Nodal Aspects Quotes and Reasoning

[Guest guest]

Hello

 

The ending section of this long email is where I say some more

"interesting" scientific reasonsings that may be unfamiliar to many of

you, and quite interesting. I recommend the end more so than the

beginning.

 

 

OPENING STATEMENTS

-------------------

 

I have had a lot of contact too with Vedic literatures, Guru's, temples,

cults, movements etc., all based around "Vedic Knowledge".

 

We can quote the books to prove anything, as they can be confusing, or

even contradictory within themselves. Let us be open minded, present

things nicely, kindly, and just share. "We" are more important than

"it", the knowledge, as "we" are the reason for the knowledge, the

beneficiaries of it, the reason Divinity revealed it. So let's not trash

any of "we" or "us" as we share what is there for our benefit and enlightenment.

 

With that said, this nodal aspect topic caught my interest. So I quickly

upgraded my own new Classical Reference feature which will be out in GJ3

when it appears, to include the ability to do complex multi word

searches, so that I could quickly check out some major classics for

appearances of verses where the nodes and aspects are discussed

together.

 

So I just did that, ran a few searches, and found:

 

1. Yes, many verses in many classics APPEAR to refer to the nodes

aspects. I say "appear" because oddly, none of them seem to say the

nodes cast aspects when they list the planets aspects. They only refer

to the nodes aspects when giving readings. This is very odd. I wonder if

it's a translational issue, and in fact many of them actually mean "are

under the nodes influence", or in other words, "conjunction" rather than aspect.

 

2. Here's some verses where some major classics define the aspects of

the planets, note the absence of any mention of the nodes:

 

 

VERSES

-------------------

 

Laghu Parashari Sidhanti Chapter 1: Samajna Adhyaya

 

5. All planets (Sun and onwards) aspect the 7th House from it with a

full "sight" (Dristhi); while Saturn additionally aspects the 3rd and

the 10th houses, and Jupiter "glances" to the 5th and the 9th house from

it, and Mars "looks" at the 4th and the 8th Houses.

 

Muhurta Chintamani Chapter 6 - Marriage Sanskaras

 

75. The aspects of the planets: The planets have their aspect with 1

(one) charana on the 3/10 Houses from the House in which they are

situated, with 2 Charanas onthe 9/5 Houses; with 3 Charanas on the 4/8

Houses; and with 4 Charanas (full aspect) on the 7th House. Another

speciality about the the aspects of the Planets is that Saturn has his

(extra) aspect on the 3/10 Houses; Jupiter on the 9/5 Houses, and Mars

on the 4/8 Houses and all the planets have their full aspect on the 7th

House from the House in which they are posited.

 

Hora Sara Chapter 2 - Graha Lakshanas

 

13-14. The planets cast full aspect on the 7th from their position. The

aspect is 3/4th on the 4th and the 8th Bhavas. It is only half on the

5th and the 9th Bhavas. A quarter glance is made on the 3rd and the 10th

Bhavas. From Sun onwards, the planets have rays thus: 20, 8, 10, 10, 12,

14, and 16. The 12 Sign possess the same rays as their lords do.

 

(in the above verse notice no rays are mentioned for the nodes, and the

signs are never lorded by the nodes)

 

Jataka Desha MargaChapter 1: Sangya Prakaranm

 

38. Saturn casts a full glance over the 3rd and 10th house; Jupiter does

so over the 5th and 9th; and Mars over the 4th and 8th. The other

planets aspect these three pairs with a quarter, half and three quarters

of a glance respectively. All the planets aspect the 7th house with a

full glance.

 

SaravaliChapter 4 - Planetary Characters

 

32-33. PLANETARY ASPECTS: Planets lend 1/4th aspect on the 3rd and 10th,

half aspect on the 4th and 8th, 3/4 aspect on 5th and 9th and full

aspect on the 7th, from their positions. Saturn has special full aspect

on the 3rd and 10th, Jupiter on the 5th and the 9th and Mars on the 4th

and 8th. All planets aspect the 7th fully.

 

 

 

==============

B. Parashara Hora Sastra Chapter 26

==============

 

Chapter 26

 

Evaluation of Drishtis of Grahas <-------------------------

 

1. O Glorious, it is said that drishtis (of grahas) and

their strengths are to be known in deciding the effects.

How many kinds are these? Please clarify doubts.

 

2-5. Drishtis of the grahas: O Brahmin, I have earlier

stated drishtis based on rashis. The other kind is between

grahas which I detail below. 3rd and 10th, 5th and 9th, 4th

and 8th, and lastly 7th: on these places the drishtis

increase gradually in slabs of quarters i.e 1/4, 1/2,

3/4th, and full. The effects (due to such drishtis) will

also be proportionate. All grahas give a drishti to the 7th

fully. Shani, Guru and Mangal have special drishtis

respectively on the 3rd and the10th, the 5th and the 9th,

and the 4th and the 8th. The ancient preceptors have

explained these which ordinary (arising by mere rashi

positions). By subtle mathematical calculations, these

drishtis will have to be clearly understood as under.

 

6-8. Evaluations of the Drishtis of the Grahas: Deduct the

longitude of the grah (or bhava) that receives a drishti

from that of the grah which gives the drishti. If the sum

exceeds six rashis (or 180 degrees) deduct the sum again

from 10 rashis (or 300 degrees). Convert the latter sum

into degrees and divide by two. The resultant product is

Drishti Kona (or aspectual angle). If the difference

(between the grah that gives the drishti and the grah that

receives the drishti) is in excess of 5 rashis, ignore the

rashis and multiply the degrees, etc., by 2 which is the

value of the drishti. If the difference is in excess of 4

rashis deduct it from 5 rashis (or 150 degrees) and the

resultant degees, etc., become the Drishti value. If the

difference is in excess of 3 rashis deduct it from 4 rashis

(or 120 degrees) and 'halve the product to be increased by

30' (?) to get the Drishti value. If the difference is

above 2 rashis ignore the rashis and add 15 to the degrees,

etc., to get the Drishti value. If it is in excess of one

rashi, ignore the rashis and divide the degrees by 2 to get

Drishti value.

 

9-10. Special consideration for Shani's drishtis: O

Brahmin, if Shani is the grah that gives a drishti find out

the difference between him and the grah that receives the

drishti; if the sum is above 1 rashi, multiply the degrees,

etc., (ignoring rashi) by 2 to get the Drishti value. If

the sum is above nine rashis, the degrees to elapse be

doubled to get the Drishti value. If the sum is above 2

rashis, the degrees, etc., (in excess of 2 rashis) be

halved and deducted from 60. If the sum exceeds 8 rashis,

add to the degrees, etc., a figure of 30 to get the Drishti

value. In other cases, the sums be processed as explained

earlier.

 

11. Special consideration for Mangal's drishtis: Deduct the

longitude of Mangal from that of the grah that receives the

drishti (from Mangal). If the sum is 3 rashis & c (?) or 7

rashis & c, the degrees, etc., (after ignoring rashis) be

reduced from 60. If it is above 2 rashis, the degrees,

etc., be increased by half of it (i.e. add 50x) and

superadd 15. If the sum is 6 rashis, one Rup is the value.

 

12. Special consideration for Guru's drishtis: Deduct the

longitude of Guru from that of the grah taht receives the

drishti from Guru. If the resultant sum is 3 rashis & c or

7 rashis & c, halve the degrees, etc., (ignoring rashis)

and increase it by 15. It the sum is 4 rashis & c or 8

rashis 8 & c, the degrees, etc., (ignoring rashis) be

subtracted from 60 This will be the Drishti value. The sum

being in conformity with others than these be treated as

stated earlier.

 

 

END OF CHAPTER, NO MENTION OF THE NODES DIRECTLY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENDING STATEMENTS

-------------------

 

 

It is for these reasons, that in their MAIN places of discussing

aspects, that MANY of the classics never mention the nodes, that the

standard knowledge is that the nodes do not cast aspects, has arisen. I

too have always thought this. Certainly I see that MANY verses in the

same books REFER to the aspects of the nodes, but that's in English, and

I don't know Sanskrit.

 

I categorically do not have knowledge yet of Jaimini techniques or

books, and cannot say that I am going to ever love that system. I

haven't even looked at it yet. I don't know what it says, yet.

 

I haven't been compelled by science to accept nodal aspects, as true,

they are ONLY the points where the Moon crosses the ecliptic. I tend to

accept those things which also have physical believability.

 

For example, I can scientifically accept that the zodiac is beaming

energy at the earth, and that planets "in the way" of those beams mix

their radio waves into that signal. This is "planets in signs", the very

basis of all astrology. This makes total material sense. (I am a

spiritualist too, but I do see that astrology has both a

physical/scientific reality as well as a spiritual/religious basis).

 

I can also scientifically accept that some planets waves are such that

they affect zones of the zodiac's incoming waves with their own, ie,

Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, rather than just the standard aspect of the

seventh house.

 

Red paint is the fastest to fade. The sky is blue because of it's depth

in distance, just as distant trees fade in color compared to close ones,

ie, Saturn has a long wavelength, and Mars a short one. This is all

scientific. It meshes completely with Physics. The eyes have the hardest

time seeing blue, hence blue blocker sunglasses make things "clearer".

Astrology and Science usually mix perfectly well.

 

However, to say that the point the Moon crosses the ecliptic is

contantly casting aspects throughout the month even when the Moon is not

there is more difficult to believe in terms of physics and science. And

then again I don't find it in the above key lists, the main places where

graha drishti is laid down in the classics.

 

So I, like others, have been "slow" or unwilling to accept nodal

aspects. But I do remain open minded.

 

I have little faith in the translational abilities of authors, as I've

seen it proven over and over that they are often wrong, and like myself,

they are human, as I know my own faults in the pursuit of my career, so

I assume they have theirs, and I know what a monolyth Sanskrit and Vedic

knowledge really is, far above most of our heads, the translators too.

 

The frailties and shortcomings, human-ness and foibles of the likes of

Dr. Raman, Santhanam, the Choudry's, etc., are all known to me, thus not

increasing my faith, as my own do not increase my faith in my own findings.

 

So I remain very open minded, really, but perhaps a little difficult to

cajoul or convince.

 

A few verses, and preassure, from even supposedly learned souls, does

not convince me personally.

 

An eclipse is when one node is conjunct the Earths shadow, which is

going out into space. Anything conjunct that shadow truly, by longitude

and latitude, will see the Earth blocking the Sun. This is very

important. There is ALWAYS an eclipse going on, so to speak, for some

part of the zodic, namely, the spot oppostie the Sun in any chart.

 

This section of the zodiac is ALWAYS in line with Earth and Sun, and

represents the spot the sun aspects. Did you ever think that the spot

the sun aspects in your chart is always eclipsed? It is. That's

important. That's a node in a way, something physical and real.

 

The nodes are where the moon crosses the Earth/Sun plane or ecliptic as

it rises and sets above and below this plane each month, as the Moon

orbits the Earth at a severe angle off the ecliptic, unlike the other

planets, which are all on the same "disc" as the Earth and Sun nearly

perfectly. The Moon is at an angle to this in it's orbit, hence it

crosses the ecliptic once "going down" (Ketu) and once coming up (Rahu)

roughly 14 days apart each month. At these cross points, it wobbles

(NASA scientific FACT), and moves out of it's usual orbital path a bit.

It is literally pulled out of alignment by gravitation forces, which

affects tides etc.

 

That spot where it crossed mostly recently is called the node. This spot

in the zodiac represents a place where the Moon will wobble. Because of

it's motional presence in it's wave, all matter is subtly aware of this

wobble at all times. Just as if someone repeatedly makes an annoying

sound near to you, so similarly you will EXPECT that sound and possibly

HATE IT even when it is not being sounded. So that SPOT IN THE ZODIAC is

a spot we EXPECT will DISTURB our MOONS very soon, so to speak, within

14 days constantly throughout life.

 

So that SPOT in the zodiac is MARKED, or BLEMISHED so to speak, and this

is embedded in our cells, in all matter, always, like some sort of echo

impression.

 

>From this scientific understanding, we can perhaps proceed to then

deduce that other related parts of the zodiac, trinal distances etc.,

may be effected by this impression, ie, the nodes cast aspects. Perhaps

that's true. I remain open minded. But per se, I don't think that it is

necessarily so. The fact that they are not listed in the above key

places is not good for the argument.

 

The nodes are active as agents, this we know, but do they EMANATE a

wave, it's doubtful. It's a spot that is affected by something else, not

a physical body EMANATING a wave. It's more receptive, than generative.

This is the physics of this subject, in my opinion.

 

Basic Parasari astrology makes PHYSICAL sense. I am slow to accept that

which is not in line with both Spirit and Science, personally.

 

Well, that's my long two cents.

 

With love and remaining open minded,

 

Raghu Goravani

 

 

 

 

 

 

2852 Willamette St # 353

Eugene OR USA 97405

 

or

Fax: 541-343-0344

 

"Goravani Jyotish"

Vedic/Hindu Astrology Software

[Guest guest]

Hey Folks--

 

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

Sorry I've been off the air for a while -- I just got done with a move

to nearby Barrington, Illinois, but the local phone exchange carrier is

rather behind on phone installations, so I've been disconnected for a while.

:-(

 

I would caution against turning to "science"--whatever that is at the

moment--for validation of jyotish. If any of you are fans of James Burke,

as I am, he cautions against accepting science too quickly--science is

whatever society needs it to be at the moment, and all too often it falls

victim to "scenario fulfillment"--proving or finding whatever it EXPECTS to

prove or find. (Cremo and Thompson of the Bhaktivedanta Institute have

convinced me in their work that science STILL falls victim to that trap.)

(If you are not familiar with Burke, he writes a monthly column in

Scientific American, has written and hosted a variety of programs such as

Connections and The Day the Universe Changed, and written several books on

the same subject: Our western model of how change works is bogus--we

westerners like to think that things happen in discrete capsules, that

so-and-so invented the automobile or the air conditioner or whatever--and

that model just breaks down under scrutiny.)

 

So as for myself, I don't try to find scientific causes or anecdotes or

hypotheses which explain jyotish. When it comes to jyotish, I don't play in

their yard, because "science" today is (and this according to a recent

Scientific American survey) a very atheistic thing--it looks for

explanations which preclude or explain away divinity. Personally, I have no

problem with that approach, either--I mean, do we WANT scientists who

explain, say, gravity or magnetism or whatever, in terms of "that's just the

way God did it."

 

So I don't think it makes much sense to try to EXPLAIN jyotish in

scientific terms. On the other hand, I think that some of the methods used

by science can also be used to INVESTIGATE jyotish--such as the Merc retro

influence (which, Chris and Mani, I haven't forgotten--I've just been outta

the loop for a while).

 

Thus, I practice jyotish for the same reason why followers of Judaism

keep kosher--not necessarily because eating kosher is healthier than not

(which is the so-called scientific reason why many people think they keep

kosher--but one can eat just as wrecklessly following a kosher diet as not),

but simply because my faith tells me to do so, and my faith is validated by

my own experience.

 

(Has anyone else ever noticed that? To be a follower of Chistianity,

one has to have faith first, and the works come automatically later; dunno

about the other Vedic denominations, but in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, one does

the works first--regardless of the faith--and the faith comes automatically

thereafter once you see it works.)

 

The Srimad Bhagavatam seems to validate this approach to science. Sb

4.29.69 says "Krsna consciousness means constantly associating with the

Supreme Personality of Godhead in such a mental state that the devotee can

observe the cosmic manifestation exactly as the Supreme Personality of

Godhead does. Such observation is not always possible, but it becomes

manifest exactly like the dark planet known as Rähu, which is observed in

the presence of the full moon."

 

Having said that, then, I'd like to address Das' skepticism regarding

Rahu and Ketu, simply because they aren't "real"--and they aren't "real"

because we can't see them. (And the reason we can't see them is because

they aren't real. Did I say that? That's what I thought I said.)

 

Here's something Srila Prabhupada had to say about Rahu, in his purport

to Sb 4.29.69:

 

"In this connection, the darkness occurring before the full moon, the

lunar eclipse, can be explained as being another planet, known as Rähu.

According to Vedic astronomy, the Rähu planet, which is not visible, is

accepted. Sometimes the Rähu planet is visible in the presence of full

moonlight. It then appears that this Rähu planet exists somewhere near the o

rbit of the moon. The failure of modern moon excursionists may be due to the

Rähu planet. In other words, those who are supposed to be going to the moon

may actually be going to this invisible planet Rähu. Actually, they are not

going to the moon but to the planet Rähu, and after reaching this planet,

they come back. Apart from this discussion, the point is that a living

entity has immense and unlimited desires for material enjoyment, and he has

to transmigrate from one gross body to another until these desires are

exhausted."

 

Now, we may think ourselves clever and chuckle at Srila Prabhupada's

presumed naivety--ha, ha, he thinks astronauts are trying to land on the

wrong planet--but HE certainly seems to think of Rahu as being more than

just an astronomical abstraction (and he seems to be encouraging caution

with respect to accepting science blindly, and that, I think, is the crux of

what he was trying to get across).

 

So I really think it's excellent that Das keeps an open mind about the

matter. And I also am psyched to hear that GJ3 will have a more extensive

reference library. For anyone who uses the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase ...

something like THAT is what we need for the jyotish scriptures. I was

speaking with my jyotish instructor, Sri Shyamasundara Dasa, about that very

thing this morning; the problem is, Folio is pretty expensive, and you have

to have a pretty good idea about what you're searching for -- there are no

intelligent heuristics behind the query dialogs yet.

 

I totally share Das' skepticism with the prevailing English translations

of the Sanskrit classics. I keep comparing everything to Srila Prabhupada's

consummate scholarship, and it all seems to come up wanting. I'm resigned

to the conclusion that, for now, the only way around this problem is to

learn Sanskrit, which is something I'm doing now, albeit at a painfully slow

pace.

 

Oh well. Thanks for listening to my dribble.

 

jpd

[Guest guest]

Das Goravani wrote:

>

>

> Red paint is the fastest to fade. The sky is blue because of it's depth

> in distance, just as distant trees fade in color compared to close ones,

> ie, Saturn has a long wavelength, and Mars a short one. This is all

> scientific.

 

Dear Raghu,

 

How do you judge the wavelength of Mars and Saturn? If by colour, Mars has the

longer wavelength, being red!

 

This attempt to interpret astrology in terms of physics is great, but do we know

enough to get at the correct meaning?

 

I understand Phil´s objections to scientific analysis of astrology, but do NOT

agree with him. The atheistic attitude of certain scientists is certainly

annoying, but TOP scientists do believe in God, it is the "second level" that

tries to rule God out! The attitude of scientists does not disqualify the

faculty, "sastras" were an integral part of vedic teaching: the study of how

God´s laws work on earth! It is not ours to reject science but to use it with

INSIGHT = VIVEKA

, as an understanding of the principles behind the methods of the creator.

 

The ultimate question of "why" will never be answered: God might have installed

certain laws, but as "swayambhu" - Ever-Existing - he too was subject to "laws"

that he did not dictate, but has always been subject to. In the last analysis,

the answer to "why" will always be: Because it has been so!

 

But that is a long long way from us. The use of scientific investigation is in

the improvement of our techniques, increasing the utility of our efforts.

Unfortunately all too often new discoveries are used for destruction, but that

is only one side of the matter. Much has been also done for positive purposes.

Every scientific discovery or investigation helps us to find specific solutions

to problems.

 

When it comes to astrology, nobody understands why certain planetary positions

at birth lead to certain traits, events etc. We try to work out "fates" out of

12 houses and 9 or 12 heavenly bodies. We rely on aphorisms, "revealed

knowledge", as if God had laid down a certain number of "yogas" to cover all

events of a life. But billions of billions of lives are born, the yogas never

repeat themselves identically: no two people have the same fingerprints, no two

snowflakes are identical! Does God sit and formulate yogas forever?... only for

our little solar system ....?

 

The main thing about astrology is that it "shows" but does not "reveal"! at

almost every step the uncertainty is as strong as the accuracy. True, free-will

can change things - but only within a certain framework!.... We have NOT

understood the laws, we apply them blindly, read off tables, without

understanding the principle which gave the values! We try to interpret mythical

stories almost literally without really understanding them, trying to interpret

the principles in a personified matter. Are we right?

 

"During this period you will feel the effects of Saturn/ Jupiter/Sun" is great,

but how? Can we really say in which field of life the effects will be felt, how

and when? The various letters on the list show more uncertainty than certainty.

Some are self-confident, make definite predictions. But there is no feedback,

the results get bogged down by the plethora of mail - and time!.... We muddle

through!

 

I think every effort to find connections in a "scientific" manner is welcome.

True science is sastra, the effort to find "cause" and effect in a reproducible

manner, without questioning the existence of God, keeping an open mind to change

one´s ideas when new discoveries demand it - and lead to better understanding!

 

Raghu´s thoughts are welcome! But are they decisive? Do planets emanate their

characteristics or act as coloured lenses, that concentrate cosmic energies and

project them intensified by their own qualities, filtering out other qualities

to a certain extent? Seen thus, Rahu and Kethu could act as planets, since they

seem to be points where something happens in space - wobbling of the moon - as

if they were like "black holes", points of intensive gravity, without a physical

body! I cannot understand or deal with astrophysical mechanics, but this is

certain: Rahu and Kethu are not ONLY resultant points between the gravitational

forces of the earth and sun - if so they would go around the zodiac in one year,

but actually take over 18 years to do so..... There are other components .....

 

>From the texts quoted I gather the impression that Rahu (or Ketu?)is held

..

 

responsible for lunar eclipses, while Kethu (or Rahu?) is held responsible for

solar eclipses. This is not correct, they are interchangeable.

 

One problem with the nodes aspecting: Rahu and Kethu have different properties,

but always aspect each other! How one resolves this, is for study!

 

regards

Mani