Claimed to be from Atharva veda!

[Rohiniranjan]

http://www.reformedsanathancalendar.in/natchatras.html

Comments? Experiences if this is already known to you and not new!

RR

[mysbcrs]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

[mysbcrs]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!) &nbsp;:smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

[RishiRahul]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Dada, mysbcrs,

Oh! I wouldnt even worry about this unequal division thing.

Another thing. If this unequal thing were to be true, then the ground that Krishnamurthy paddhhati exists (in terms of predicting timings) would be shaken; & practically I am very comfortable with the present system.

Did Atharva veda mention about this at all? If so, in what context?

This Abhijit nakshatra is being publicised much, & is known to have to have spiritual connotations; but does it disturb the actual structure of nakshatr's much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhijit

RishiRahul

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Dada, mysbcrs,

Oh! I wouldnt even worry about this unequal division thing.

Another thing. If this unequal thing were to be true, then the ground that Krishnamurthy paddhhati exists (in terms of predicting timings) would be shaken; & practically I am very comfortable with the present system.

Did Atharva veda mention about this at all? If so, in what context?

This Abhijit nakshatra is being publicised much, & is known to have to have spiritual connotations; but does it disturb the actual structure of nakshatr's much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhijit

RishiRahul

Dear Rishi,

It is not so much a worry, but the fact that Abhijita plays a role in our Jyotish framework!

As I am sure you know!

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan (Dada -- the bangali type and not bambaiyaa!) &nbsp;:smt004

[mysbcrs]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

No, I dont think that the unequal nakshatra division is related to ayanamsha. &nbsp;But when they talk about Asvini Nakshatra starting at 34"09'19.80 it is defining a new point of reference in the Zodiac which is what Ayanamsha is also about. In fact there is another "nested question" in that - Is 34"09'19.80 is based on sayana or nirayana and if nirayana what ayanamsha?

Unequal nakshatra is far more complex in terms of its ramifications. But on the face of it it is believable. All the time I was in fact thinking that the equal division was an approximation as it would be an extreme cocincidence to find millions of stars in the galaxy to have been distributed in such an exact manner.

Having said that, equal span of nakshatra is also the basis of division of 12 signs, although placidus system seems to take into account the unequal spans of the 12 signs to some extent. Hence I was curious to know whether anything has been said on this subkect by the proponents of the unequal nakshtra spans. Of-course I would also be curious whether the measurement of the spans is with reference to any specific location on Earth.

And last, but nt the least, if the astrological results prescribed in classics were based on an approximate equal spans of nakshatras, then the revisions may have no impact on astrology.( If danger level of Ganga was determined in 1920 as 10 Metres using a scale that is now found to measure only 90 centi metres, is the new danger level still 10 metres?)

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

No, I dont think that the unequal nakshatra division is related to ayanamsha.  But when they talk about Asvini Nakshatra starting at 34"09'19.80 it is defining a new point of reference in the Zodiac which is what Ayanamsha is also about. In fact there is another "nested question" in that - Is 34"09'19.80 is based on sayana or nirayana and if nirayana what ayanamsha?

Unequal nakshatra is far more complex in terms of its ramifications. But on the face of it it is believable. All the time I was in fact thinking that the equal division was an approximation as it would be an extreme cocincidence to find millions of stars in the galaxy to have been distributed in such an exact manner.

Having said that, equal span of nakshatra is also the basis of division of 12 signs, although placidus system seems to take into account the unequal spans of the 12 signs to some extent. Hence I was curious to know whether anything has been said on this subkect by the proponents of the unequal nakshtra spans. Of-course I would also be curious whether the measurement of the spans is with reference to any specific location on Earth.

And last, but nt the least, if the astrological results prescribed in classics were based on an approximate equal spans of nakshatras, then the revisions may have no impact on astrology.( If danger level of Ganga was determined in 1920 as 10 Metres using a scale that is now found to measure only 90 centi metres, is the new danger level still 10 metres?)

Dear CRS ji,

That article link might have the contact info of the author who might be able to answer you, although he or she might refer you to the author/authors of Atharva Veda (now that could be problematical, unless you can find a reliable seance medium )

Your hopefully not simply tongue-in-cheek last paragraph is indeed a cause of concern. A somewhat similar situation I faced when studying some very old (ancestral) horoscopes. Many of these gave just the epoch of birth in ishta (ghat pal etc) which meant duration since sunrise, Since the panchaang had "dust to dust returnest!" and panchaangs are know to be terribly variable, one from another and all kinds in use it posed problems. Not to mention, which epoch of sunrise was utilized (center, limbus, refraction and parallax corrected?). Same but with minor effect is the practice today of durations based on date or degree. A veritable dog's breakfast!

OYE VAY!

Next lifetime, I am going to be born a psychic! Or a palmist or omenologist! More certainty there ;-P

Love, Light, Levity,

Rohiniranjan

[RishiRahul]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Dada, mysbcrs,

Oh! I wouldnt even worry about this unequal division thing.

Another thing. If this unequal thing were to be true, then the ground that Krishnamurthy paddhhati exists (in terms of predicting timings) would be shaken; & practically I am very comfortable with the present system.

Did Atharva veda mention about this at all? If so, in what context?

This Abhijit nakshatra is being publicised much, & is known to have to have spiritual connotations; but does it disturb the actual structure of nakshatr's much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhijit

RishiRahul

Dear Rishi,

It is not so much a worry, but the fact that Abhijita plays a role in our Jyotish framework!

As I am sure you know!

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan (Dada -- the bangali type and not bambaiyaa!)  :smt004

Dear Dada (bengali type!),


Thinking further or trying to explain this (of course in terms of my perception), given the 'fact' that history may not be always relied upon:=

I would prefer thinking of the Abhijit nakashatra as THAT part of the usually belived nakshatra zodiac having 'Abhijit' Qualities.

Dont worry, as years go by newer concepts will arise, surprising 'us' or 'many'.
Science (or even art or any craft) is progressive as the 'time', or even 'age' is = So adapting this in terms of the old established would make good sense in predictive (phalit).

While 'also' basing philosophical truths in this materially driven society may not be meaningful.

I hope I know as you do.

A native single wailing in a desert , has better chances to understand "philosophical" knowledge.
Of course, the above said in terms of others wailing together ot another trying to make his vice loud (bold/capital words).

Cheers,

Bhai (both types being better than one )

[RishiRahul]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

No, I dont think that the unequal nakshatra division is related to ayanamsha.  But when they talk about Asvini Nakshatra starting at 34"09'19.80 it is defining a new point of reference in the Zodiac which is what Ayanamsha is also about. In fact there is another "nested question" in that - Is 34"09'19.80 is based on sayana or nirayana and if nirayana what ayanamsha?

Unequal nakshatra is far more complex in terms of its ramifications. But on the face of it it is believable. All the time I was in fact thinking that the equal division was an approximation as it would be an extreme cocincidence to find millions of stars in the galaxy to have been distributed in such an exact manner.

Having said that, equal span of nakshatra is also the basis of division of 12 signs, although placidus system seems to take into account the unequal spans of the 12 signs to some extent. Hence I was curious to know whether anything has been said on this subkect by the proponents of the unequal nakshtra spans. Of-course I would also be curious whether the measurement of the spans is with reference to any specific location on Earth.

And last, but nt the least, if the astrological results prescribed in classics were based on an approximate equal spans of nakshatras, then the revisions may have no impact on astrology.( If danger level of Ganga was determined in 1920 as 10 Metres using a scale that is now found to measure only 90 centi metres, is the new danger level still 10 metres?)

Could it be that the danger level of ganga evaluated before to after was driven by change in geography/circumstance?

RishiRahul

[Rohiniranjan]

RR ji,

Interesting and thanks for the link. Am I to interpret as a suggestion to reset the ayanamsa to 34"09'19.80?

Since the I am also curious whether the 4 padas within the Nakshatra are equal or not. If they are equal does it mean we redraw the boundaries of the 12 rasis based on these nakashatra (which in turn depends on the span of the four padas of each Nakshatra). I am not sure whether usage of longitudes in the table by itself implies that the Rasis remain as they are.

The sharing has neither been endorsed, approved nor blessed by Rohiniranjan or Crystal Pages, but merely passed on as interesting *information*!

Please do not change your wallpaper impulsively <LOL>

Love and Light and Levity,

Rohiniranjan

Ha ha ! No I dont intend to change it anytime soon. I have this (bad?) habit of being sceptic (this time I hope I got the spelling right!)  :smt005

I just wanted to understand whether the logic behind this revised nakshatra positions and ayanamsha is the same (precession of equinox?) or the logical foundations of both are very different?

Also I am hoping that some members of the forum may have actually experimented with these revised positions and gone into other questions that I raised. If they can share something it will be nice.

Fair enough!
Being a sceptic (or skeptic; both spellings are acceptable!) is not necessarily a bad place to be in! To some extent, I am one too and have been for a long long time (in this lifetime, at least )

However, sceptics are best convinced if they prove things to themselves! Even if they trust someone else's knowledge, experience, clarity, just having someone answer a doubt does not often help! Other sceptics might feel differently, of course <LOL>

By the way, I just found the link to contain interesting information and it was shared by a couple of sidereal astrologers who probably also know and use Jyotish. According to them, it seemed to fit their charts etc better than the equally-spaced 27 star division of the zodiac that most of us use as Nakshatra.

So, before spending time with it, I wanted to run it by you friends and others elsewhere to see if anyone else has worked with these and that would prevent me from reinventing the wheel, as they say! TIME is after all MONEY, as they say!

All that said, I did not quite understand why you are linking this unusual nakshatra division system with ayanamsha! Do you think that the equal vs unequal nakshatra division systems would be sensitive to ayanamsha...? Please address and elaborate a bit more, so that others who are experienced in the variant system (allegedly to be from Atharv-veda) might be able to comment.

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

No, I dont think that the unequal nakshatra division is related to ayanamsha.  But when they talk about Asvini Nakshatra starting at 34"09'19.80 it is defining a new point of reference in the Zodiac which is what Ayanamsha is also about. In fact there is another "nested question" in that - Is 34"09'19.80 is based on sayana or nirayana and if nirayana what ayanamsha?

Unequal nakshatra is far more complex in terms of its ramifications. But on the face of it it is believable. All the time I was in fact thinking that the equal division was an approximation as it would be an extreme cocincidence to find millions of stars in the galaxy to have been distributed in such an exact manner.

Having said that, equal span of nakshatra is also the basis of division of 12 signs, although placidus system seems to take into account the unequal spans of the 12 signs to some extent. Hence I was curious to know whether anything has been said on this subkect by the proponents of the unequal nakshtra spans. Of-course I would also be curious whether the measurement of the spans is with reference to any specific location on Earth.

And last, but nt the least, if the astrological results prescribed in classics were based on an approximate equal spans of nakshatras, then the revisions may have no impact on astrology.( If danger level of Ganga was determined in 1920 as 10 Metres using a scale that is now found to measure only 90 centi metres, is the new danger level still 10 metres?)

Could it be that the danger level of ganga evaluated before to after was driven by change in geography/circumstance?

RishiRahul

Let us take an even more concrete example. For instance small pox. It used to be fairly commonly seen in India decades ago. Its biggest aftereffect was blindness and as per WHO once every 8th blind person in the world used to be an Indian. Now let us say, there is an astrological combination that nearly 100% was associated with small pox.

Now move to 2013 when small pox has nearly (at least on the books since not every single indian household was possibly checked in a hugely populated nation where census too cannot capture 100%) completely been eradicated due to health measures and vaccination etc.

But, the astrological combination would still occur in charts, would it not? But no small pox!

Lots of things have changed in the world since jyotish was spoken and scribed God alone knows how long ago!

Should we reinterpret some of the things or remain parrots?

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

[mysbcrs]

Could it be that the danger level of ganga evaluated before to after was driven by change in geography/circumstance?

RishiRahul

Let us take an even more concrete example. For instance small pox. It used to be fairly commonly seen in India decades ago. Its biggest aftereffect was blindness and as per WHO once every 8th blind person in the world used to be an Indian. Now let us say, there is an astrological combination that nearly 100% was associated with small pox.

Now move to 2013 when small pox has nearly (at least on the books since not every single indian household was possibly checked in a hugely populated nation where census too cannot capture 100%) completely been eradicated due to health measures and vaccination etc.

But, the astrological combination would still occur in charts, would it not? But no small pox!

Lots of things have changed in the world since jyotish was spoken and scribed God alone knows how long ago!

Should we reinterpret some of the things or remain parrots?

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Rishi ji, RR Ji,

I fully agree. If the astro combination for small-pox may need to be reinterpreted as XYZ defect. But if the astro combination was based on an approximate equal span Nakshatra system then if we were to evaluate the usefulness of the unequal system from an astrological perspective we have to formulate new rules and not expect the old ones (does not matter whether it is small pox as per classics or XYZ as per current social health state) to hold true.

[Rohiniranjan]

Could it be that the danger level of ganga evaluated before to after was driven by change in geography/circumstance?

RishiRahul

Let us take an even more concrete example. For instance small pox. It used to be fairly commonly seen in India decades ago. Its biggest aftereffect was blindness and as per WHO once every 8th blind person in the world used to be an Indian. Now let us say, there is an astrological combination that nearly 100% was associated with small pox.

Now move to 2013 when small pox has nearly (at least on the books since not every single indian household was possibly checked in a hugely populated nation where census too cannot capture 100%) completely been eradicated due to health measures and vaccination etc.

But, the astrological combination would still occur in charts, would it not? But no small pox!

Lots of things have changed in the world since jyotish was spoken and scribed God alone knows how long ago!

Should we reinterpret some of the things or remain parrots?

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Rishi ji, RR Ji,

I fully agree. If the astro combination for small-pox may need to be reinterpreted as XYZ defect. But if the astro combination was based on an approximate equal span Nakshatra system then if we were to evaluate the usefulness of the unequal system from an astrological perspective we have to formulate new rules and not expect the old ones (does not matter whether it is small pox as per classics or XYZ as per current social health state) to hold true.

But, but... CRS ji, the proponents of the atharva veda unequal nakshatra scheme are claiming that that was the older if not original system! Nearly everyone who uses jyotish uses the equal division nakshatra system in vogue and it works well, I suppose. So the *system and framework* must have already gotten changed, or it would not be working, right?

But this means that perhaps there was a different and ancient framework at one time (Atharva veda era). So, conceivably, there must have been a working framework for utilizing the unequal nakshatra scheme. But where is that??

Some folks think that at that time there was no astrology! At least not in Bharatvarsh where the Vedas were realized and written down.

Please understand that I am just interested in these matters, even though none of these changes my practice or way of doing astrology which to me is a continuing education. Even though I am curious about fossils, I have not become fossilized myself

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

[mysbcrs]

Could it be that the danger level of ganga evaluated before to after was driven by change in geography/circumstance?

RishiRahul

Let us take an even more concrete example. For instance small pox. It used to be fairly commonly seen in India decades ago. Its biggest aftereffect was blindness and as per WHO once every 8th blind person in the world used to be an Indian. Now let us say, there is an astrological combination that nearly 100% was associated with small pox.

Now move to 2013 when small pox has nearly (at least on the books since not every single indian household was possibly checked in a hugely populated nation where census too cannot capture 100%) completely been eradicated due to health measures and vaccination etc.

But, the astrological combination would still occur in charts, would it not? But no small pox!

Lots of things have changed in the world since jyotish was spoken and scribed God alone knows how long ago!

Should we reinterpret some of the things or remain parrots?

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Rishi ji, RR Ji,

I fully agree. If the astro combination for small-pox may need to be reinterpreted as XYZ defect. But if the astro combination was based on an approximate equal span Nakshatra system then if we were to evaluate the usefulness of the unequal system from an astrological perspective we have to formulate new rules and not expect the old ones (does not matter whether it is small pox as per classics or XYZ as per current social health state) to hold true.

But, but... CRS ji, the proponents of the atharva veda unequal nakshatra scheme are claiming that that was the older if not original system! Nearly everyone who uses jyotish uses the equal division nakshatra system in vogue and it works well, I suppose. So the *system and framework* must have already gotten changed, or it would not be working, right?


But this means that perhaps there was a different and ancient framework at one time (Atharva veda era). So, conceivably, there must have been a working framework for utilizing the unequal nakshatra scheme. But where is that??

CRS - Very right. Even if it is older or original, it would only be relevant to astrology only along with the rules/principles laid down alongside. Quite often we tend to take "Paramparas"/"Schools" lightly and end up using Rule A from Paramapara 1 and Rule B from Paramapara 2 making a mess of the whole thing.

Some folks think that at that time there was no astrology! At least not in Bharatvarsh where the Vedas were realized and written down.

Please understand that I am just interested in these matters, even though none of these changes my practice or way of doing astrology which to me is a continuing education. Even though I am curious about fossils, I have not become fossilized myself

CRS - I am curious too!
Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan

Absolutely.! My comments above in bold