Chandra Hari Ayanamsa

Dear Anil,

>However when people started practicing astrology in olden days , there

>was nothing more obvious than the bold Chitra Star and hence people

>started using Chitra pakshiya Aynamsha which are used by Lahiri.

Citra paksha ayanamsa is not used since olden days, it is an established

ayanamsa of only some 50-60 years. So what the astrologers in olden days

used is practically unknown to us. There is nowhere some specific

reference to it. In his book Mysteries of the Sacred Universe, Mr.

Thompson mentions that in the olden days the star Revati was used as a

reference to the starting point of the zodiac. Why after all Chitra would

have to be used? It is not situated on the zodiac exactly, and if

visibility is a matter, than why not Magha? Magha is very visible, and is

situated exactly on the zodiac, so why not use this star? I have done some

experiment with this one, and found an ayanamsa of 47'05" less than Lahiri

as accurate. Interesting, it is more or less the same value as Chandra

Hari, except it is less, not more than Lahiri.

Yours,

Dhira Krsna dasa,

web sites: <http://www.geocities.com/dvdd1008/Jyotisha.html>

<Dhira_ayanamsa>

<http://.org/education>

Dear Dhira Krsna ji,

This issue has been discussed no of times. Leave all the theoretical analysis,

Lahiri Ayanamsha has given very accurate and consistent results. As Shri

Narsimharao ji has mentioned in one of the posting , doing a post facto

analysis is simple but being able to predict accurately by using any theory or

any new ayanamsha is difficult. Unless you hypothesis is proved against time ,

people would continue to use Lahiri Ayanamsha.

Regards,

Anil

-

Dhira Krsna BCS

Dhira_ayanamsa ; vedic astrology

Sunday, August 28, 2005 1:58 AM

[vedic astrology] Chandra Hari Ayanamsa

Dear Anil,>However when people started practicing astrology in olden days ,

there>was nothing more obvious than the bold Chitra Star and hence

people>started using Chitra pakshiya Aynamsha which are used by Lahiri.Citra

paksha ayanamsa is not used since olden days, it is an establishedayanamsa of

only some 50-60 years. So what the astrologers in olden daysused is practically

unknown to us. There is nowhere some specificreference to it. In his book

Mysteries of the Sacred Universe, Mr.Thompson mentions that in the olden days

the star Revati was used as areference to the starting point of the zodiac. Why

after all Chitra wouldhave to be used? It is not situated on the zodiac exactly,

and ifvisibility is a matter, than why not Magha? Magha is very visible, and

issituated exactly on the zodiac, so why not use this star? I have done

someexperiment with this one, and found an ayanamsa of 47'05" less than

Lahirias accurate. Interesting, it is more or less the same value as

ChandraHari, except it is less, not more than Lahiri.Yours,Dhira Krsna dasa,web

sites: <http://www.geocities.com/dvdd1008/Jyotisha.html>

<Dhira_ayanamsa>

<http://.org/education>