One of the reasons you need a human being to interpret a chart for you is: little differences mean a great deal.
This is the Four Pillars chart of a famous person:
2 6 6 X 癸 己 己 乙 6 2 2 8 酉 夘 夘 未
This chart comes from a year later, but it's as similar as possible a chart to the first one, and still be a year apart:
3 8 6 X 癸 己 辛 丙 7 2 2 8 酉 夘 夘 申
As it so happens, both of these charts depict real people; these folks actually exist. The first chart belongs to actor Bruce Willis. The second is a man I’ve known since high school, a person who has accomplished many noteworthy things, but who is, himself, not particularly famous.
If small differences didn’t mean a lot, if small differences weren’t, in fact, large differences, then both of these men should be equally famous.
As both of these men have chart similarities, they do, in fact, share similarities in life. Both are actors. Both are highly creative. Both have a distinct talent for comedy. Both have had careers in the film business.
Yet the differences persist. One man is world-famous, while the other — while having done things that are world-famous — is, himself, not as well known as he deserves to be, in my opinion.
Sometimes lightning does strike twice across a span of years. Here are two charts, twelve years apart, that are as similar as charts twelve years apart can be. Both people are very famous:
3 3 2 7 庚 乙 丙 丙 9 7 0 3 辰 丑 申 戍
5 7 2 7 庚 乙 庚 戊 9 7 0 3 辰 丑 申 戍
The first chart belongs to former president Bill Clinton. The second belongs to the singer Madonna.
Clinton and Madonna are both born in Dog years. This explains how charts twelve years apart can be more similar than charts only one year apart.
Okay, one can say that their Western charts and Vedic charts will show very large differences. This is completely true. But it doesn't change the fact that only — so far — a real person can correctly interpret these charts for you.
Computers have been programmed to beat human beings in chess. They can defeat grandmasters — World Champions, in fact. Can a computer program delineate a chart better than a human being?
My answer: not yet.
At the very least, the scope of a chess game, its aims and ends, is vastly more limited than the scope of a human life. I do not forsee a computer program replacing a human being at interpreting charts in the near future. Frankly, if a computer could, I'm not certain that would be a good thing. Why I think so calls for a later essay.
Ko Hashiguchi 425-919-2169 Ko@asianastro.com