Subject: [sohamsa] More On the Ayanamsa Issue
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
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
* * *
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
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.
While the people who fixed Lahiri ayanamsa got it mostly, things like
factoring in the star motion and fixing the zodiacal plane were left
om gurave namah
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
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,
15B Gangaram Hospital Road, Delhi, India 110060