Hi Ernst,
Is their a way in Kala to see how all the Nakshatras line up with the Rasis in the birth chart? I see the Nakshatra wheel, but I don't see the whole rasis linked with that. I do see cusps though.
I was trying to see how the nakshatras line up with the tropical signs.
But aren't the Nakshatras the stars along the ecliptic?
I was trying to figure out how to see that the Drhuva Galactic Center Middle of Mula Ayanamsa lines Revati star with sidereal aries.
Not exactly. There are stars that share the same names as the nakshatras, however, there is no ayanamsa made or possible where all the stars named as the nakshatras would actually fit into the nakshatra portions. There are always a couple that slip into the next or the previous nakshatra space. So nakshatras are not based on stars, but on a space of 13 degrees and 20 minutes. Galactic center middle of mula puts revati at about 10 minutes before Aries, so right where many old books claim it to be. So it supports the revati school of ayanamsas that either put revati at 0 aries or revati at 10 minutes before aries.
The other main school is the chitra school that puts chitra star at about the beginning of libra, that would include lahiri, KP, ardra galactic plane.
Kind of sounds like the Sidereal Zodiac, where the constellations don't actually meet 30 degrees in the sky but the zodiac is divided that way despite.
@scott-m-19 and also, some of the nakshatra stars are so far north or south of the ecliptic a planet will never even get remotely close to the star
I assume in the Nakshatra audio course, that you go over the astronomy of the Nakshatras??
So Nakshatras really don't have anything to do with stars as its fundamental basis but more to do with the mathematical division of a circle?
I was going to ask, why do the stars of the nakshatras are given precedence for astrology when there are many stars that we see?
Correct. People like to think the nakshatras are the stars, but if you just try to line up the stars with the nakshatras you realize its not so. Many stars do not fit in the nakshatra portion they are named after. The stars just give a rough visual idea of where a planet or moon is in the nashatras and thats it. Some of the stars, MANY OF THEM, are so far north or south of the ecliptic that a planet will never even get close to it and by close i mean within 20 degrees of arc!
So the Nakshatra division of 13:20 each is a division relevant to the ecliptic? But some the stars vary in terms of longitudinal degrees N or S from the ecliptic.
We associate the deities of the nakshatras up the heavens for a reason even though the stars don't precisely align with them. I guess because the heavens are symbolic of being "beyond the earth plane".