Most astrology sites ask you to trust a person. This one asks you to check a method.
That is a deliberate choice, and it is the harder one. A name and a photograph are quick to produce and impossible to verify. A method can be inspected. Every dosha and yoga this site’s tool reports comes with the rule that fired and the cancellations tested against your chart, in unminified JavaScript you can read. Every classical claim in an article names the text it comes from.
This page applies to every article, table, tool result and consultation here.
What we compute with
The ephemeris. Planetary positions come from an ephemeris service built on the Swiss Ephemeris, the same computational base used by professional astrology software. We do not calculate positions ourselves, and we are not going to claim credit for the accuracy of somebody else’s ephemeris.
The ayanamsa. The site computes sidereally. For a birth on 15 August 1990 the ayanamsa returned is 23° 43′ 48″, which is Lahiri, also called Chitrapaksha. We state that as a measured value rather than a documented one: we queried it rather than reading it off a specification, and the identification as Lahiri is an inference from the number, though a safe one, since Raman for the same date would be near 22° 25′.
And the honest part about that. The ayanamsa is a genuine unresolved disagreement in Jyotish, not a settled parameter. Lahiri, Raman, Krishnamurti and several others differ by amounts large enough to move a planet across a house cusp or a nakshatra pada in a chart cast near a boundary. Anyone who tells you their ayanamsa is the correct one is overstating a live argument. If your chart sits near a cusp, a reading from a Raman-based astrologer may legitimately differ from ours, and neither is a mistake.
Divisional charts are computed to the standard Parashari definitions, and the tool produces the full shodashavarga, all sixteen. Vimshottari is the default dasha system, with the nine conditional nakshatra dasha systems reported separately and honestly, including the three that return “cannot determine” because the inputs they need are not computed. Most software prints all of them regardless. We would rather say we do not know.
The texts the writing draws on
The interpretive material across this site rests mainly on five classical works, and where an article makes a classical claim it names the text:
- Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, the base text of the Parashari system this site follows
- Saravali of Kalyanavarma
- Phaladeepika of Mantreswara
- Jataka Parijata of Vaidyanatha Dikshita
- Uttara Kalamrita of Kalidasa
A limitation worth stating plainly, and it is worse than a formatting problem. There are more than a thousand of these attributions across the site and not one of them carries a verse number. Two carry a chapter. So they are not citations in any sense that lets you check them; they point at a tradition and at a title, and that is all.
Worse, several hundred of them put text inside quotation marks. A quotation mark asserts that a particular translation reads exactly that way. We could not support that, because no edition or translator was ever named and the wording was never traced to one. Where the substance was a fair summary of what the text teaches, the quotation marks still claimed something we had not earned.
This has now been fixed across the site: roughly 690 quoted fragments in about 407 passages, across 135 files, rewritten to report the same substance under the same named work without the false precision. Nothing was deleted and no source was invented. The count is given as approximate deliberately, because our first estimate of it was wrong and we would rather publish a measured range than another confident number. Until a passage names an edition, treat every classical attribution here as this is what the tradition holds, not this is what the book says on page N. On a site that asks you to check a method rather than trust a person, this was the weakest thing on it, and pointing at it ourselves is the only version of this page worth publishing.
Where the traditions disagree, we say so
Jyotish is not one system. Parashari and Jaimini answer some questions differently. The Krishnamurti system rebuilds the sub-divisions entirely. Nadi methods work from principles the classical texts do not use. On several ordinary questions, including how to weigh a debilitated planet that has neechabhanga, competent astrologers in different lineages reach different answers from the same chart.
This site works in the Parashari mainstream and says so rather than presenting it as the whole of the subject. Where a disagreement is real and load-bearing, the page carries both readings instead of quietly picking one.
What this site will not claim
These are standing limits, not case-by-case judgements, and they apply to free pages and paid readings alike.
Nothing here diagnoses a medical condition, and nothing here is a reason to delay or stop treatment. This is the most important line on the page. Many articles describe the body: which houses and grahas classical Jyotish associates with which systems, and which periods a person has historically been careless with their health. That is a description of tendency and timing. It is not a diagnosis, a birth chart is not a scan, and an astrologer is not a clinician. If you have a symptom, see a doctor. If you are already under treatment, stay under it, and tell your doctor before changing anything, including herbs and supplements, because some interact with prescribed medicines. Where a page touches health or addiction directly, it now says this at the top and points at real help.
No death predictions. The classical literature contains ayurdaya, the longevity calculations, and this site discusses them as part of the tradition. It does not apply them to you, will not tell you when you or anyone else will die, and does not accept that question in a consultation. The calculation is genuinely part of Jyotish; using it on a living person who asked a different question is not.
No fear-based selling. No dosha here is presented as a catastrophe that only a purchase can avert. A hard dasha is weather, and weather is survived. If a reading anywhere leaves you feeling that your life has been decided for you, it was a bad reading, including if we gave it.
No vashikaran, enemy removal, or occult services. These are frauds, and the harm they do is to the person paying for them.
No claim that a chart settles a marriage. Compatibility material here is written to be used by two people deciding together. It is not written to be used by anyone to refuse a person, and we will not supply a reading for that purpose.
No guarantees of outcome. Not for a job, a visa, a pregnancy, a court case or a marriage. Anyone offering you certainty about any of those is selling something, and what they are selling is the certainty rather than the astrology.
What we do not know
Whether any of this predicts anything. This site is careful about what the tradition says and how it is computed. Neither of those establishes that the resulting statements are true of the world. We have not run a controlled test, nobody credible has published one that survives scrutiny, and we are not going to pretend the question is closed because the tradition is old.
Which ayanamsa is right. See above. It is unresolved.
Birth-time accuracy. Most of what a chart says about houses depends on a birth time that is usually recorded by a person who was busy, from a clock nobody checked. A four-minute error moves the ascendant by roughly one degree. Rectification exists and is not magic.
The calculation layer
The same standard applies to the software as to the writing. The free kundali tool is documented rule by rule rather than described in adjectives, across the tool guides: the 31 dosha conditions, the yoga rules, the nine dasha systems and Ashtakavarga.
Those pages carry the limits too: which layers run in your browser and can be read directly, which come from the ephemeris service, and which classical conditions are tested versus merely listed. The Ashtakavarga bindu tables were verified cell by cell against an independent production engine, 924 of 924 matching across eleven charts in both hemispheres, and the record of that check is published rather than summarised.
Our correction policy
Four commitments, and they are the substance of this page rather than an afterthought to it.
We correct rather than quietly delete. When something here is wrong, the page is fixed and the error is logged with a date on our corrections page.
We correct our own errors on the same terms as anyone else’s. The correction log includes claims this site made about its own work and got wrong.
Factual errors are fixed as fast as we can verify them. A wrong degree, dasha balance, attribution or sourcing claim is urgent, because someone may be making a decision on it.
Nothing here is above correction because of who wrote it, which is straightforward, because nobody’s reputation is holding any of it up.
How to report an error
Tell us what is wrong and, if you can, what it should be. A source helps and is not required; “this contradicts Phaladeepika” is a useful message even without the verse. Write to [email protected] or use the contact page.
Corrections are seva. We would rather be corrected than be trusted.