India, the Largest Vault of Astrological Knowledge

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

India boasts the largest astrological library of any country. In fact, it is safe to say that more astrological texts exist in India then all the rest of the world combined. This is not because India has been a better place to do astrology, but simply due to the fact that India has the longest continuity of culture in any part of the world that practices a system of astrology using the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Astrology, however, goes back beyond recorded history, even beyond the faintest records of Indian history, as archeological evidence and legends indicate. There was a time, 8000 long years ago, when astrology was at its peak, a perfect science, much more evolved than the relatively crude systems practiced today. As the science of astrology deteriorated until a low point was reached between 500 and 750 AD, astrology became fragmented, with the grand system of zodiacal astrology being remembered in bits and fragments in different regions of the world. Due to India’s continuity of culture, more astrological techniques have been preserved there than anywhere else, though not, unfortunately, in its full state of ancient perfection – but at least the threads of astrological knowledge are there in abundance for the astrologer to pick up and study.
India has preserved the greatest amount of astrological knowledge and here we will apply some of that to horoscopes while also discussing the underlying concepts and calculations that are the foundation of any system of Zodiacal Astrology. It is our belief that astrology is larger than any culture and that no culture owns astrology and that therefore it is foolish to label astrology as Western, Greek, Persian or Hindu when, in fact, all these are simply different branches of Zodiacal Astrology, astrology that uses the 12 signs of the Zodiac. This being our belief, it is only logical for us to assume that there is only one Zodiac, whether Tropical or Sidereal. Having come across many inconsistencies in the ancient Hindu texts revolving around the Zodiac I took note that there was much evidence that the ancient Hindus before 600 AD may have actually used the tropical Zodiac. These inconsistencies are mentioned in my article The Mystery of the Zodiac which can be downloaded at http://www.vedic-astrology.net/FreeClas ... -Rasis.asp. These inconsistencies, quite naturally, disturbed me and so I spent 2 years testing every astrology technique I had ever learned from the ancient Indian astrological texts and they all worked better with the tropical Zodiac. I was shocked, but what could I do in the face of evidence but begin to use Tropical Rasis. So here we will largely discuss Vedic Astrology with the use of the tropical Zodiac, though one of our members is a sidereal Vedic Astrologer.

Ernst Wilhelm
http://www.vedic-astrology.net

[Scott_Silverman]

Hello, have downloaded yourarticle and will read it with interest. In the meantime, I am wondering if you can expand upon your remark that :

"I spent 2 years testing every astrology technique I had ever learned from the ancient Indian astrological texts and they all worked better with the tropical Zodiac. I was shocked, but what could I do in the face of evidence but begin to use Tropical Rasis".

By worked better, do you mean that you achieved better results woking predictively or via chart (character) delineation ?, or both, since you stated 'every'? How exactly did you go about this test process ? Did you start with your own chart? Do you keep a file of extremely accurately timed birth charts for the express purpose of testing? Do you employ the charts of clients, family members, historical figures? Can you show me an example? I request this not to challenge your statements but so I may understand them!

I see you have an audio file class on your website and perhaps the answers to these questions are contaned therein. If we are using whole sign houses and the seven classical planets ( and Rahu and Ketu) with Vedic delineations, aspects, but tropical rasis, is there a shift of meaning - or locus- toward the direction of the Hellenistic or medieval astrological mindset- or does the very different mythological structure underlying Indian astrology (and derived from Vedic Culture) prevent this? Finally, how do the divisional charts figure into your work with tropical rasis?

[David_Ray]

I am a practicing astrologer in Seattle. I have studied astrology since I was a teenager, studied Vedic astrology since 2000, and been a student of Ernst's since 2005. Ernst is a great teacher and has single-handedly revolutionized my understanding of Jyotish. I have had great success in the past couple years using Vedic astrology techniques with the tropical zodiac.

To answer Scott, the techniques Ernst uses are entirely from the Vedic tradition (including the Tajika or Persian techniques included in varshaphala). Many astrologers link the different zodiac calculations of sidereal/tropical to the traditions of Vedic/Western, but in fact these are entirely different things. It's just a question of how you define the zodiac that you are using with your techniques, whatever they may be. As we know, Western astrologers can use the sidereal zodiac. So why can't Vedic astrologers use the tropical zodiac? Breaking from the sidereal astrologers from India, Ernst suggests that the 12-sign zodiac is not linked to the nakshatras in a static way. The nakshatras, unique to the Vedic system, are of course sidereal, as nakshatra means "star". When using the tropical zodiac in Vedic astrology, we see that the nakshatra shift in relation to the zodiac slowly over time, reflecting the changing ages on Earth with the precession of the equinoxes.

We astrologers are in an exciting time of experimentation, when so much information from different cultures is available to us to try. As astrology continues to develop through our age, it's important to be open-minded, as well as honest with our own experience about what works and what doesn't.

I am honored to be invited to this forum and look forward to the discussions.

[David_Birr]

I compared twenty five charts from my files for people I knew well client.friends and family using vedic character delineation techniques using the tropical versus sidereal zodiac and my results were similar to Ernst,the tropical zodicac provided much greater accuracy when compared to the Sidereal.I have also used it for timing using solar return charts(varshaphala) with stunningly accurate results using the tropical zodiac.I have also used it with the various divisional charts with Nakshtra dashas,with far superior timing results.

[Laura_Barat]

I, too, have received much more predictive accuracy in using the Tropical Zodiac. I've been practicing Vedic Astrology since 1997 and just switched over to Tropical Rasis in 2008 after realizing I could not deny it's validity any longer. And believe me, I was resisting. The reasons given in Ernst's free audio class are sound, enlightening and most of all, completely logical. In addition to the sublime results I was receiving in predictions, the Nabhasa yogas and especially the Asraya yogas when used with Tropical Rasis were profoundly revealing unrivaled character analysis which I never got using Sidereal Rasis. The equatorial Nakshatras are also giving much better results in timing with the several Nakshatra dasa systems and also character analysis.

I look forward to discussing general and mundane Vedic Astrology utilizing this novel method. Thanks to Ernst and Michael Erlewine for inviting me.

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

HI Scott and Others,
I tested both zodiacs in both predictive, character and pyschological aspects of Astrology. While Vedic Astrology is largely known as a predictive system, it actually has very, very sophisticated character and psychological tools. So I tested all three. Also, one of the main points of focus was testing the qualities of the Rasis/Signs. For instance, scorpio is brown, short and thin, Aries is red and large. Leo rules mountains, etc. These qualaties are ignored by Vedic astrologers. In fact, I have never seen a vedic astrologer attempt to detail the prediction with the qualaties of the rasis. They will say, you will get married at this and this time... but not to a short girl or a tall girl. I did however, see a few western astrologers us the details of the signs with great results. using the sidereal zodiac I did not have much luck getting the details. With the tropical details popped into place quite nicely. This is a very critical aspect of testing a zodiac that is completly ignored by people testing zodiacs and ayanamsas. They try to test based on when something happens, which is tricky as there are so many timing techniques in astrology a person can almost alway find something to validate their choice of ayanamsa or zodiac. But that is not the case when dealing with the details of the signs.

One of the interesting things about the Rasis/signs is that the astrological texts that originated in India from 600 AD onward do not give the sizes of the signs, while earlier originating texts, such as Brihat Parasahra Hora Shastra do. In this text, Aries, Leo and Capricorn are large. Taurus is tall, Cancer is average height but bulkier. Scorpio is small and thin. The rest of the signs are average sized. Based on this (combined with sizes of planets) it is possible to determine the height of a person. This system is ignored in the texts after 600 AD, instead, these texts say to take the rising time of the signs and that will determine the size/length of something. The problem with that is that rising time of signs is a tropical consideration, not a sidereal consideration - so it shows just how confused about zodiacs these authors were. There was a time of at least a few hundred years when the Indian's lost the knowledge of precession and this is shown no only in thier astronomical books, but also thier philosophical books that were penned between 00-800 AD.


Ernst
www.vedic-astrology.net

[Therese_Hamilton]

Hello, Ernst, Scott, David and Laura,

I've just discovered this forum, and am very pleased the topic of rasis is being discussed. For those who don't know me, I've been around for a long time, first as a tropical astrologer in the 60s and early 70s, then as a western sidereal astrologer [[iarticles published under "Teresa Weed"] before embracing India's astrology about 30 years ago. Before the internet I wrote regularly for astrological magazines, but now I find the forums a more fruitful and exciting area for sharing ideas.

The topic of rasis/signs is dear to my heart. For many long years I've made a study of the zodiac signs in relation to thousands of horoscopes. My conclusions to date are in articles on my web site, free for reading or downloading: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm (There is nothing for sale on my web site. It's for information only.)

In their current form, India's ancient texts are a composite from different times and cultures. I don't want to argue the antiquity or lack of it in regard to India's astrology. My main point is that there are many concepts from the west that have made their way into India's revered texts. So, as Ernst has indicated in his research, a clear picture of tropical or sidereal rasis can't be clearly obtained from these texts. The picture is indeed fuzzy. Thank you, Ernst for your article on the zodiac, which I've studied. It's nice to have the references summarized in one place!

So where do we look for evidence of a true zodiac? Ernst, you seem to believe that there is only one valid zodiac. Please correct me if I've misunderstood. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.

To compound the zodiac confusion, modern authors of Jyotish texts have mainly copied tropical traits to sidereal signs. This isn't logical because the sidereal signs mainly fall in tropical areas that hold the following sign. (As, for example, sidereal Pisces is in the tropical Aries area in modern times.)

Even in India's ancient texts tropical concepts such as the division of signs into movable, fixed and dual are mentioned. This category of signs is clearly of western origin and linked to the seasons. Anyone interested in the history of this classification, please see my article on the subject of the three modalities on the site above: (The Lost Zodiac, Part 4: Myth of the Modalities)

In order to fully explore sidereal signs, I've laid a theoretical foundation beginning with the symbology of the Sun and Moon (The Lost Zodiac Parts 1-4). I believe these concepts are a fruitful foundation for building an understanding of sidereal rasis. My premise, first suggested by Cyril Fagan, is that the traits observed in tropical signs are mainly a bleed-through of the underlying sidereal rasis. There is a closer similarity between ruling planets and sidereal signs than in the tropical system. I would be interested in opinions on this point if anyone has time to read my articles. (I am still working on planet-sign articles, but Aries, Taurus, and Gemini are posted.)

If there is no difference in sign traits for any area of the ecliptic, then we can't use character or the psychology of signs/rasis to validate a zodiac. We'll need to look to mathematical evidence, such as the timing of dasas and a study of solar return charts. We have to look at many specific examples in the areas Ernst has mentioned to fully understand how the zodiac operates.

Ernst, I'm wondering if we can begin a discussion of specifics in your zodiac research that led you to the conclusion of the validity of tropical signs? (However, regarding the physical appearance linked to zodiac signs, in all honesty we don't know if these were originally from India or the west, and planets always mix with sign traits.) I believe we need more exact areas for research. If we have specific birth data, and an example of a technique or principle you used for starters, we might have an exciting discussion. I hope you'll have time for a reply. Thank you.

Therese Hamilton
http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Hello Therese,
thank you for your well written post and I would like to converse with you, but first I want to read over everthying on your website and since you wrote so much interesting material there I am afraid that will take me a few days, so please be patient with me and I will get back to you soon.

Take care,
Ernst

[Therese_Hamilton]

Thank you very much for your reply, Ernst. I'm just finishing up some additional notes on polarity and the trigons which will probably be posted this evening. Take all the time you need. I'm honored that you are taking time to read my articles. I'm *extremely* interested in your reasons for using tropical rasis because I feel that GRAHA SUTRAS is definitely inspired.

Sincerely,
Therese

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Dear Therese,
my reasons for going with tropical rasis over sidereal rasis is simply everything. Every technique that I have tried, wether predictive, psycholoigcal, character, medical or Tajika all worked better tropically. Not a single technique tested out more accurate with the sidereal zodiac, no matter the ayanamsa being used. Testing zodiac's is a major undertaking and quite honestly, not one most people are equiped to undertake. The reason being that most techiniques in circulation are just not that accurate. This may come as shocking, but the majority of astrological techniques in circulation are only 40% accurate! That is the low level of predictive astrology that most astrologers are working with. It is only through intuition that astrologers are able to make any progress with the majority of thier techniques. Intuition helps the astrologer to grab the technique that just happens to work on that particular chart. Itis for this reason that astrologers across the glob get the same degree of results no matter what zodiac or ayanamsa or dasa they use. But try the same techinique the same way on lots of charts and 90% of techiniques will be shown as not scientific nor statistically accurate. So the difficulty with testing zodiacs is who can one test a zodiac with an imperfrect of incomplete technique and how can one test a technique when the correct zodaic and ayanamsa are not known? It is a conundrum that can only be worked out a bit at a time, a little improvement in zodiac, a little improvment in technique, then a little more improvement in zodiac, etc. until the job gets done.

I worked in that way for years with vedic techniques and sideral rasis and over the years came closer and closer to what seemed the most accurate ayanamsa, but the list of things that did not work out to a reasonable level was very long. Then one day I had an intense thought that Rasis are Tropical and Nakshatras are Sidereal and that they are two different things. I looked at some charts over the next week and it seemed very promising, but overwhelming after years of working with sidereal and just getting my life in order, did I want to open up this can or worms? I was just to tired. The kids just started to sleep after three years of keeping us up all night long and we were just exhausted, did not want to go into that research... But 6 months later I was rested and the idea kept coming back so I spent 2 years testing every technique and they all worked better - every single one. Techniques that regularly failed in sidereal, worked beautifully with tropical. Any technique that you try, if it is being done correctly, I am sure will pan out better in tropical. If it is not done correclty it will not prove to favor either the tropical or sidereal zodiac.

Another problem with testing for the correct zodiac is that the basics of astrology are in dissaray. The details of the Rasis and Planets are not clearly defined or poorly translated and so most astrologers have a lot of grey areas in these basic fundamentals. I explain a lot of this in my Graha Sutras book, which is an effort to clarify the Grahas in accordance with what the ancient Rishis really meant and not as turned through 2,000 years or more of cultural confusion, bad translations and lack of understanding that we see tainting a lot of astrological information. Even within India different qualaties are assigned to the same sign.

So to test zodiacs, everything has to have a completely logical basis. As Sri Yuktesvar says, if it is not logical, it is not true. God, and thus Astrology, is logical. Everything needs to be thought about in the sense of "does this make sense?" And if it makes sense and works, we can consider it to be complete. If it makes sense and does not work, something must be missing, a part is still needed. If it comes from intuition, which it often does, then does what is intuitied make sense, is it logical? if not, it is probably not intuition, but imagination. Then finally, does it work statistically better or worse?

So that is basically what I did for 2 years with both zodiacs and the sidereal lost each time.

In respect to an idea that there are two zodiacs with different meanings and that tropical cancer is similiar to sidereal leo, is that logical? Maybe today, but in 10,000 years when Tropical Cancer is Sidereal Capricorn all logic is lost. So now sidereal Cap and not sidreal leo is like tropical cancer? And are astrologers going to change all thier meanings as the zodiacs change in respect ot each other? Then all the meanings from the old books would be meaningless except for a short period in history when the two zodiacs line up? And then instead of studing a divine science, the "eyes of the Vedas" we are studying a machination made by astrologers perceptions at which point it does not matter what zodiac is used and we might as well go play Dungeons and Dragons or some other role playing game that is based on arbitrary rules. No, astrology is a divine science and has to have logical rules otherwise it is not worth studying.

A lot of the reason that the sidereal zodiac is attractive to people is that idea that India and other such old cultures are perfect in thier knowledge, that their sciences and knowledge and social culture are so much better than ours as found in the western world, or even that they are following the true ideals from the roots of thier culture. But just becuase an old culture does it today does not make it logical or true. Is it logical to force a woman in India to return to her husband who just broke both her arms with a hammer? No, but it happens and then the girl gets hit in the head with a hammer and is now brain damaged. Just becuase india has a recent history of using the sidereal zodiac does not make it logical anymore than thier historical ideas of what women are meant to accept. The same "bhramins" who have mainted India's astrology with all its calculation errors are the same "brahmins" who have considered woman as unclean or worse and fit only to follow thier husbands even to thier doom. The same type of brahimins that the above woman was married to. Varaha Mihira did not beleive this, he thought of Woman being the essence of Dharma and completely pure throughout every fiber of thier being - he used the tropical zoidac. So how can so many people follow the zodiac so blindly when it comes for a culture that is not any more perfect than any other culture? Everyone I have sat down with and talked about their specific reasons for thinking sideral is more accurate have left agreeing that tropical is more accurate. Please give me an example of a chart that causes you to think that sidereal is spelling out the answer.

Looking forward to some test charts from you,

Ernst