Neelakantha Trirasi Lords scheme versus Dorotean and Ptolemaic Scheme

Hi Ernst and friends

It's not difficult to know the scheme of Trirasis in the western astrology. They call it triplicities and is attached to the concept of four elements. However, even before the 4 elements were introduced in hellenistic astrology, the triplicities already existed. The logic is that signs in trines from each other have the same rulers. Neelakantha doesn't do that way, as the table below shows (I had this table in a word document and successfully pasted here for convenience)

And I think the most controversial question is: if the Tajika system best preserves the western astrological tradition within Indian territory, should we consider Neelakantha's attribution of the Trirasi rulers an error or an innovation?

If he wanted to apply a system as faithfully as possible - as it seems from his work - would it not be better to use the schemes of dignities as found in the sources from which he draws?

I am more inclined to consider it an error of Neelakantha, and to use what most Hellenistic, Byzantine and Medieval Middle Eastern astrologers applied and recommended in their books. Therefore, the choice of the ruler of the year would be better, in my opinion, considering the Trirashis as Triplicity Lords as per Dorotheus of Sidon.

the reason for this is that Neelakantha's scheme is identical to that of Dorotheus up to the fourth sign from Aries, after which it changes completely. In a Hellenistic logic, this does not make any sense: signs of the same element would be of the same triplicity and should have the same rulers.

Despite the fact that is not difficult to decide upon that, there are five candidates for being the Year Lord. Changing the scheme rarely would change the Varshapati.