Complextion/colour

[Guest guest]

Dear Chris,

The arudas may be another worthwhile avenue. However, following

the rules of jyotish, I still come up 'butt ugly'.

Rather than chase your tail with the outers and divisionals, Rasi and

Navamsa should give you all the information you need to comment accurately

on appearance.

Sometimes, a few deep breathes and a break from the puzzle helps. Also,

try visualising the person with the information you have garnered.

Oftentimes intellect is a poor servant...as we all know, looks can be

deceiving!.

Love

Ann.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ann, Wendy and all;

 

I'm glad we've had such broad participation on this question. There is a

real sense of community of learners. The whole question of attractiveness

and appearance is a slippery one to my mind. I've yet to get a clear grasp

of the essential factors. It may turn out that attractiveness is not

perceivable by the horoscope and that we're better off trying to determine

complexion, height and those sorts of things.

 

As I said to Wendy, my feeling is that there are so many ways(aspects to

Asc, lagnesh, aspects to dispositor of either) to see attractiveness in a

chart, that it's hard to tell the difference between a good looking chart

and the chart of and average looking person. I still think that jyotish

does have the means to do this, but maybe we (this is the royal "we" as

much as anything!) just need to rank the rules a bit better.

 

I thought it might be fun to make it into a little test to see how people

go about deciding Here are a few charts. Can you guess which one is good

looking and which is plain? (both are public figures)

 

Chart 1: Dec 1 1935 10.55 pm EST 40n38 73w56

 

Chart 2: Apr 29 1958 8.11 am PDT 33n45 117w52

 

 

Feel free to comment on any aspect of their physical appearance such as

height, complexion, etc. Answer tomorrow.

 

Chris

 

PS I'll be happy to pass the baton on to someone else later so I can test

my skills and practice my humility. :-)

[Guest guest]

Om Krishnaaya Namah

 

Hey Chris,

 

>

> I thought it might be fun to make it into a little test to see how people

> go about deciding Here are a few charts. Can you guess which one is good

> looking and which is plain? (both are public figures)

>

> Chart 1: Dec 1 1935 10.55 pm EST 40n38 73w56

>

> Chart 2: Apr 29 1958 8.11 am PDT 33n45 117w52

>

 

I'd guess that chart two is the good-looking one, while Chart one is plain.

Here's why I think chart two stands out for beauty. The Lagna Lord, Venus,

is exalted in the eleventh house, with the second and fifth Lord Mercury.

Though Mercury is debilitated, it is stationary, which strenghtens it

greatly, perhaps even more than any neecha bhanga. There is no malefic

aspect here. The Arudha Lagna, showing the appearance as others perceive it

is aspected by none apart from the Moon, who aspects it by sign-aspects

(always more important when looking at Arudhas). In the Navamsha, Venus is

in the Lagna in Cancer. A lotta confluence. The 1935 chart simply lacks

these sorts of indications.

 

Waiting for the answer,

 

Pursottam

 

P.S. As a side note, the Moon exactly squares the Lagna. It also happens to

be the Lagna Nakshatra Lord. Maybe this is important?