Subject: [vedic-astrology] Re: What Jyotish the program considers more precisely?
I am using Das Goravani's astrology program for many years. I asked
him about the precision of astrology computer programs,
as discussed in the forum, here is what he wrote and he would like me
to share his answer with all of you:
My dear Jyotish friends,
Hi, Das Goravani here. Author of Goravani Jyotish. I wish to
address briefly the discussion regarding softwares.
The question was accuracy, I believe. To that end let me say the
I entered this field assuming that the calculational part of
astrology was already nailed down fully. I researched and found that
to be the case. In other words, the astronomy portion of it was
already settled. In fact, anyone can get ahold of the complete code
for Jyotish. It takes a little effort, there is no one stop shop for
it, but it can be gathered, as I did it, so I know.
The main planetary algorithms used these days by most or all of the
programs is the code that comes from NASA, the American Space
program, as they do share their planetary code freely. Haven taken
this code, it has been then reworked by many in the field, and resold
by them individually as THEIR Planetary code. In fact, planetary
code is a complex mathematical encyclopedia, and is really locked
down, with occasional tweaks coming out of observations.
OK, then, it gets to you via a programmer who packages it into a
useable Jyotish package by adding the Hindu calculations themselves,
on top of the planetary code.
There are two parts that are questionable to some degree, and that is
the lagna and ayanamsa. Those are harder, and stranger, due to the
shape of the earth, and the latitude issue and how that affects the
tilt of the birth against the zodiac. People born in the North or
far South (more rare by far), are "slanted" to the zodiac at birth.
That's a real issue nobody talks about.
The major programs all calculate close to each other. Why not
exact? Because of the life course of the code each of us has in our
hands. Mine came from a certain source, and was in basic at the
time. It was remade into C for me. My ascendent calc I did myself
from a known source book. My ayanamsa code I got from logic (for
straight line) and from a source for the type that tapes the wobble
into account, not just the tilt, of the earth.
The major programs all calculate closely.
Nobody present is capable of telling you which is more accurate in
terms of calculations.
The only person(s) who could tell you which is more accurate in terms
of planetary longitude on the zodiac is someone who is a genuine
highly educated and accurate in that area of knowledge FOR SURE RIGHT
NOW and that would be a live ASTRONOMER. No astrologer can speak to
Next, in terms of ayanamsa and ascendent, to really discuss that, you
would again need an ASTRONOMER. They hate astrologers, generally.
As for the Hindu calculations in our programs, those are so fixed,
there should be little variation, except in Shad Bala and a few other
areas where interpretation of classical texts comes into play moreso,
and there are some variations of that interpretation. NONE of the
current lot of us programmers are ALSO Sanskrit scholars, so, we rely
on the translations that come at us from BV Raman and others, who
themselves are not perhaps either, the full scholar.
I really wish to urge everyone to admit who/where they are in the
knowledge of exactness when we do raise issues of exactness.
At this point, the programs simply are different, slightly, in
minutes and seconds of arc on the Lagna, planets, ayanamsas, because
of the little things that happen to code as it goes through it's
language journey. You know, the handling of fine decimal numbers,
there are issues there, that cause computers and languages to
calculate slightly differently. Math, with floating point numbers,
is not quite as fixed as we would like. There have been chips in
computers that did things wrong, and languages round differently.
By and by, slowly over time, and this has happened in the base of
this field, in the core codes in these programs, that things get
shifted ever so slightly, and so, over time, this occurs. Another
way to put it is that some core codes have suffered more in their
lifetimes than others, become more rounded off, and it shows up as
minutes and second of arc difference.
I do not think any of the current lot of programmers actually has a
telescope or actually knows astro physics to any degree, astronomy,
etc. Mostly we are entreprenuers who love Hindu/Vedic stuff, got the
code from the astronomy to astrology group that preceded us, put it
into a program, struggle to keep it going, and I don't think any of
us are rich either. PL had a huge cash rich partner in India for
awhile, but that's over from what I heard though it advanced that
program by leaps during that period. Money does that. I passed on
the guy, he came to me first, due to dharmic reasons surrounding the
use of gems.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I smell "investing" when I
here "accuracy" to a great degree, and I have to say, what is fixed
is, and you will win or not, so keep going, in your karma, because
there are so many things you cannot control, just add this to the
pile, because your interpretations are gonna be, by human reality, so
widely wrong from the truth, that harping on accuracy now is silly.
This same applies to people readers. You don't need total accuracy.
To think so is very skewed.
Trust me, when I or any other programs, NONE of us TRY to be sloppy.
In fact, we TRY hard to be accurate, as could be, WITH THE MATERIAL
WE ARE SOURCING FROM
All in all, my conclusion, keep the right perspective. This is a non
exact science, one of half heart and half logic.
We cannot do this fully, as that would be to know ALL. It's
impossible. ALL is in the ONE and we are in it and it is all there
is here, and it is all inter twined, which is why we can read it, but
ALL of it is readable, not just the planets on the zodiac, but that
is what we've nailed so far, or been given, as you believe, as you
like. That's where we are.
distribute this freely
We dont see things as they are, we see things as we are.