Re: Ayanamsha

16
delaforge wrote:A point to clear up first, Therese. When you say 'the Fagan school', do you mean western siderealists in general (give or take the odd individualist who has gone off to plow her/his own furrow)? Or are you distinguishing between the Fagan school and other western siderealists?
In the past when I used the term "western sidereal," Martin felt that the term was confusing, so I now identify the Fagan school using his name. In the United States "western sidereal" has come to identify the Fagan school. There are no other siderealits except those who practice Jyotish. Cyril Fagan planted a tree, but the tree has branched out to individual practices. But all use the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa.
I recall Fagan's idea that the first sign of the zodiac ought to be Libra - something about Librans being keen on hats (first sign = head)? That last part could be a misremembering.
Yes, one of Fagan's quirky ideas.
Thanks for bringing me up to date on the Fagan system as it is used today. I'm shocked, but would rather know truth than not know.
You're welcome, Melissa. Today's Fagan school astrologers depend on the planets, angles and return charts in the analysis of birth charts. The main spokespeople for this system are Jim Eshelman (whose site has been referred to in discussions here), Ken Bowser, whose book is planned to be released soon, and here on Skyscript Dave Monroe has developed his own system of progressing charts.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Re: Ayanamsha in mundane astrology

17
Diego Alejandro Torres wrote:Hi all.

Ayanamsa What is the most accurate for use in Mundane Astrology?

It is important to use a precise ayanamsa mundane astrology, for 1 minute difference can make a sign be given different topics Ascending mundi solar income, etc.. For this reason it is important to know what the ayanamsa more accurate to use in mundane astrology.

Please if anyone has experience in mundane astrology using the sidereal zodiac, please reply to this message.

Thank you very much in advance!
The ayanamsa what would be the most precise for mundane astrology would be the same ayanamsa that works best for natal, elective, and horary astrology. The opinions of astrologers differ on this. I've used the KP ayanamsa to relate sign ingress charts to large earthquakes that bring much loss of life.

Lahiri does not work at all for those charts. Because the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa is almost a degree different (59 minutes), sometimes those charts work fairly well, but the Moon will be a day off. The sign and degree of the Moon is a key to relating the ingress chart to the quake chart.

Otherwise I haven't worked much with mundane astrology. It would be a fertile area of research to test the ayanamsa, especially if we're testing sign ingress charts.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Ayanamsha

18
Therese,

You've added to my store of knowledge - in more ways than one.

I have been referring to 'western siderealists' in posts (and haven't yet been pulled up because of it). Will try to remember to speak in future of the Fagan school - which is, after all, the area of western siderealism I know something about.

Am familiar with Eshelman's work. Or was. Back then I rather liked what he was saying. Bowser is new to me. (I've been away from the area a long time.) Will keep an eye out for his book.

Melissa

19
Regarding the Fagan-Allen ayanamsha: it was honed statistically on disasters, i.e. so-called "Acts of God," more than rainfall. Further, work by Peter Huber at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology that was published in Centaurus volume 5, (1958) in an article entitled "Uber Den Nullpunkt Der Babylonischen Ekliptik," (On the Zero Point of the Babylonian Ecliptic) provided rough corroboration of the Fagan-Allen ayanamsha. That is, what Bradley arrived at circa 1950 was close to what the 1st millennium B.C. Babylonians used.

I often hear and read that the first bhukti of a new dasa often does not give what are called "full results." My view is that such less than full results must be due to the wrong ayanmsha, because in my experience, a new dasa (with Fagan-Allen) makes one's circumstances turn on a dime.

I, for one, use the navamsa and find it a useful supplement to the natus.

My opinion is that the acid test of the accuracy of an ayanamsha is not in divisional charts however, but in the transits to and directions of the angles of solar and lunar returns.
Ken Bowser
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Ken Bowser

21
By directions I mean the movement of the horizon and meridian. With progressions you move the planets. With directions you move the angles.
Directing the angles is pretty close to primary directions which is done in the equatorial system.

No I haven't used tithis for anything that relates to directing because you can't direct angles in longitude. It produces a classic apples and oranges problem. That is, the angles are reckoned in right ascension but tithis are reckoned in longitude. To add tithis to a mid-heaven or an ascendant would be like adding dollars to euros. There is no such animal.
Aloha,
Ken
Ken Bowser

23
Welcome to the forum, Ken! The following is slightly off-topic, and might more properly belong in the Indian forum, but I'll pose the question here for now:
Ken Bowser wrote:I often hear and read that the first bhukti of a new dasa often does not give what are called "full results." My view is that such less than full results must be due to the wrong ayanmsha, because in my experience, a new dasa (with Fagan-Allen) makes one's circumstances turn on a dime.
I presume you are speaking of Vimshottari dashas? There are a number of variables involved in calculating them apart from the ayanamsha. May I ask if your experiences have been based on the use of a geocentric or topocentric (parallax-corrected) Moon longitude?
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

24
There is a closer That the Ayanamsha Fagan in his article Huber published in 1958. The Ayanamsha to which I refer is the Ayanamsha "Chandra Hari".

The "Chandra Hari" Ayanamsha differs from Babylonian (Huber) for only 3' minutes of arc (three minutes).

The most interesting thing I see the Ayanamsha "Chandra Hari", is lift the astronomer-astrologer of India Mr. Chandra Hari makes his own Ayanamsha. This Ayanamsha also known as "Ayanamsha Mooladara".
http://www.plateriadat.com/talismanes.html

25
I don't know the protocol for answering several posts, so let me say in response to Varuna, Martin and Diego that sidereal solar returns are based on the return of the Sun to its natal position, exact to the second of arc, but the angles that result from whatever that time turns out to be have to be directed in RA; so as with most astrological considerations, the ecliptic and equatorial systems are both employed. Modern astrologers have to a significant degree abandoned the equatorial system but the old masters did not. My experience is that the siderealists, in particular, fully embrace the equatorial system.

With regard to vimshottari dasa, I use a geocentric moon although I would be inclined to use a topocentric moon if the native were born with the moon on the horizon but I haven't experimented enough with that notion to know for a fact that topocentric gives better results for a horizon moon.

Regarding the thorny issue of ayanamshas, I'm strongly inclined to let that matter be settled as Bradley did: by observation. That is, the right ayanamsha makes planets angular on time, which is why I can with confidence from experience dismiss Lahiri.
Ken Bowser

26
Ken Bowser wrote:With regard to vimshottari dasa, I use a geocentric moon although I would be inclined to use a topocentric moon if the native were born with the moon on the horizon but I haven't experimented enough with that notion to know for a fact that topocentric gives better results for a horizon moon.
Thank you. I personally always correct for parallax. Then there is the issue of whether to calculate dashas by longitude or time (modern authors and software seem always to go for longitude, but the classical texts mention both methods); whether always to use the Moon for finding the starting point (some texts indicate that the ascendant may be used); which kind of year to use (true solar, 360-day or some other variant); etc, etc. So invoking dashas to settle the ayanamsha issue is problematic.
That is, the right ayanamsha makes planets angular on time, which is why I can with confidence from experience dismiss Lahiri.
I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with Bradley's methods. In what way can ayanamsha affect angularity?
https://astrology.martingansten.com/