even care to translate the

original verses of Suryasiddhanta honestly, in which ayanamsha has no relation

with movement of equinoxes, but is defined as to and fro libration of the

bhachakra. There is no means in physical astronomy through which we can test the

validity of this Suryasiddhantic claim, because there is no physical entity at

the orbit of 60 years which is said to be the orbit of bhachakra in

Suryasiddhanta, and beyond which all objects are deemed to be non-planets,

includeing Uranus, Neptune, etc.

>

> Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. This he

declared to be the zero date of ayanamsha, which was slavishly accepted by

" supporters " of physical astronomy, whio forgot that Chitra was never reference

point in any system of astrology or astronomy. The reference point is first

point of Ashvini in most cases and Krittika in some cases, but never Chitra.

This prompted Chandrahari to propound his alternative concept of ayanamsha.

Chandrahari's view was conceptually better than Lahiri's, but he followed the

false reasonimg of Burgess who deliberately mis-translated relevant verses of

Suryasiddhanta and cited some portions of Siddhanta Shiromani to im[pose modern

concept of precession on Suryasiddhantic

> ayanamsha, because Burgess could not believe in the existence of a

trepidating equinox and guessed that the verses were mutilated which was the

duty of Burgess to rectify. In his zeal, Burgess quoted a verse from Siddhanta

Shiromani in which it was said that sampaat point has a periodicity of once

revolution per 144000 years. Burgess omitted the whole context, which gives a

formula for computing precession of the equinoxes. It was the most accurate

formula for preccession till modern times. Hipparchus had a much crude

computation, but Bhaskar's accurate formula ( ClickHere ) is never cited by

these enthusiasts.

>

> It is noteworthy that while giving an accurate period of precession,

Bhaskar-II cites Suryasiddhanta as a source of this ancient formula. This

formula of physical or Drikpakshiya worls was known to ancient experts, but they

never caleed it ayanamsha. All of them believed in the Suryasiddhantic notion of

librating ayanamsha, from India to Europe. Had they no knowledge of actual

precession, we could believe in false propaganda of Colebrooke, Burgess,

Whitney, Lahiri & c about the mistake of ancients in believing in a vibrating

equinox. But Bhaskar makes it clear that chakraayana or circular motion of

equinox in ~25500 years was known to Indians since Vedic times, he makes it

amply clear by referring to Shruti for his source of Suryasiddhantic formula of

precession of equinoxes.

>

> Before Colebrooke, Burgess, Whitney, Lahiri & c , all Indians believed in

trepidating ayanamsa, ie ayanamsha as a trepidation of bhachakra and not as

precession of equinoxes. Precession of equinox takes place along the full circle

which is known as chakraayana in ancient terminilogy, while ayanamsha moves like

a pendulum within a maximum range of +27 and -27 degrees which was known as

dolaayana. When Suryasiddhantic planetary positions and ayanamsha had great

differences with planets of physical world, Suryasiddhanta was universally

acclaimed as the best of all siddhantas. Other siddhantas were not even

preserved, while astrologically most essential portions of Suryasiddhanta have

been preserved. Suryasiddhanta deals with non-physical world or Bhuva-loka on

which deities like Surya Deva and Chandra Deva reside, whom we cannot see

sensorily, while physical planets reside in the physical world which is open to

sense perception. Hence, the only proof of

> Suryasiddhanta is its astrological test, for which Suryasiddhantic software

of horoscope can be freely downloaded from Kundalee and messages posted at

Support .

>

> -VJ

> ================= =================

>

>

________________________________

> acubens_1 <acubens

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:14:47 AM

> [vedic astrology] What Ayanamsa you use?

What Ayanamsa you use?

> And why?

> Whether always Ayanamsa Lahiri the rights?

>

 

[Guest guest]

To astrolearner_brazil :

 

<<<<I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal

Aries,zero point as decided in 285 AD.>>>>

 

Lahiri's Indian Ephemeris says Chitra, which he identified with Alpha Virginis

or Spica was at 180:00':03 " .0 on 22 Mar 285 AD when ayanamsha was zero

according to Lahiri. But according to same source (IE, 2003), that star has

moved to 179:59':03 " . Hence, AK Lahiri wrote " Due to proper motion, the

nirayana longitude of the star Spica (Chitra) has, however, dimished by 60 "

during the period 1718 years from 285 AD " .

 

It gives a proper motion of one revolution per 37 million years for Spica. In

Advance Ephemeris, NC Lahiri gave a table on page-90 for comparing

Suryasiddhantic values with modern values for various eras (1500-2000 AD). These

tables also show that Suryasiddhantic terms like lunar anomaly can be made

comparable to modern values only after we make some corrections which amount to

an inexplicable cycle of ~39.5 million years .

 

These corrections should be made because physical Universe is rotating. Recent

reasearches on background radiation , awarded a Nobel Prize , have proven Big

Bang theory to be correct , which suggests the Universe to be finite in space

and time. If so, it must spit too, as all bodies in space have been spinning to

balance themselves gyroscopically.

 

Suryasiddhanta has a Mandochcha period of 387 per Kalpa (of 4320 million years).

Bhaskar-II wrote Siddhanta Shiromani on Drikpakshiya aspect, and added 93 to

thgis 387. This extra number was not explained, but it seems to be related to

rotation of the Universe, as 4320 million years divided by 93 gives us one extra

cycle per 46 million years, which is surprisingly close to extra motions noticed

in socalled fixed stars.

 

Suryasiddhantic world has no rotating or moving Universe and is based upon a

concept of fixed sky in which everything is moving, excepting the centre of the

Cosmos at Mt Meru . Look at map, Meru town is still at the foot of that mountain

which was renamed Mt Kenya by Britishers, Suryasiddhanta says Mt Meru lies at

Bhoogola-madhya in the region of zanboonad (zambezi) where gems abound.

Horoscopes cast at this place at the time of nirayana Mesha Samkraanti according

to Suryasiddhantic computations give accurate annual forecasts for the whole

world. Same horoscopes made from physical astronomy has a difference of ~13

hours in time due to 34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and

Drikpakshiya ( physical ) longitudes of Sun, and its results are unreliable. We

have checked it for 136 years of rainfall data, besides a large number of data

about earthquakes, storms, national income, wars, etc. Suryasiddhantic method is

100% reliable ASTROLOGICALLY.

A slightest digression from Suryasiddhanta results in wrong phalita results.

 

Adherents of physical astronomy are trying to solve this problem in two ways :

by inventing new theories in phalita jyotisha, which are bound to boomerang on

these modern rishis, and / or by explaining aberrations through neglecting some

fact and overemphasizing others.

 

34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and Drikpakshiya ( physical )

longitudes of Sun makes it difficult to test in individual horoscopes, esp when

there is a heavy bias in one's mind in favour of physical astronomy, but 34' is

too much for samkraantis and can be easily verified in mundane astrology.

 

-VJ

 

 

 

 

________________________________

astrolearner_brazil <astrolearner_brazil

vedic astrology

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:48:43 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Shri Jhaji,

 

Thanks for your wonderfull write up.

 

One thing i want to put in notice:-

 

< Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. >

 

I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal Aries,zero

point as decided in 285 AD.

 

I agree with your points, In the name of ayanamsa ppl are using precession

definition.Nobody is finding zero point by SS which we should.Parampara from

Varanasi and BHU still using SS to find out the zero point and longitudes and

latitudes.Others are making fool in the name of ayanamsa(Lahiri also come under

that party).

 

Thanks for very nice write up with truth.

 

Keep going....... ...

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Ayanamsha is originally a Suryasiddhantic concept, in which it is defined as

libration of the " bhachakra " (orbit of lunar asterisms) within a maximum range

of 27 degrees, full cycle being of 108 degrees which is derived by multiplying

360 with 0.3 ; someone multiplied again and got a maximum value of 8 degrees

which is found in the oldest Western record in Theon. Later Islamic astrologers

put its value aound 9-10 degrees. Copernicus also used this librating ayanamsha.

>

> Physical astronomy found there is no such thing as libration of the equinoxes,

and therefore removed the very notion of libration / trepidation. They were

right. Ayanamsha is not a phenomenon of physical world.

>

> Later, Colebrooke & c imposed the physical concept of precession on Indian

concept of ayanamsha. Burgess also followed this line , as did Lahiri and all

those who wrongly believe Suryasiddhanta to be a work of physical astronomy.

Unfortunately, these socalled experts did not even care to translate the

original verses of Suryasiddhanta honestly, in which ayanamsha has no relation

with movement of equinoxes, but is defined as to and fro libration of the

bhachakra. There is no means in physical astronomy through which we can test the

validity of this Suryasiddhantic claim, because there is no physical entity at

the orbit of 60 years which is said to be the orbit of bhachakra in

Suryasiddhanta, and beyond which all objects are deemed to be non-planets,

includeing Uranus, Neptune, etc.

>

> Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. This he

declared to be the zero date of ayanamsha, which was slavishly accepted by

" supporters " of physical astronomy, whio forgot that Chitra was never reference

point in any system of astrology or astronomy. The reference point is first

point of Ashvini in most cases and Krittika in some cases, but never Chitra.

This prompted Chandrahari to propound his alternative concept of ayanamsha.

Chandrahari' s view was conceptually better than Lahiri's, but he followed the

false reasonimg of Burgess who deliberately mis-translated relevant verses of

Suryasiddhanta and cited some portions of Siddhanta Shiromani to im[pose modern

concept of precession on Suryasiddhantic

> ayanamsha, because Burgess could not believe in the existence of a

trepidating equinox and guessed that the verses were mutilated which was the

duty of Burgess to rectify. In his zeal, Burgess quoted a verse from Siddhanta

Shiromani in which it was said that sampaat point has a periodicity of once

revolution per 144000 years. Burgess omitted the whole context, which gives a

formula for computing precession of the equinoxes. It was the most accurate

formula for preccession till modern times. Hipparchus had a much crude

computation, but Bhaskar's accurate formula ( ClickHere ) is never cited by

these enthusiasts.

>

> It is noteworthy that while giving an accurate period of precession,

Bhaskar-II cites Suryasiddhanta as a source of this ancient formula. This

formula of physical or Drikpakshiya worls was known to ancient experts, but they

never caleed it ayanamsha. All of them believed in the Suryasiddhantic notion of

librating ayanamsha, from India to Europe. Had they no knowledge of actual

precession, we could believe in false propaganda of Colebrooke, Burgess,

Whitney, Lahiri & c about the mistake of ancients in believing in a vibrating

equinox. But Bhaskar makes it clear that chakraayana or circular motion of

equinox in ~25500 years was known to Indians since Vedic times, he makes it

amply clear by referring to Shruti for his source of Suryasiddhantic formula of

precession of equinoxes.

>

> Before Colebrooke, Burgess, Whitney, Lahiri & c , all Indians believed in

trepidating ayanamsa, ie ayanamsha as a trepidation of bhachakra and not as

precession of equinoxes. Precession of equinox takes place along the full circle

which is known as chakraayana in ancient terminilogy, while ayanamsha moves like

a pendulum within a maximum range of +27 and -27 degrees which was known as

dolaayana. When Suryasiddhantic planetary positions and ayanamsha had great

differences with planets of physical world, Suryasiddhanta was universally

acclaimed as the best of all siddhantas. Other siddhantas were not even

preserved, while astrologically most essential portions of Suryasiddhanta have

been preserved. Suryasiddhanta deals with non-physical world or Bhuva-loka on

which deities like Surya Deva and Chandra Deva reside, whom we cannot see

sensorily, while physical planets reside in the physical world which is open to

sense perception. Hence, the only proof of

> Suryasiddhanta is its astrological test, for which Suryasiddhantic software

of horoscope can be freely downloaded from Kundalee and messages posted at

Support .

>

> -VJ

> ============ ===== ============ =====

>

>

____________ _________ _________ __

> acubens_1 <acubens >

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:14:47 AM

> [vedic astrology] What Ayanamsa you use?

What Ayanamsa you use?

> And why?

> Whether always Ayanamsa Lahiri the rights?

>

 

[Guest guest]

To astrolearner_ brazil :

See ;

http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/World+Economy+%3A+Apr+2009-Mar+2010

 

-VJ

 

 

________________________________

Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

vedic astrology

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:37:21 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

To astrolearner_ brazil :

 

<<<<I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal

Aries,zero point as decided in 285 AD.>>>>

 

Lahiri's Indian Ephemeris says Chitra, which he identified with Alpha Virginis

or Spica was at 180:00':03 " . 0 on 22 Mar 285 AD when ayanamsha was zero

according to Lahiri. But according to same source (IE, 2003), that star has

moved to 179:59':03 " . Hence, AK Lahiri wrote " Due to proper motion, the

nirayana longitude of the star Spica (Chitra) has, however, dimished by 60 "

during the period 1718 years from 285 AD " .

 

It gives a proper motion of one revolution per 37 million years for Spica. In

Advance Ephemeris, NC Lahiri gave a table on page-90 for comparing

Suryasiddhantic values with modern values for various eras (1500-2000 AD). These

tables also show that Suryasiddhantic terms like lunar anomaly can be made

comparable to modern values only after we make some corrections which amount to

an inexplicable cycle of ~39.5 million years .

 

These corrections should be made because physical Universe is rotating. Recent

reasearches on background radiation , awarded a Nobel Prize , have proven Big

Bang theory to be correct , which suggests the Universe to be finite in space

and time. If so, it must spit too, as all bodies in space have been spinning to

balance themselves gyroscopically.

 

Suryasiddhanta has a Mandochcha period of 387 per Kalpa (of 4320 million years).

Bhaskar-II wrote Siddhanta Shiromani on Drikpakshiya aspect, and added 93 to

thgis 387. This extra number was not explained, but it seems to be related to

rotation of the Universe, as 4320 million years divided by 93 gives us one extra

cycle per 46 million years, which is surprisingly close to extra motions noticed

in socalled fixed stars.

 

Suryasiddhantic world has no rotating or moving Universe and is based upon a

concept of fixed sky in which everything is moving, excepting the centre of the

Cosmos at Mt Meru . Look at map, Meru town is still at the foot of that mountain

which was renamed Mt Kenya by Britishers, Suryasiddhanta says Mt Meru lies at

Bhoogola-madhya in the region of zanboonad (zambezi) where gems abound.

Horoscopes cast at this place at the time of nirayana Mesha Samkraanti according

to Suryasiddhantic computations give accurate annual forecasts for the whole

world. Same horoscopes made from physical astronomy has a difference of ~13

hours in time due to 34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and

Drikpakshiya ( physical ) longitudes of Sun, and its results are unreliable. We

have checked it for 136 years of rainfall data, besides a large number of data

about earthquakes, storms, national income, wars, etc. Suryasiddhantic method is

100% reliable ASTROLOGICALLY.

A slightest digression from Suryasiddhanta results in wrong phalita results.

 

Adherents of physical astronomy are trying to solve this problem in two ways :

by inventing new theories in phalita jyotisha, which are bound to boomerang on

these modern rishis, and / or by explaining aberrations through neglecting some

fact and overemphasizing others.

 

34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and Drikpakshiya ( physical )

longitudes of Sun makes it difficult to test in individual horoscopes, esp when

there is a heavy bias in one's mind in favour of physical astronomy, but 34' is

too much for samkraantis and can be easily verified in mundane astrology.

 

-VJ

 

____________ _________ _________ __

astrolearner_ brazil <astrolearner_ brazil (AT) ymail (DOT) com>

vedic astrology

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:48:43 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

Dear Shri Jhaji,

 

Thanks for your wonderfull write up.

 

One thing i want to put in notice:-

 

< Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. >

 

I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal Aries,zero

point as decided in 285 AD.

 

I agree with your points, In the name of ayanamsa ppl are using precession

definition.Nobody is finding zero point by SS which we should.Parampara from

Varanasi and BHU still using SS to find out the zero point and longitudes and

latitudes.Others are making fool in the name of ayanamsa(Lahiri also come under

that party).

 

Thanks for very nice write up with truth.

 

Keep going....... ...

 

vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

>

> Ayanamsha is originally a Suryasiddhantic concept, in which it is defined as

libration of the " bhachakra " (orbit of lunar asterisms) within a maximum range

of 27 degrees, full cycle being of 108 degrees which is derived by multiplying

360 with 0.3 ; someone multiplied again and got a maximum value of 8 degrees

which is found in the oldest Western record in Theon. Later Islamic astrologers

put its value aound 9-10 degrees. Copernicus also used this librating ayanamsha.

>

> Physical astronomy found there is no such thing as libration of the equinoxes,

and therefore removed the very notion of libration / trepidation. They were

right. Ayanamsha is not a phenomenon of physical world.

>

> Later, Colebrooke & c imposed the physical concept of precession on Indian

concept of ayanamsha. Burgess also followed this line , as did Lahiri and all

those who wrongly believe Suryasiddhanta to be a work of physical astronomy.

Unfortunately, these socalled experts did not even care to translate the

original verses of Suryasiddhanta honestly, in which ayanamsha has no relation

with movement of equinoxes, but is defined as to and fro libration of the

bhachakra. There is no means in physical astronomy through which we can test the

validity of this Suryasiddhantic claim, because there is no physical entity at

the orbit of 60 years which is said to be the orbit of bhachakra in

Suryasiddhanta, and beyond which all objects are deemed to be non-planets,

includeing Uranus, Neptune, etc.

>

> Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. This he

declared to be the zero date of ayanamsha, which was slavishly accepted by

" supporters " of physical astronomy, whio forgot that Chitra was never reference

point in any system of astrology or astronomy. The reference point is first

point of Ashvini in most cases and Krittika in some cases, but never Chitra.

This prompted Chandrahari to propound his alternative concept of ayanamsha.

Chandrahari' s view was conceptually better than Lahiri's, but he followed the

false reasonimg of Burgess who deliberately mis-translated relevant verses of

Suryasiddhanta and cited some portions of Siddhanta Shiromani to im[pose modern

concept of precession on Suryasiddhantic

> ayanamsha, because Burgess could not believe in the existence of a

trepidating equinox and guessed that the verses were mutilated which was the

duty of Burgess to rectify. In his zeal, Burgess quoted a verse from Siddhanta

Shiromani in which it was said that sampaat point has a periodicity of once

revolution per 144000 years. Burgess omitted the whole context, which gives a

formula for computing precession of the equinoxes. It was the most accurate

formula for preccession till modern times. Hipparchus had a much crude

computation, but Bhaskar's accurate formula ( ClickHere ) is never cited by

these enthusiasts.

>

> It is noteworthy that while giving an accurate period of precession,

Bhaskar-II cites Suryasiddhanta as a source of this ancient formula. This

formula of physical or Drikpakshiya worls was known to ancient experts, but they

never caleed it ayanamsha. All of them believed in the Suryasiddhantic notion of

librating ayanamsha, from India to Europe. Had they no knowledge of actual

precession, we could believe in false propaganda of Colebrooke, Burgess,

Whitney, Lahiri & c about the mistake of ancients in believing in a vibrating

equinox. But Bhaskar makes it clear that chakraayana or circular motion of

equinox in ~25500 years was known to Indians since Vedic times, he makes it

amply clear by referring to Shruti for his source of Suryasiddhantic formula of

precession of equinoxes.

>

> Before Colebrooke, Burgess, Whitney, Lahiri & c , all Indians believed in

trepidating ayanamsa, ie ayanamsha as a trepidation of bhachakra and not as

precession of equinoxes. Precession of equinox takes place along the full circle

which is known as chakraayana in ancient terminilogy, while ayanamsha moves like

a pendulum within a maximum range of +27 and -27 degrees which was known as

dolaayana. When Suryasiddhantic planetary positions and ayanamsha had great

differences with planets of physical world, Suryasiddhanta was universally

acclaimed as the best of all siddhantas. Other siddhantas were not even

preserved, while astrologically most essential portions of Suryasiddhanta have

been preserved. Suryasiddhanta deals with non-physical world or Bhuva-loka on

which deities like Surya Deva and Chandra Deva reside, whom we cannot see

sensorily, while physical planets reside in the physical world which is open to

sense perception. Hence, the only proof of

> Suryasiddhanta is its astrological test, for which Suryasiddhantic software

of horoscope can be freely downloaded from Kundalee and messages posted at

Support .

>

> -VJ

> ============ ===== ============ =====

>

>

____________ _________ _________ __

> acubens_1 <acubens >

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:14:47 AM

> [vedic astrology] What Ayanamsa you use?

What Ayanamsa you use?

> And why?

> Whether always Ayanamsa Lahiri the rights?

>

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks again for link and for wounderfull explaination!

 

vedic astrology , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> To astrolearner_ brazil :

> See ;

> http://jyotirvidya.wetpaint.com/page/World+Economy+%3A+Apr+2009-Mar+2010

>

> -VJ

>

>

> ________________________________

> Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:37:21 PM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

>

>

>

>

>

> To astrolearner_ brazil :

>

> <<<<I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal

Aries,zero point as decided in 285 AD.>>>>

>

> Lahiri's Indian Ephemeris says Chitra, which he identified with Alpha Virginis

or Spica was at 180:00':03 " . 0 on 22 Mar 285 AD when ayanamsha was zero

according to Lahiri. But according to same source (IE, 2003), that star has

moved to 179:59':03 " . Hence, AK Lahiri wrote " Due to proper motion, the

nirayana longitude of the star Spica (Chitra) has, however, dimished by 60 "

during the period 1718 years from 285 AD " .

>

> It gives a proper motion of one revolution per 37 million years for Spica. In

Advance Ephemeris, NC Lahiri gave a table on page-90 for comparing

Suryasiddhantic values with modern values for various eras (1500-2000 AD). These

tables also show that Suryasiddhantic terms like lunar anomaly can be made

comparable to modern values only after we make some corrections which amount to

an inexplicable cycle of ~39.5 million years .

>

> These corrections should be made because physical Universe is rotating. Recent

reasearches on background radiation , awarded a Nobel Prize , have proven Big

Bang theory to be correct , which suggests the Universe to be finite in space

and time. If so, it must spit too, as all bodies in space have been spinning to

balance themselves gyroscopically.

>

> Suryasiddhanta has a Mandochcha period of 387 per Kalpa (of 4320 million

years). Bhaskar-II wrote Siddhanta Shiromani on Drikpakshiya aspect, and added

93 to thgis 387. This extra number was not explained, but it seems to be related

to rotation of the Universe, as 4320 million years divided by 93 gives us one

extra cycle per 46 million years, which is surprisingly close to extra motions

noticed in socalled fixed stars.

>

> Suryasiddhantic world has no rotating or moving Universe and is based upon a

concept of fixed sky in which everything is moving, excepting the centre of the

Cosmos at Mt Meru . Look at map, Meru town is still at the foot of that mountain

which was renamed Mt Kenya by Britishers, Suryasiddhanta says Mt Meru lies at

Bhoogola-madhya in the region of zanboonad (zambezi) where gems abound.

Horoscopes cast at this place at the time of nirayana Mesha Samkraanti according

to Suryasiddhantic computations give accurate annual forecasts for the whole

world. Same horoscopes made from physical astronomy has a difference of ~13

hours in time due to 34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and

Drikpakshiya ( physical ) longitudes of Sun, and its results are unreliable. We

have checked it for 136 years of rainfall data, besides a large number of data

about earthquakes, storms, national income, wars, etc. Suryasiddhantic method is

100% reliable ASTROLOGICALLY.

> A slightest digression from Suryasiddhanta results in wrong phalita results.

>

> Adherents of physical astronomy are trying to solve this problem in two ways :

by inventing new theories in phalita jyotisha, which are bound to boomerang on

these modern rishis, and / or by explaining aberrations through neglecting some

fact and overemphasizing others.

>

> 34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and Drikpakshiya ( physical

) longitudes of Sun makes it difficult to test in individual horoscopes, esp

when there is a heavy bias in one's mind in favour of physical astronomy, but

34' is too much for samkraantis and can be easily verified in mundane astrology.

>

> -VJ

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> astrolearner_ brazil <astrolearner_ brazil (AT) ymail (DOT) com>

> vedic astrology

> Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:48:43 PM

> [vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

>

> Dear Shri Jhaji,

>

> Thanks for your wonderfull write up.

>

> One thing i want to put in notice:-

>

> < Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. >

>

> I think Chitra star is 6 min apart to the just opposite of sidereal Aries,zero

point as decided in 285 AD.

>

> I agree with your points, In the name of ayanamsa ppl are using precession

definition.Nobody is finding zero point by SS which we should.Parampara from

Varanasi and BHU still using SS to find out the zero point and longitudes and

latitudes.Others are making fool in the name of ayanamsa(Lahiri also come under

that party).

>

> Thanks for very nice write up with truth.

>

> Keep going....... ...

>

> vedic astrology, Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Ayanamsha is originally a Suryasiddhantic concept, in which it is defined as

libration of the " bhachakra " (orbit of lunar asterisms) within a maximum range

of 27 degrees, full cycle being of 108 degrees which is derived by multiplying

360 with 0.3 ; someone multiplied again and got a maximum value of 8 degrees

which is found in the oldest Western record in Theon. Later Islamic astrologers

put its value aound 9-10 degrees. Copernicus also used this librating ayanamsha.

> >

> > Physical astronomy found there is no such thing as libration of the

equinoxes, and therefore removed the very notion of libration / trepidation.

They were right. Ayanamsha is not a phenomenon of physical world.

> >

> > Later, Colebrooke & c imposed the physical concept of precession on Indian

concept of ayanamsha. Burgess also followed this line , as did Lahiri and all

those who wrongly believe Suryasiddhanta to be a work of physical astronomy.

Unfortunately, these socalled experts did not even care to translate the

original verses of Suryasiddhanta honestly, in which ayanamsha has no relation

with movement of equinoxes, but is defined as to and fro libration of the

bhachakra. There is no means in physical astronomy through which we can test the

validity of this Suryasiddhantic claim, because there is no physical entity at

the orbit of 60 years which is said to be the orbit of bhachakra in

Suryasiddhanta, and beyond which all objects are deemed to be non-planets,

includeing Uranus, Neptune, etc.

> >

> > Followers of Colebrooke & c had their best exponent in NC Lahiri who used

modern value of precession of equinoxes to find the period of zero ayanamsha,

and failing to find any noticeable star at the first point of sidereal Aries or

start of Ashvini, found Spica at the nakshatra Chitra in 285 AD. This he

declared to be the zero date of ayanamsha, which was slavishly accepted by

" supporters " of physical astronomy, whio forgot that Chitra was never reference

point in any system of astrology or astronomy. The reference point is first

point of Ashvini in most cases and Krittika in some cases, but never Chitra.

This prompted Chandrahari to propound his alternative concept of ayanamsha.

Chandrahari' s view was conceptually better than Lahiri's, but he followed the

false reasonimg of Burgess who deliberately mis-translated relevant verses of

Suryasiddhanta and cited some portions of Siddhanta Shiromani to im[pose modern

concept of precession on Suryasiddhantic

> > ayanamsha, because Burgess could not believe in the existence of a

trepidating equinox and guessed that the verses were mutilated which was the

duty of Burgess to rectify. In his zeal, Burgess quoted a verse from Siddhanta

Shiromani in which it was said that sampaat point has a periodicity of once

revolution per 144000 years. Burgess omitted the whole context, which gives a

formula for computing precession of the equinoxes. It was the most accurate

formula for preccession till modern times. Hipparchus had a much crude

computation, but Bhaskar's accurate formula ( ClickHere ) is never cited by

these enthusiasts.

> >

> > It is noteworthy that while giving an accurate period of precession,

Bhaskar-II cites Suryasiddhanta as a source of this ancient formula. This

formula of physical or Drikpakshiya worls was known to ancient experts, but they

never caleed it ayanamsha. All of them believed in the Suryasiddhantic notion of

librating ayanamsha, from India to Europe. Had they no knowledge of actual

precession, we could believe in false propaganda of Colebrooke, Burgess,

Whitney, Lahiri & c about the mistake of ancients in believing in a vibrating

equinox. But Bhaskar makes it clear that chakraayana or circular motion of

equinox in ~25500 years was known to Indians since Vedic times, he makes it

amply clear by referring to Shruti for his source of Suryasiddhantic formula of

precession of equinoxes.

> >

> > Before Colebrooke, Burgess, Whitney, Lahiri & c , all Indians believed in

trepidating ayanamsa, ie ayanamsha as a trepidation of bhachakra and not as

precession of equinoxes. Precession of equinox takes place along the full circle

which is known as chakraayana in ancient terminilogy, while ayanamsha moves like

a pendulum within a maximum range of +27 and -27 degrees which was known as

dolaayana. When Suryasiddhantic planetary positions and ayanamsha had great

differences with planets of physical world, Suryasiddhanta was universally

acclaimed as the best of all siddhantas. Other siddhantas were not even

preserved, while astrologically most essential portions of Suryasiddhanta have

been preserved. Suryasiddhanta deals with non-physical world or Bhuva-loka on

which deities like Surya Deva and Chandra Deva reside, whom we cannot see

sensorily, while physical planets reside in the physical world which is open to

sense perception. Hence, the only proof of

> > Suryasiddhanta is its astrological test, for which Suryasiddhantic software

of horoscope can be freely downloaded from Kundalee and messages posted at

Support .

> >

> > -VJ

> > ============ ===== ============ =====

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > acubens_1 <acubens@ >

> > vedic astrology

> > Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:14:47 AM

> > [vedic astrology] What Ayanamsa you use?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > What Ayanamsa you use?

> > And why?

> > Whether always Ayanamsa Lahiri the rights?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Many thanks for details.

But I have not understood in what party 34' difference?

If for example on Lahiri I have Lagna 00º00'00 " Dhanu,

Means on Drikpakshiya (physical) 00º34'00 " Dhanu or 29º26'00 " Vrishika?

[Guest guest]

> >

> > 34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and Drikpakshiya (

physical ) longitudes of Sun makes it difficult to test in individual

horoscopes, esp when there is a heavy bias in one's mind in favour of physical

astronomy, but 34' is too much for samkraantis and can be easily verified in

mundane astrology.

> >

> >

**********************************************************************

Many thanks for details.

But I have not understood in what party 34' difference?

If for example on Lahiri I have Lagna 00º00'00 " Dhanu,

Means on Drikpakshiya (physical) 00º34'00 " Dhanu or 29º26'00 " Vrishika?

**********************************************************************

[Guest guest]

There is a 34' difference betrween Suryasiddhantic and physical positions of

True Sun now-a-days, which is increasing at the rate of 360 degrees per 42000

years, on account of which Suryasiddhantic sidereal year of 365.258756481481

days gets reduced to 365.25005984 days, and if half day's error in 8355 years

could be omitted it made the year of 365.25000 days found in so-called Julian

year beginning from before 4700 BC as well in Bhaskar's Siddhanta Shiromani.

Other planets and Lagna of Suryasiddhanta have more or less than 34' difference.

Suryasiddhanticayanamsha is now-a-days little more than 1 degree behind Lahiri

ayanamsha, but the latter is not ayanamsha but precession. Ayana-motion is

pendulum like vibration of nakshatra circle round the central fixed point Mt

Meru (Mt Kenya).

 

 

-vj

 

 

________________________________

" ACUBENS " <acubens

vedic astrology

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:30:21 AM

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

Many thanks for details.

But I have not understood in what party 34' difference?

If for example on Lahiri I have Lagna 00º00'00 " Dhanu,

Means on Drikpakshiya (physical) 00º34'00 " Dhanu or 29º26'00 " Vrishika?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There is a 34'

difference betrween Suryasiddhantic and physical positions of True Sun

now-a-days, which is increasing at the rate of 360 degrees per 42000

years, on account of which Suryasiddhantic sidereal year of 365.258756481481

days gets reduced to 365.25005984 days, and if half

day's error in 8355 years could be omitted it made the year of

365.25000 days found in so-called Julian year beginning from before

4700 BC as well in Bhaskar's Siddhanta Shiromani.

Other planets and Lagna of Suryasiddhanta have more or less than 34'

difference.

 

Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha is now-a-days little more than 1

degree behind Lahiri ayanamsha, but the latter is actually not ayanamsha but

precession. Ayana-motion is pendulum like vibration of nakshatra circle

round the central fixed point Mt Meru (Mt Kenya) according to original

definition.

 

-vj

 

 

 

________________________________

acubens_1 <acubens

vedic astrology

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:39:37 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

 

> >

> > 34' difference in Saurapakshiya (Suryasiddhantic ) and Drikpakshiya (

physical ) longitudes of Sun makes it difficult to test in individual

horoscopes, esp when there is a heavy bias in one's mind in favour of physical

astronomy, but 34' is too much for samkraantis and can be easily verified in

mundane astrology.

> >

> >

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****

Many thanks for details.

But I have not understood in what party 34' difference?

If for example on Lahiri I have Lagna 00º00'00 " Dhanu,

Means on Drikpakshiya (physical) 00º34'00 " Dhanu or 29º26'00 " Vrishika?

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

vedic astrology , Vinay Jha <vinayjhaa16 wrote:

>

> There is a 34' difference betrween Suryasiddhantic and physical positions of

True Sun now-a-days, which is increasing at the rate of 360 degrees per 42000

years, on account of which Suryasiddhantic sidereal year of 365.258756481481

days gets reduced to 365.25005984 days, and if half day's error in 8355 years

could be omitted it made the year of 365.25000 days found in so-called Julian

year beginning from before 4700 BC as well in Bhaskar's Siddhanta Shiromani.

> Other planets and Lagna of Suryasiddhanta have more or less than 34'

difference. Suryasiddhanticayanamsha is now-a-days little more than 1 degree

behind Lahiri ayanamsha, but the latter is not ayanamsha but precession.

Ayana-motion is pendulum like vibration of nakshatra circle round the central

fixed point Mt Meru (Mt Kenya).

>

>

> -vj

>

>

> ________________________________

> " ACUBENS " <acubens

> vedic astrology

> Friday, April 24, 2009 10:30:21 AM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

>

>

>

>

>

> Many thanks for details.

> But I have not understood in what party 34' difference?

> If for example on Lahiri I have Lagna 00º00'00 " Dhanu,

> Means on Drikpakshiya (physical) 00º34'00 " Dhanu or 29º26'00 " Vrishika?

>

 

[Guest guest]

Excuse, if I will not understand – badly I know English...

So means better to use Ayanamsa Lahiri or on 34'It is less?

Write directly that it was possible to understand unequivocally.

 

Thank you very much.!!

[Guest guest]

acubens_1:

 

To For better astrological results, use Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha, whose value

was 22:38':45 " on Jan 1, 2009 (25N00, 80E00, IST +5:30 to GMT). Raman's

ayanamsha is near this value, and Yukteshwar's value is nearer.

 

Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha has an annual motion of 54 " exactly, against 50.3 " of

precession of equinoxes. The latter was known to ancient Indians, but was not

related to ayanamsha. The original definition of Ayanamsha relates it to a to

and fro trepidation of the circle of lunar asterisms or nakshatras with respect

to the fixed centre Mt Meru (Mt Kenya now).

 

Only Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha will not solve all mathematical problems of vedic

Astrology, Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from positions of physical

planets. Foe example, Suryasiddhantic True Sun has a difference of 34' with

physical Sun, but this difference has nothing to do with ayanamsha.

 

Russian : ( I have a primary knowledge of Russian and here use translator) :

 

К Ð”Ð»Ñ Ð»ÑƒÑ‡ÑˆÐ¸Ñ… аÑтрологичеÑких результатов,

иÑпользуйте Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha, Ñ‡ÑŒÑ Ñ†ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾ÑÑ‚ÑŒ

была 22:38 ':45' 1 ÑÐ½Ð²Ð°Ñ€Ñ 2009 (25N00, 80E00, в Индии 5:30 к

по Гринвичу). ayanamsha Рамана - около Ñтой

ценноÑти, и ценноÑÑ‚ÑŒ Юктешвоа ближе.

 

Только Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha не будет решать вÑе

математичеÑкие проблемы vedic ÐÑтрологии,

Suryasiddhantic, планетарные Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾Ñ‚Ð»Ð¸Ñ‡Ð°ÑŽÑ‚ÑÑ

от положений физичеÑких планет. Ðапример,

Suryasiddhantic, ИÑтинное Солнце имеет различие 34'

Ñ Ñ„Ð¸Ð·Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑким Солнцем, но Ñтим различием, не

имеет никакого Ð¾Ñ‚Ð½Ð¾ÑˆÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ðº ayanamsha.

 

-VJ

 

 

 

 

________________________________

acubens_1 <acubens

vedic astrology

Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:17:52 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

Excuse, if I will not understand – badly I know English...

So means better to use Ayanamsa Lahiri or on 34'It is less?

Write directly that it was possible to understand unequivocally.

 

Thank you very much.!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha has an annual motion of 54 " exactly, against 50.3 "

of precession of equinoxes. The latter was known to ancient Indians, but was not

related to ayanamsha. The original definition of Ayanamsha relates it to a to

and fro trepidation of the circle of lunar asterisms or nakshatras with respect

to the fixed centre Mt Meru (Mt Kenya now).

>

> Only Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha will not solve all mathematical problems of

vedic Astrology, Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from positions of

physical planets. Foe example, Suryasiddhantic True Sun has a difference of 34'

with physical Sun, but this difference has nothing to do with ayanamsha.

>

_______________

 

Many thanks for the answer!

 

(I Also as well as you have a primary knowledge of English and here use

translator)

I so in detail ask about Ayanamsa because independently searched for its long

years.

And your answer I have learnt, that it is necessary to shift Ayanamsa Lahiri, on

34' it is less.

I have come to such conclusion (but only to shift offered on 33' less), studying

thousand different cards.

Here a forum on which I have laid out it:

http://www.vedic astrology.ru/forum/index.php?

s=3195f5761cafe2f4a4af8becaf64eada & showtopic=273 & pid=2843 & st=0 AND # entry2843

 

Would like to learn your opinion – that you think of it?

I am close to the truth?

 

With huge respect, Acubens.

[Guest guest]

Here a forum on which I have laid out it:

http://www.vedic astrology.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=273 & pid=2843 & st=0 & #entry\

2843

 

At me Mars on a joint 8 and 9 bhava.

And I cannot understand in any way, where it at me?

Here my given births:

 

Natal Chart

 

August 2, 1972

Time: 18:04:28

Time Zone: 3:00:00 (East of GMT)

Place: 37°E53'38 " , 47°57N'37 " Donetsk, Ukraine

_______________

 

Understand, how it is important, as if at me Mars in 8th occurs parivarthana

between 5 and 8. And certainly position of Mars in all in vargas vary.

 

It would be desirable to learn your dear opinion, where from me Mars – 8 or 9???

[Guest guest]

К Acubena:

 

Ð’Ñ‹ неправильно понÑли менÑ. Солнце

нуждаетÑÑ Ð² иÑправлении 34', Ðйанамшу-Лахири

нуждаетÑÑ Ð² большем иÑправлении-94'. Мой

английÑкий Ñзык хорош, мой руÑÑкий Ñзык

плох.

 

Слишком упрощено думать, что Ðйанамшу -

единÑÑ‚Ð²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ð±Ð»ÐµÐ¼Ð° в броÑке прекраÑного

гороÑкопа.Ð’ вашем гороÑкопе, еÑÑ‚ÑŒ

Паривартан

между Луной и МарÑом.Ðо влиÑние (Лагна)

изменено

в моем методе, который ÑвлÑетÑÑ Ð¾Ñнованным

на древнем Сурйа-Ñиддханта. СоглаÑно

Сурйа-Ñиддханта,Ðйанамшу не определен в

терминах

предуÑтупка равноденÑтвий, но в терминах

маÑтника как Ð²Ð¸Ð±Ñ€Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ ÐºÑ€ÑƒÐ³Ð° ÐакÑатра

(лунные

ÑозвездиÑ). Ð’ наÑтоÑщее времÑ, Ðйанамшу

Сурйа-Ñиддханта - около Ðйанамшу Раман -

22:05:58 в вашем гороÑкопе (Сурйа-Ñиддханта; и

23:28:27.1 Лахири).. Ð”Ð»Ñ Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐºÑ€Ð°Ñной

аÑтрологии, помимо ayanamshaнеобходимы два

других

Ð¸Ð·Ð¼ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ : планетарные положениÑ

Сурйа-Ñиддханта отличаютÑÑ Ð¾Ñ‚ таковых из

физичеÑкого

мира, включение влиÑÐ½Ð¸Ñ orЛагна(потому что

аÑтрологичеÑкие планеты -

божеÑтво невидимого мира),и длина

года Vimshottari должна быть в лунном удлинении /

Титхи. Свободное программное обеÑпечение

Kundaleeдает гороÑкоп Сурйа-Ñиддханта Ñ

точноÑтью:

на Ñзыке хинди и английÑком Ñзыке, в http://

kundalee.wikidot.com/

 

-Vinay Jha

============ =============

 

 

 

________________________________

acubens_1 <acubens

vedic astrology

Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:54:54 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: What Ayanamsa you use?

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha has an annual motion of 54 " exactly, against 50.3 "

of precession of equinoxes. The latter was known to ancient Indians, but was not

related to ayanamsha. The original definition of Ayanamsha relates it to a to

and fro trepidation of the circle of lunar asterisms or nakshatras with respect

to the fixed centre Mt Meru (Mt Kenya now).

>

> Only Suryasiddhantic ayanamsha will not solve all mathematical problems of

vedic Astrology, Suryasiddhantic planetary positions differ from positions of

physical planets. Foe example, Suryasiddhantic True Sun has a difference of 34'

with physical Sun, but this difference has nothing to do with ayanamsha.

>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

 

Many thanks for the answer!

 

(I Also as well as you have a primary knowledge of English and here use

translator)

I so in detail ask about Ayanamsa because independently searched for its long

years.

And your answer I have learnt, that it is necessary to shift Ayanamsa Lahiri, on

34' it is less.

I have come to such conclusion (but only to shift offered on 33' less), studying

thousand different cards.

Here a forum on which I have laid out it:

http://www.vedic- astrology. ru/forum/ index.php? s=3195f5761cafe2f4a

4af8becaf64eada & showtopic= 273 & pid=2843 & st=0 AND # entry2843

 

Would like to learn your opinion – that you think of it?

I am close to the truth?

 

With huge respect, Acubens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

To Acubens :

 

 

 

It is too simplistic to think that Ayanamsha is the only problem in

casting a perfect horoscope. In your horoscope, there is Parivartana

between Moon and Mars. But ascendant (Lagna) is changed in my method

which is based upon ancient Surya-siddhanta . According to

Surya-siddhanta, Ayanamsha is not defined in terms of precession of

equinoxes , but in terms of pendulum like vibration of the circle of

Nakshatras ( lunar asterisms ) . At present, Ayanamsha of

Surya-siddhanta is near the Ayanamsha of Raman - 22:05:58 in your

horoscope (Surya-siddhanta ; and 23:28:27.1 Lahiri). For perfect

astrology, besides ayanamsha two other changes are needed : planetary

positions of Surya-siddhanta differ from those of physical world

(because astrological planets are deities of unseen world), including

ascendant, and Vimshottari year length is to be in lunar elongation /

Tithi. Free software Kundalee gives Surya-siddhanta horoscope with

accuracy : in Hindi and English, at http://kundalee.wikidot.com/

 

 

 

-Vinay Jha

============ =============

vedic astrology , " acubens_1 " <acubens wrote:

>

>

> Here a forum on which I have laid out it:

>

http://www.vedic astrology.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=273 & pid=2843 & st=\

0 & #entry2843

>

> At me Mars on a joint 8 and 9 bhava.

> And I cannot understand in any way, where it at me?

> Here my given births:

>

> Natal Chart

>

> August 2, 1972

> Time: 18:04:28

> Time Zone: 3:00:00 (East of GMT)

> Place: 37°E53'38 " , 47°57N'37 " Donetsk, Ukraine

> _______________

>

> Understand, how it is important, as if at me Mars in 8th occurs

parivarthana between 5 and 8. And certainly position of Mars in all in

vargas vary.

>

> It would be desirable to learn your dear opinion, where from me Mars

– 8 or 9???

>