Why basics?

We have different schools of thought in Jyotisha (astrology, calendar and astronomy). We have so many ayanamsas. We have so many selections. We have even different planetary models. And interestingly, everyone claims his school is the best. Somewhere it sounds like ‘Mere Rin ki safedi jyada hai’ (My surf washes clothes better).

How can it be so? How can the basics such as planetary model, ayanamsha, year length etc. be chosen differently? We can definitely research and augment the basic building blocks based on the working methods but how can we alter the basic architecture itself without any strong logical or academic support?

We can provide any number of horoscope charts to justify our claims but when it comes to the basic building blocks, none of us is the authority. We have not designed the basic astrological setup. We can add on to it only after we have grasped and followed the basic blocks properly. We can decorate it using the advanced and ever-growing modern knowledge. But we can't simply say 'Mere wala Rin' (my school of thought) is the best because 'It suits me more and works for me'.

Hence if someone presents hundreds of charts to prove that his/her ayanamsha is the best, it is all crap. The fact is any ayanamsha which is not far away from the truth can justify most of the charts and at same time would fail for few. The important thing is to understand the basic philosophy of the ancient model on which the whole Indian astrology rests and then follow the same. Once the basic building blocks are identified the charts can be studied practically and if need be, an astrological principle can be refined or a new theory can be established.

Our problem is our comfort zone. We are happy if a particular setup is working more for us and don’t wish to chase the base. Take for example the ayanamsha, one goes for a choice that suits him/her personally or is popular or has an acceptance because it has been followed officially by a large crowd. Take for example the calendar, one follows the dates based on his/her faiths or popularity in the region or the country as a whole. Why? Why don't we wish to instead grasp the fundamentals first and then embrace what is logically and academically correct? It may initially be difficult but not in the long run.

Remember, a particular experience of any stalwart is an individual affair that should not be taken as the final word without reasoning. Our ancients never recommended this and always encouraged questioning. The various choices we make in jyotisha work in tandem and not distinctively. It's like if 9 out of 10 people support two plus two equals five, it does not become five but four only.

In a nutshell, the add-on flavors should be used only for the predictive techniques and enhancing/refining the dictums and theories. We have no reasons to alter the fundamental building blocks unless and until there are large deviations and valid reasons.

---

More to read

The true concept of Ayana and Nirayana

It is commonly understood that the nirayana is synonymous to the modern sidereal. But if that had been the case what’s the reference circle that is ..Read the full article..

Shame on ‘sacked’ and retirement planning

At times, we keep on doing certain things without knowing why we are doing them and do we really need to do them, take for example ..Read the full article..

The key to happiness

“Money can’t buy you happiness.”
We hear this at an early age… mostly a lesson from grandpa and ma ..Read the full article..

DD Ayanamsha – The Tamed one

Some people have written to me that I should tell them the value of the ayanamsha that I’ve achieved in my book ‘Taming the Untamed’ and I have been ..Read the full article..