particular interest. Because, as you will soon see, each section is like a book unto itself.
To say that the field of Jyotish is vast is an understatement, especially in Eastern astrology, where there are techniques, methodologies and systems that one could easily study beyond the length of one lifetime. To make matters worse, disagreements, complexities and conundrums abound. In India, at the front of many temples sit two lions, as if guarding the door. The lions are said to represent the two issues which stop disciples from what the temple has to offer – God. The two issues are doubt (that God exists) and paradox (that which appears contradictory or impossible and yet is true). If one intends to approach anywhere near a mastery of Jyotish, he or she absolutely must embrace paradox, and make peace with a significant level of confusion.
The first problem occurs when an astrologer tries to analyse the charts of twins who are born within seconds, or a minute or two, of each other. The horoscopes are near exactly the same (including, quite often, the major Varga charts – Navamsha D-9 and Dasamsha D-10) yet the two lives are dramatically different. The careers diverge, one twin divorces while the other is happily married, one is extroverted, the other somewhat shy, and so on (I am aware that some astrologers cite the Shastiamsha (D-60) Varga chart as significant for twins, but the D-60 has absolutely nothing to do with career or marriage, to name only two major life conditions). We know from experience that astrology works. So, what gives?
The next problem occurs about five to ten years into our practice, when, if we are truly honest with ourselves and diligent in our work, we come to realise that no one astrological feature works 100 per cent of the time, no matter how definitive the indication. I am referring to planets in their highest degree of exaltation, without afflictions or bad aspects from other planets, giving mediocre or poor results rather than what they should produce. Or very badly aspected planets that once in a great while produce quite positive effects. I am not, to be clear, unaware that certain features of a horoscope can unduly influence the tenor of an entire horoscope, thus rendering other features less effective. We all know that if Saturn, for example, sits on the ascendant or tightly aspects many planets, the whole chart is affected and the person may fail to realise many of the positive features. Nor am I ignoring horoscope-altering techniques such as Neechabhanga and other important yogas. Those are obvious explanations. I am addressing relatively ordinary horoscopes where a profoundly positive or profoundly negative indication simply falls completely flat. In over 35 years of practice, I have witnessed this odd and rare phenomena a few too many times. Quite simply, there is not one definitively powerful positive or negative feature in all of astrology that, if we are honest, we have not seen utterly fail at least a few times. Why does this happen?
Next comes the issue of different astrological systems sometimes contradicting each other or indicating dramatically different outcomes. In the fall of 1992, about three or four months before my second marriage, an interesting thing happened. Using the most popular and widely used Jyotish system, Parasara, I could not find any indications whatsoever of my upcoming wedding. Nor could I find any such indications in my Western horoscope transits or progressions. Yet, I was sure I would marry. One day the phone rang and my friend Richard Houck, author of several Hindu astrology books and someone who also used Western solar, primary and lunar progressions, called to tell me to stop making wedding plans because there was positively nothing indicating marriage! The call was shocking because Rick had a wonderful predictive track record. He lived near Washington, DC and consistently predicted political elections accurately. He also had a thriving professional astrology business, and actually rectified the horoscope of every single client he ever worked for. If several major events did not occur in the client’s life at the time the horoscope indicated, he would back up the birth time or move it forward until the chart fit. If rectifying the birth time required a big time change to produce accuracy, he refused to read the chart until the person did more research on their birth data.
When Rick made his declaration of no marriage, I replied, ‘I know, Rick. I can’t find marriage in my Hindu or Western chart. But I am getting married.’ ‘No, you’re not,’ he said, while laughing. Well, the marriage occurred on schedule and 24 years later is still going strong, thank you very much. Later that year, about nine or ten months after my wedding, I taught at the Vedic Astrology Conference in California. There I met K.N. Rao, who gave a workshop on the Jaimini astrological system. I asked him if marriage showed up in my horoscope in 1993 within the Jaimini system and he replied, ‘Yes, yes. It is right here.’ At first, sceptic that I am, I had my doubts. But as I studied, it became obvious that he was not lying. In October 1991, at the age of 40, I entered Libra dasa. Libra is the sign of relationships and in my chart Libra holds Mercury, the marriage indicator within my Jaimini horoscope (the marriage indicator is called Dara Kāraka, and is the planet in the lowest degree of all the planets. Mercury is in the 3rd degree of my chart, lower than all others). As soon as Libra dasa started, I began the strongest relationship in more than a decade, and within 15 months we married.
These are but a few of the complexities, conundrums and paradoxes in our field. Which brings us to the most critical and controversial astrological issue of all, the all-important Ayanāmśa. The Ayanāmśa, described fully in Chapter 1 – and in more detail than I have ever seen – is the calculation that allows astrologers to determine when the coincidence of the two zodiacs, the tropical (based on the spring equinox) and the sidereal (based on fixed stars), last occurred. It is generally accepted that this event happened somewhere between 200 and 550 AD. This 350-year discrepancy, unfortunately, can cause a horoscope error of up to approximately 5º. Aside from causing ascendants of many horoscopes to change signs, the dasas and bhukti dates become radically altered.
Disagreements about which date and calculation to use have been so prevalent over the centuries that in 1952 the Government of India commissioned seven academics, one of whom (N.C. Lahiri) also had some prior knowledge of astrology, to come up with a decisive figure that the government would sanction. The result, after three years of research, became what is called the Lahiri Ayanāmśa. And it is now the most popular, widely accepted calculation by astrologers.
Andrew reports that researching the Ayanāmśa issue is akin to opening a Pandora’s box of epic proportions. The deeper he delved, the more technical and historical problems he found – from all the proposed Ayanāmśa figures. To mention a few issues: al-Bīrūnī (the 10th-century AD Islamic scholar), travelling in India, noted that astrologers’ and astronomers’ identification of certain key stars (used to plot zodiacal increments) varied from region to region. Next, what appear to be singular points of light are sometimes two stars which, when viewed at great distance, appear as one. Then, while some ancient texts appear to be aware of the precession of equinoxes, others do not. Further, many of the centuries-old texts we use today appear to have been periodically rewritten over the centuries, with some authors adding their own thoughts and views without acknowledgement. As if all this is not enough, it seems that the rate of precession is not constant, and by all accounts has sped up in the last 2000 years. This little-known phenomena, according to Andrew, is not well understood. If so, delineating an accurate Ayanāmśa is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Pandora’s box indeed.
Andrew suggests that perhaps the clearest remaining textbook description of Ayanāmśa may be given in Sûrya Siddhânta (written sometime within the 4th century AD) and confirmed by Varāhamihira in his Pañca Siddhântika (5th century AD). This figure, properly referred to as Revatipakṣa, was also followed by the respected astrologer Shil Ponde. In Chapter 1 of his book Hindu Astrology (1939), he suggests an Ayanāmśa based on Revatipakṣa, this appearing to be the most historically relevant in his era.
Andrew makes a strong astronomical case for Ponde’s calculation, and it is easy to accept that Indian astrologers may have used this Ayanāmśa because it was promoted in Sûrya Siddhânta, one of the most respected and trustworthy ancient texts. This I do not doubt.
The problem, however, is that, as a practising astrologer for over 30 years, the only Ayanāmśas that have worked for me have been Lahiri’s and (occasionally) Krishnamurthi’s. These two Ayanāmśas are extremely close to each other (within 5 or 6 seconds) and therefore produce horoscopes with near-exact ascendant