Andrew Mason

Jyotish


Скачать книгу

target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_c7525c9c-d41a-5813-b2d5-74ba159dfb17">42

      Had Chitrā been considered fiducial, it only remained to calculate the coincidence of this Yogatârâ with the autumnal equinox and infer the initial point of the zodiac. This, you might think, neatly wraps up the matter on two counts: first, Chitrā’s rather exacting degree of longitude; and second, having such data endorsed by an esteemed Siddhânta, adding legitimacy to the whole proposal. However, the referral star idea is not without controversy!

image

      Solstices and equinox as of ad 285, Chitrā Yogatârâ (α Virginis) providing the referral point for Chitrāpakṣa Ayanāṃśa.

      In defence of this conclusion it may be said that the absolute identity of ζ Piscium as the initial point of the zodiac is not without some doubt but overall there is good historical as well as astronomical reasoning behind its use. First, ζ Piscium rests almost exactly upon the ecliptic and resides at the juncture of Pisces and Aries. Second, Sûrya Siddhânta itself informs us that the initial point is to be found 10′ east of Revati’s Yogatârâ, with no mention of any referral point. Revatipakṣa is not without some traditional astrological credence, having been favoured by south India astrologers prior to the 19th and into the 20th century. Before the emergence of Chitrāpakṣa, Revatipakṣa was one of the more widely accepted Ayanāṃśa in recent Indian history.

      Forewarning: Adjustment of Ayanāṃśa requires a sense of adventure and experimentation, but mostly an open-mindedness on the part of the astrologer. Armed with these, all corners of the Jyotish toolbox become accessible, even its darkest, dustiest draws!

      I imagine readers making it this far without skipping pages are hitting their heads against a wall or starting to appreciate why this subject seldom gets an airing. Some well-meaning astrologers have made it their personal mission to prove one Ayanāṃśa over another; however, such claims become difficult to substantiate or turn out to harbour vested self-interest.

      In Chapter 2, ‘General Theory of Astrology’, of the same book, Ponde suggests an epoch value of AD 522, yet in one Ayanāṃśa calculation mistakenly cites AD 239 as being the most recent epoch of coincidence. He also suggests an annual precessional rate of 50.1″ in his primary calculation yet later amends the value to 50″. These anomalies, though slightly frustrating, should not detract from the overall validity of the calculation. It is highly likely the inconsistencies relate to a historical confusion on the part of the author, or were just publishing oversights.

      Ponde’s value was first introduced to me by an astrologer I consider to be a particularly accurate astrologer and after a good number of years of comparison (between it and other popular rivals), I eventually opted for the former.

      The following Ayanāṃśa correction is given by Shil Ponde for an epoch of 9 October 1920 at 12.00pm GMT:

      1920

      –522 (AD 522 – date of sidereal/tropical coincidence)

      = 1398

      ×50.1″ (annual precession value)

      = 70039.8 (precession value at birth)

      /3600 (converts seconds of arc to degrees of arc)

      = 19.4555

      (4555)×60 = 273,300

      19° 27′ 00″

      Note: Software permitting, an easier method of applying Shil Ponde’s calculation (or any alternative value) would be to enter:

      Epoch Value: AD 522

      Value at Epoch: 0° 0′ 0″

      Annual Precession Value: 50.1″