Confused by Ayanams...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Confused by Ayanamsa calculation in Kala

4 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
99 Views
Posts: 8
Topic starter
(@adlhart)
Active Member
Joined: 1 year ago

Hi,

I'm a little confused by the calculation result in Kala concerning the Ayanamsa.

I use the predefined "Galactic Center (Gil Brand) which is defined as 22:28:14 for 1/2000. When I create a new chart with the birth date 1.1.2000 the Kaala Jataka screen shows: 22:27:54.

When I use a user defined Ayanamsa (22:28:14, reference data 2000/1/1) Kaala Jataka screen shows: 22:28:00.

I am aware that the difference is not large but I cannot understand why it occurs.

Maybe somebody can explain it to me. Thank you

Best regards

Thomas

3 Replies
Ernst Wilhelm
Posts: 3640
Admin
(@ernst)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago

I think you will need to calculate it for midnight GMT, did you try that?

Reply
Posts: 8
Topic starter
(@adlhart)
Active Member
Joined: 1 year ago

Hi Ernst,

Thank you for your reply,

Unfortunately using GMT and midnight does not change the situation.

Therefore I did some trial and error work using a second horoscope program.

I tried to get an answer for the following questions to check the two results in Kala. 22:28:00 using the user defined Ayanamsa 22:28:14 and 22:27:54 using the predefined Galactic Center (Gil Brand).

1.) 22:28:00 is the result when changing the birth date from 2000/1/1 to 1999/9/29 with an Ayanamsa 22:28:14

2.) 22:27:54 is the result when leaving the birth date 1999/9/29 and changing the Ayanamsa to 22:28:08.

3.) 22:27:54 is the result when using the birth date 2000/1/1 and changing the Ayanamsa to 22:27:54 which I expected and just was a double check.

Maybe these informations can help you find a reason for the calculation in Kala. 

Best regards 

Thomas 

Reply
Posts: 8
Topic starter
(@adlhart)
Active Member
Joined: 1 year ago

One more information to the above subject.
If I define an Ayanamsa 22:28:28 in Kala the Kaala Jataka screen delivers the value 22:28:14, which I am looking for. 😉

Reply
Share: