Date: 2008/9/6

Subject: [sohamsa] More On the Ayanamsa Issue

Namaste friends,

As I mentioned before, I have experimented with a variation of Lahiri

ayanamsa that uses a fixed zodiacal plane. Normally, people use the

Sun-earth plane as the zodiacal plane and it has a wobbling motion. In

other words, longitudes at different times are measured on a different

plane, as the plane wobbles with time. When we are fixing the starting

point of the zodiac, does it make sense to have a plane that is not

fixed??

The entire solar system has a rotation too (around a point that we

refer to as "Vishnunabhi" - navel of Vishnu). The equatorial plane of

this rotation is very stable and has no wobbling motion. It makes

excellent sense to use this plane as the zodiacal plane instead of a

wobbling Sun-earth plane.

When I used this fixed plane instead of wobbing Sun-earth plane, the

longitudes of planets change by a few arc-sec and sometimes by a few

arc-min. However, unlike in regular ayanamsa changes, the change in

different planets is different. Thus, (Moon-Sun) differential changes

differently at different times. This means that times of Tithi

Pravesha (Sun-Moon angular return) can change by several minutes

compared to regular Lahiri ayanamsa. This changes the lagna in several

divisional charts of TP in almost all years.

I compared the divisional charts of TP between the two ayanamsas and

concluded that the fixed plane version is more consistent. I use that

ayanamsa myself.

* * *

However, one thing still troubled me. Though the choice of the plane

is very logical and not really arbitrary, the choice of the zero point

has a little arbitrariness. I mean, Chitra at 180 deg is logical. But

we were taking Chitra at 180 deg on a particular date. That is

arbitrary. At later dates, Chitra may be slightly away from 180 deg

due to the slow star motion.

It is possible to define the ayanamsa such that Chitra is at 180 deg

at all times, i.e. slow motion of star is factored in.

This causes only a few arc-seconds of difference in the longitudes and

it affects all planets uniformly. Hence it has no impact on TP times

(Moon-Sun does not change as both Moon and Sun change by the same

amount). It cause changes in divisional charts only in border cases

that are anyway susceptible to very minor birthtime errors. Thus, this

difference is mostly of academic interest and the practical

implication is very little. On the other hand, the practical

implication of the previously mentioned use of solar system rotation

plane (already available in JHora 7.2) is huge. It changes all TP

charts (not just border cases).

Nevertheless, I think the arbitrariness should go. Fixing ayanamsa

based on a specific date is arbitrary. Thus, I have modified the

ayanamsa to place Chitra (Spica) star at exactly 180 deg always. The

starting point of the zodiac is fixed in such a way that Chitra star

is always at 180 deg exactly and the plane of the zodiacal plane is

fixed to the solar system rotation plane around Vishnunabhi.

In my mind, this is very logical, consistent and not arbitrary.

Neither the plane nor the starting point has any silliness built in.

When I made this change in the ayanamsa I am using, I see no impact on

TP charts and all my previous analysis still holds. However, to be

more logical and remove arbitrariness from my work, I have switched to

this ayanamsa. I made my final decision.

I will make it available in the next JHora release.

For the benefit of those who dislike the fixed Vishnunabhi plane

(why???? why use a fixed starting point when the plane itself is not

fixed?????) and want to stick to the regular wobbly Sun-earth plane, I

will add another various of Lahiri ayanamsa. This will also place

Chitra at 180 deg always, but on a wobbling plane instead of the fixed

Vishnunabhi plane.

I will make this release by the end of September. I hope that the

serious researchers of astrology will take advantage of this.

* * *

Mooladhara chakra represents bhu loka - the earthly realm of

consciousness. Other chakras represent higher lokas - the higher

spiritual realms of consciousness. While the 0 deg of Aries contains

the head of kala purusha, i.e. sahasrara chakra, it is the 180 deg

point that contains mooladhara chakra. The top seven and bottom seven

chakras/lokas are in the two halves of the zodiac. From this point of

view, it is very logical to base the zodiac from 180 deg point, i.e.

Mooladhara chakra.

While the people who fixed Lahiri ayanamsa got it mostly, things like

factoring in the star motion and fixing the zodiacal plane were left

out.

Best regards,

Narasimha

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

om gurave namah

Dear Narasimha

THAT IS SOMETHING BRILLIANT

I think you have finally cracked it. The main issue for me was the

*arbitrary nature* of all the ayanäàça and hence their names – Lahiri,

Raman and so many others and each finding what we call a *suitable

date* based on various *personal information* factors which was not

purely mathematical.

Ayanämsha has to be *Chiträ Paksha* all the time i.e. the sidereal

zodiac is created on the very basis and cannot move around like the

tropical and other zodiac. Its very existence comes into being due to

the nakshatra. The rashi have no existence without the nakshatra as 9

nakshatra pada define the rashi.

Secondly, the wobbling plane which causes *true and men nodes* to come

into existence is a play of Maya in our lives. The real truth is that

the nodes from the perspective of karma, cannot be direct. This is

possible only from the Vishnu nabhi and for this *one reason* the word

*satya* in its highest relative sense is applicable to Vishnu as He

alone can cut the head of the demon of untruth thereby creating Rähu

and Ketu. Thus the Rähu and Ketu of Vedic Astrology were created by

Vishnu due to the Sudarshana. So, our calculation of Rähu and Ketu

should be from the perspective of Vishnu i.e. the Vishnu nabhi (nabhi

is the hidden meaniing of point of creation).

You have done well to factor in the motion of the star as this was the

only flaw in the calculation. Please define the extent of deviation if

any in your calculation.

Thirdly, *please* do not give any arguments of whether it works with

TP or something else as whatever works for you may not work for

someone else and that is purely personal understanding and judgment of

the chart – it is the *Horä* part of Jyotisha and not the *Ganita* .

Your mathematical arguments are by far, the best I have seen till date

and am finally convinced that you have deciphered the *Vedic

Ayananamsha* which is purely based on the mathematical definition

given by the various Rishi's. The two things that Lahiri ayanamsha

missed squarely are –

1. Uses Brahma Nabhi instead of Vishnu nabhi resulting in true

and mean nodes which is the confusion of Maya. The correct Vishnu

nabhi was taken by you in the first step. However, instead of

immediately accepting this, we waited for you to finish the research

as you were getting close

2. The perfect *Chiträ Paksha* needed as per the original

ayanamsha definition had to be arrived at.

Once the second calculation is completed and this is checked

carefully, we will have to do the following –

1. Determine the *epoch date of zero ayanamsha* by reverse

calculation which would be mathematically fully substantiated instead

of the arbitrary thing being done now

2. Move a few steps towards the Kali Yuga calculations

3. Would be able to finally decipher Achyutananda and the

nakshatra varsha movements (although in my book I have shown the years

upto the level of the decades, I always needed to be sure) and also

define the correct Jovian years and all that.

You hard work is of great historical significance and do check your

calculations with at least two other sources.

With best wishes,

Sanjay Rath

15B Gangaram Hospital Road, Delhi, India 110060