Examining Charts with Tropical and Sidereal Zodaics

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Hello All,
I am starting a new thread where I will be comparing techniques using both the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. For Ayanamsa I will be using lahiri in the sidereal charts simply because that is the most commonly used ayanamsa. If anyone would like me to compare a chart with a different ayanamsa please let me know.

MARRAIGE # 1 THROUGH VARSHAPHALA (Solar Returns)
Since I am in the middle of teaching a Varshaphala course I will start by comparing some Varshaphala Techniques. In Varshaphala astrology it is the Sahams, also known as parts or lots, that are the critical determinitive factor for the events to happen during a given year. In the sidereal Varshaphala chart for the year of marriage of a male the vivaha saham or lot of marriage was in Capricorn the second house joined with Ketu the planet of completions and resolutions. Saturn, the sama lord, was debilited in Aries and joined with Venus. The conjunction of Venus indicates a relationship intensive year, but the debilitation of Saturn indicates a break up in relationships or a possible unfaithfullness. Venus is also in an openly inimical sign on account of Mars, the lord of Aries, being opposite Venus and so one would expect a lot of tension and disagreement in the relationship. Venus was also the 6th lord. Thus while the chart indiacted a relationship intensive year, it indicated a troubled relationship and the break up of a relationship.

Tropically, the Marriage Saham was in Taurus, the 7th house indicated a relationship centered year. The lord of Taurus, Venus, was exalted in the 5th house indicating an exalted relationship. IN Varshaphala, the 5th lord in the 7th or the 7th lord in the 5th is a strong factor for marraige, so in this chart that held true and the 7th lord was exalted indicating a wonderful marriage.

The individual in question married happily with a woman that have as perfect a relationship I have seen. They did not quarrel even once during that year as the sidereal chart would indicate. There was no unfaithfulness or tension during that year as the sidereal zodiac would indicate. It was a very happy year of marraige between two very harmonious individuals.

MARRAIGE #2 Through Varshaphala (Solar Returns)
Consider the spouse of the above Marriage #1. Sidereally the lot of marriage was in scorpio. Scorpio was empty and its lord Mars was in Libra wehre it was not involved with the lagna lord or the 7th lord, basically, it was not involved with fators that would make the lot active during the year. Rather, it was aspected inimically by a debilitated Saturn. In Varshaphala an inimimcal aspect from Saturn or Mars destroys the effects of another planet. With Mars being unrelated to the 7th house or the lagna and being harmed by a very troubling Saturn, marriage could not have happened.

Tropically, the lot of Marraige or Vivaha Saham as in Virgo, with the Lagna lord Moon giving a marriage potential focus to the year. The Lagna lord was also aspecting to the 7th lord Saturn in a friendly and desirable manner. The Saham lord Mercury was in the 10th asepcting to Venus, the marraige planet, who was also in aspect to the Lagna lord Moon, who was in aspect to 7th lord Saturn and thus the lagna lord, vivaha saham lord and natural marriage planet Venus were all involved. None of these key planets were in bad dignity and thus marriage becomes a reality.

Will post more examples as I have time.

Ernst

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Ernst,

I have used and programmed Vedic techniques, but don’t consider myself expert in these techniques. I read your post above and understand that you are supporting the tropical zodiac.

What I want to know (more than comparing zodiacs with a given chart or so) is: what are your reasons for using the tropical zodiac?

In another post I gave the reasons why the Buddhists use the tropical zodiac, because it is clearly indicated in their main astrological text, the “Kalacakra Tantra,” which is of course Indian in origin, and appeared long before the birth of Christ. I pointed to research by a pre-eminent scholar on this point.

Most Vedic astrologers do not use the tropical zodiac , and I have known many since I believe I put on the first Vedic astrology conference in North America here at Matrix Software many years ago in 1986, followed by a second such conference, and then yet another one on Tibetan astrology.

I am not saying that it is not legitimate to prefer the tropical zodiac based on personal research, because that is the kind of research almost all astrologers use. However, many Vedic techniques are based on historical texts. Do you have any of those to support your view?

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Dear Micheal,
there are actually more indications in the ancient astrological and philosophical texts from India that support the use of the tropical zodiac. I have mentioned many of these in my Mystery of the Zodiac article which you can read at http://www.vedic-astrology.net/FreeClasses/Ayanamsa-and-Rasis.asp. Varahamihira himself states in his Panchasidddhantika that Aries Rasi, Aries Navamsa, Aries Drikkan and the Trimsama of Mars all start from the Vernal equinox! Too bad astrologers do not read astronomical books such as Panchasiddhantika... Surya Siddhanta is very clear in stating that the Solar months of Aries, Taurus, etc. are to be defined by the soltices and equinoxes, which is to say tropically. However, in modern India they are defining these months sidereally and thus their calander is 3 weeks off. They celebrate the motion of the Sun moving north on Jan. 14! When any student of basic astronomy knows that the Sun begins to move North around December 21 - at 0 tropical capricorn, not 0 sidereal capricorn. Sri Yuktesvar new about this and tried to convince the local Orrisa astrologers of this fact, but he was born a Vaishya and Brahmins by birth and not action do just do not listen to Vaishyas... In the 1950's the Govt. of India gathered together a band of astronomers do arrive at correct calendar calculations so that there would be a uniform calendar where at the time different regionds of India were taking thier holidays on different days, disrupting the govt and train schedules. These astronomers agreed upon using Lahiri ayanamsa for purpose of determining the nakshatras and lunar months - which is well known. They also agreed to the fact that the solar months should be determined by the equinoxes and soltices and that the Sun really does move north on December 21st, not Jan. 14th - that solar months were tropical. This was written into law, yet no one follows the law and so to this day the modern hindus still think that the Sun moves north on Jan. 14th! I have had lengthy discussions with astrologers from India who swear that maybe the sun moves north where we live in the US in dec. 21st, but in South India it happens on Jan 14th! and that that is their cultural heritage and they should follow thier culture! They refuse to look at basic astronomy. What they do not realize is that the culture they are following made mistakes in the years from 00-600 AD and that they are not following the more ancient cultural precepts of the time of Krishna as they beleive that they do. Anyway, if the Solar months can be off by 3 weeks as suggested by Sri Yuktesvar and as agree by the Indian govt. does it not make sense that the Rasis, which are the same as the solar months, suffered the same errors when the Indians lost the knowledge of precession sometime before 600 AD?

Regards,
Ernst

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Ernst,

Thanks for the explanation, which was very clear. Help me out further.

Why is it that almost all of the Vedic astrologers I know use the sidereal method and not the tropical zodiac?

Don't they read the same books you mention and if it is that clear, what is the explanation for their using the sidereal zodiac?

In the quote I gave you in my post, the scholar Henning says something to the effect that when all of this was decided, the two ayanamsas, tropical and sidereal, were the same. Gradually they have moved apart. He points out that one group of astrologers apparently stopped measuing the physical shadows at the Soltices, etc. which show that the tropical zodiac is what is indicated, and just went on their way to being siderealists, while the rest stayed tropical.

Do you know how this happened? How about some of you other siderealist Vedic astrologers reading this explain your reasons for using the sidereal zodiac. I am sure I am not the only astrologer who wonders about this.

Thanks

[Therese_Hamilton]

Hi Michael,

The crux of the zodiac confusion goes back to the source of Horoscopic astrology. Anyone who has studied the recent translations of Project Hindsight, ARHAT and other translators realizes that the evidence is powerful for Horoscopic astrology originating in the west at a time when Helleisitic astrologers weren't sure what zodiac they were using. I know the arguments rage on about India being the oldest source of Horoscopic astrology, but the evidence is otherwise.

Much that is in India's so-called ancient texts most probably came from translated Hellenistic and Arabic texts. So naturally there are going to be many statements related to the tropical zodiac, the seasons, etc. because these texts are post-Ptolemy,

I clearly remember the day when I realized that the texts of the ‘great Indian sages' were mostly translations of western texts. Or, if not direct translations, the astrological concepts were clearly western. My entire devotion to the sacred astrology of India's sages came tumbling down. Since my recovery from the shock, I've carefully followed the Hellenistic translation work currently being done, especially Project Hindsight translations.

However, most astrologers don't realize that *western* astrologers continued using a sidereal zodiac (imported from Mesopoamia) until the 5th century. Check out this web site http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/babylon/ba ... dstars.htm

which has a diagram (at the end of the list of references, approximately page 20) of the actual sidereal longitudes in horoscopes compared to the tropical longitudes. Quoting from the web site:
---------------------------------

"Although Hellenistic astronomers based their measurements and theories on a tropical zodiac..., Hellenistic astrological tables and horoscopes indicate that the sidereal zodiac was employed up to the end of the 5th century AD..."

"Studies of luni-solar and planetary longitudes mentioned in Late-Babylonian horoscopes and diaries have revealed that they are always measured from a fixed position with respect to the stars and are therefore based on a sidereal zodiac. The use of a sidereal zodiac was continued by many astrologers of the Hellenistic and Roman Period.

"The following diagram, based on the data in Kollerstrom (2001), plots the longitude offsets as found in Late Babylonian horoscopes (purple data points) and Greek horoscopes (blue data points) with respect to the tropical zodiac. The slope of the weighed least-squares fit through the data is equivalent with a longitude shift of one degree in 75.4 years. Around the year AD 307 the astrologers' sidereal zodiac coincided with the tropical."
--------------------------------------

We don't know how or why India's astrologers remained with a sidereal zodiac while the west settled on the tropical zodiac. If India really did have enlightened astrological sages, then they were responsible for keeping the sidereal zodiac as their working zodiac.

I know that mathematically the sidereal zodiac checks out for transits and solar returns. I'll be posting some examples here as soon as possible. One cannot argue about how exact transits are, but there are many different ways to read solar return charts, so I'll begin with event transits to natal charts.

Best,
Therese

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Dear Michael,
no, they do not read those same books. Just like in the west, astrologers and astronomers went thier own way and so astrologers are making many calculation errors - this is just one of them, but I could give a list...Just ask if you want to get burried under astronomy.

Vedic astrologers use what they use because the person before them did and only a few question things when things do not add up. There is a guy in India who is pushing for tropical rasis as well, he also feels that nakshatras should be tropical as well, which goes against the old texts. He understands the part about the tropical rasis in the old books, but can not understand the part about the nakshatras, so he makes an error there in my opinion. But at least some astrologers in India have discovered that tropical works better even in India. 90% of people who have been willing to try tropical have switched to tropical. About 1 in 10 decided to stay with sidereal - those figures come from my exposure to my direct students and people who purchase my courses online or whom I have talked about this with. Two vedic astrologers I know, both in Candada, turned to tropical rasis before knowing that I was using tropical. So some are examining and coming to tropical conclusions.

Just to give an idea of how "scientic" the tradition of astrology in INdia is. There are panchangas that astrologers are using to calculate charts out that are worked out via the old calculations of mean motions and how many days have passed since the first day of creation and those mean motions are then converted to true via various other calculations. These calculations are accurate these days to about 3 degrees, they were more accurate around 1100 AD. In these horoscopes the effective ayanamsa of one planet may be 21 degrees and of another one in the same chart, 23 degrees! Sri Yuktesvar, in the late 1800s, spoke out againt calculating horoscopes so poorly from methods that no longer held true, but to no avail and this is still prevelant in many parts of India when charts are calculated by hand. Only in recent years have astrologers been using software in India, which means only now can they really start noticing problems with ayanamsas and zodaic because before their calcultions followed no consistent ayanamsa.

Those who have studied vedic astrology know how complex it can be with Varga charts, several dasa systems, many mathematical strengths. It is such a vast system really - and when you go to India and see someone's horoscoep made up at birth it usually includes just a rasi chart and a rasi chart from the Moon, that is it! No Vargas, not even the navamsa in most cases! And often times dasas not even written out and all the astrologers uses for timing is transits from the Moon sign - which will be more or less the same no matter the zodiac or ayanamsa used. With that simple form of astrology it hardly matters what the zodiac. ANd they NEVER predict any details that could be ascertained by the qualaits of signs, which western astrologers are much more in the habbit of doing. Maybe if these astrologers tried to add some details to thier predictions instead of just say, this is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad (ever have a traditional hindu astrology reading in India, 9 out of 10 are like that.) or if they even tried to use vargas, they would find out that something is not adding up.

THere are some good astrologers and scholars in India, of course, I am just talking about the 90% of the rest who do astrology so crudely that it would not matter what calculations they were using. As a good Indian astrologer friend of mine told me. "There are three kinds of astrologers in India, the cheats who cheat the tourists and say anything to make a few rupees, the traditional ones who just follow simple techniques blindly, and the people who have a love of astrology who are intelligent people who come from other backgrounds, so not traditional astrolgoers but lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. These last are the best astrologers in India" These are the inspired astrologers in India and as they are willing to test new things we will see more turn to tropical rasis, some already have.


Regards,
Ernst

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Ernst,

Thanks for the last post. It makes some things clear. I understand that many astrologers check out both systems and choose the tropical over the sidereal or vice versa. I am not doubting their credibility, but that is not what interests me.

What interests me is what the very earliest texts stated, how the confusion arose, and how to have both parties (and me) look at the actual texts and draw their own conclusion.

As for the astronomy, yes, as you have time, I would like to see it detailed, since astronomy I understand and have studied. Were there always tropical and siderealist Vedic astrologers? Which came first? I imagine tropical, if I read you right.

I would think all of the Vedic astrologers out there would want to comment here.

If you will, please do present the most ancient astronomy in some detail, so that I can see how all of this great division came out.

Another question I have is how did western siderealists came about. Did they arise from the Vedic teachings or did the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa come about independently?

Thanks

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Dear Therese, interesting post. In regards to India having enlightened astrologers, the last would have been Parashara of around 900 BC and Jaimini of 300-600 BC or perhaps later. Unfortunatly, most people do not study the works of these two astrologers. Parashara's text was lost from at least 900 AD and recompiled, with errors of course, in the 19th century. Full manuscripts of Jaimini's texts were not discovered until the early 20th century.

And yes, there is no evidence of Rasis in India before 300 BC. Nakshatras are mentioned much earlier. The oldest astronomical text that we have, Vedanga Jyotisha, mentions no rasi whatsover. However, in Parashara there is a mathematical technique where both Rasis and Nakshatras are manipulated together, so perhaps rasis were in India early, though there is no conclusive evidence that there were.

The Rig Veda talks of a 12 fold division of the ecliptic in respect to the seasons - thus a tropical division, but gives no names of the rasis, but a 12 fold division is the zodaic whehter named after an animal or other creature. Rig Veda does not mention all the nakshatras either though, simply stating that they exist. So India certainly had a 12 fold tropical division as early as the Rig Veda, but when the portions were named aries, taurus, etc. is hard to say.

Interesting enough, Jaimini Sutras makes fun of the names Aries, Taurus, etc. When those names are used we are literally to ignore them and instead turn the letters into a number and divide by 12 to arrive at the sign he wants us to consider! Why would he do this? Jaimini is dated from 300 to perhaps 600 BC. If closer to 300, that would have been the time of greek influence in India and perhaps he wanted to maintain the mathematical idea of the the rasis in preference to the symoblic ideas as presented by the names aries, etc. The first complete and the best to date translation of Jaimini Sutras was by Prof. KV Abhyankar, professor of Sanskrit at Gujarat college. His translation was completed in the 50s and he surmissed that Jaimini used tropical Rasis and advised the use of tropical rasis for Jaimini techniques.

Regards,
Ernst

[Therese_Hamilton]

Hi Ernst,

The astronomy of the equinoxes and solstices doesn't necessarily relate to the zodiac signs used for astrology. Yes, the Indians are quite stubborn about that January 14 date, but that topic has nothing to do with astrology. It relates to the various festivals and holidays held in India. I've also tried to convince Indian Jyotish students that the Sun is well on its way north by January 14th! Someone recently said, "Well, I suppose India uses the January 14 date because that's when it's easy to see that the days are getting longer!"

Also, there's a lot of debate about the dates of India's texts, which I don't want to get into as there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue. It's probably best on the current topic to give examples of how the zodiacs work. That is, stay with practical application. It's not possible to be fully educated on the topic of dating ancient texts without a full study of the translated eastern and western texts and the commentary of professional scholars in both east and west. The dating issue is a very sensitive topic for Jyotish astrologers, which is why I don't like to discuss it.

But for any horoscope examples used for testing, we need birth details and dates of any events such as marriage. This is the only way everyone can follow the discussion. It really doesn't help much to give examples of techniques without birth data and dates to accompany the astrology. Astrologers need to see the total chart being used as an example. If birth details are given, then we can each cast the chart in our favorite program.

Best,
Therese

[Therese_Hamilton]

Michael, the reason that Jyotish astrologers stay with a sidereal zodiac is because it has worked for them. Many western Jyotish professionals go much further in their practice than the Indian astrologers. For example, I've learned through using navamsa degrees how important the navamsa chart is when closely tied with the natal chart.

Even some western tropical astrologers remove precession in solar and lunar return charts (making the charts essentially sidereal) because those charts read better for them. Robert Hand removes precession, and Marc Penfield has written an entire book on tropical returns with precession removed. So the timing issue of solar returns is very far from being settled.

As far as I know, Cyril Fagan arrived at his zodiac and ayanamsa conclusions quite independently of India. Initially, however, Donald Bradley used the Chitra (Lahiri) ayanamsa, but his research led him to the western sidereal ayanamsa. (I have those early writings from Fagan and Bradley, but don't have time to check them this evening.) Actually some of Bradley's research was rather sloppy, and he didn't leave us any records to check.

For Jyotish astrologers, when western scholars refer to "Horoscopic Astrology" they're referring to the entire system of signs, houses, aspects, ruling planets, lots, timing devices, dwads, navamsas, etc. All of this appeared quite suddenly in Hellenistic times, and it's not found in India's very ancient texts. The Indian nakshatras pre-dated any record of horoscopic astrology. (I meant to include this paragraph in my previous post.)

Best,
Therese