Modifying results based on one's society & surroundings

[Guest guest]

I have a question for the learned members of this list, notably

for Narasimha:

 

Do you agree that a horoscope shows specific issues, such as the

area of education, or the profession of a person? I mean a horoscope

in general, either the fourth/tenth house, or karaka, or D-10 or D-24.

 

If your answer is yes, I would like to know how you can explain

the following:

 

Men and women are born at roughly the same intervals (I assume).

For a given time period, in a given place (say a large city in India),

both men and women born will have very similar, or even identical

rasi, D-10 or even D-24 charts (as you know, the lagna changes

very frequently, but since the chart itself stays the same, the same

chart is likely to be repeated several times over a larger block of

time since the lagna repeats).

 

Now, this set of men and women will have similar, or the same,

D-10 and D-24 charts. However, there are some professions which

women CANNOT take up - take fighting in the army for instance.

Or a man, for instance, cannot usually become a midwife. Plus,

there are several cultures where women do not work at all. So,

even with similar D-24 or D-10 charts, a man will likely go on to

study say engineering, and work as an engineer, but a woman is

much more likely to stay at home and look after the children.

 

Again, if we analyse this from another angle, we reach the same

paradox. Take India of the 1800s, for example. Again, we assume

that male and female births are interspersed in a random manner.

Therefore the professions or education that is indicated should also

be random. However, in that era, women seldom studied and women

seldom worked. Will anybody have the courage to assert that ALL

charts of women will have placements that indicate staying at home

and minding the children?

 

I know it is said that a horoscope has to be analysed taking into

account the society in which the person lived, but that to me is

paradoxical in itself. That means that an INDEPENDENT analysis

of a D-10 or D-24 or even D-7 (children) is simply impossible,

because indications in that chart can easily be overridden by social

conditions prevailing at that time.

 

I know I sound like I am attacking astrology, which is not the case

at all.

 

 

Mahalinga Iyer

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahalinga Iyer,

 

Of course, one has to consider desa-kaala-paatra (place one lives in,

the age one lives in and the class of a person) when interpreting

planets, houses, arudhas and charts, as I mentioned in the chapter on

arudhas my book.

 

Material manifestation of intelligence may be scoring a high score in

an exam in one age, getting a sanmaana (honor) from a king in court

in another age, getting first class in graduate degree for a person

from a backward section of society.

 

How certain aspects of true self manifest in the material world

depends on the world one lives in. This changes from place to place,

time to time and class to class.

 

Though we say that arudhas show illusions, they are the only ones

that exist and manifest in the material world. They are the only

things we can directly see. So they reflect the world that the native

lives in.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Narasimha,

 

> Of course, one has to consider desa-kaala-paatra (place one lives

in,

> the age one lives in and the class of a person) when interpreting

> planets, houses, arudhas and charts, as I mentioned in the chapter

on

> arudhas my book.

 

 

You seem to have been still thinking about my other post on arudhas

when you replied to this one. My point is this:

 

Per astrology, can you decide the education or profession of a person

based on 4th house in D-24 or 10th house in D-10 respectively?

 

If yes, and assuming that male and female births are evenly

interspersed in a time period, how does one explain that INSPITE of

having the same (or very similar) D-24 or D-10 placements, till one

point of time, FIFTY PERCENT of the population (ie women) did not

either study any intensive subject, or work outside the home?

 

If the desa-kaala-paatra subjectivity is going to affect how we

interpret charts of roughly half the population, how can we claim

that we can see the area of study or area of work in D-24 or D-10?

 

Or are we saying that some special aspect or modifying factor would

show up in all women's charts (to explain why they did not either

study much, or work outside the home) ?

 

Mahalinga Iyer

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mahalinga Iyer,

 

Though I dont participate much in the discussions here, here are a

few points to ponder regarding the questions raised by you.

 

> there are several cultures where women do not work at all. So,

> even with similar D-24 or D-10 charts, a man will likely go on to

> study say engineering, and work as an engineer, but a woman is

> much more likely to stay at home and look after the children.

 

That is why Strijataka(female horoscopy)was given seperately by most

masters from Parashara to Varahamihira(at least for those days). That

Strijataka may not be much valid for today's soceity is another

debatable issue.Why should anyone even try to take an independent

view of the Divisional charts without reference to the natal chart ,

the cultural and/or time frame? Some of the points raised in your

mails show a fragmented, mechanistic approach. It is more like a left

brain mode of thinking. Any attempt to study the truth in any

science, especially Jyotish needs a balance between the right and

left modes of thinking. The Universe is interconnected and

interdependent.

 

> D-10 and D-24 charts. However, there are some professions which

> women CANNOT take up - take fighting in the army for instance.

 

Not really true. Women are taking up all kinds of jobs nowadays

including the army.

 

> both men and women born will have very similar, or even identical

> rasi, D-10 or even D-24 charts (as you know, the lagna changes

> very frequently, but since the chart itself stays the same, the same

> chart is likely to be repeated several times over a larger block of

> time since the lagna repeats).

 

The same chart is NOT repeated. It is precisely this problem that the

Divisional charts are supposed to address. Or take the Nadiamshas for

instance. One would agree that the general patterns given by the

highly time sensitive nadiamshas are quite correct. A simpler example

is Krishnamurthi's subs. Even a minute's difference can and generally

does change the cuspal sublords which hold the key. Anyone who has

ever tried to rectify a chart by using KP cuspal sublords, will

understand my point. With a difference of 45 seconds even if the

Ascendant sublord is in the range given, the other cuspal sublords

will change depending upon whether the ascendant is in the beginning

or ending of the given range.

 

> I know it is said that a horoscope has to be analysed taking into

> account the society in which the person lived, but that to me is

> paradoxical in itself. That means that an INDEPENDENT analysis

> of a D-10 or D-24 or even D-7 (children) is simply impossible,

> because indications in that chart can easily be overridden by

social

> conditions prevailing at that time.

 

An independent analysis is impossible NOT because the CHART is

overridden by social conditions, but because the social conditions

influence the INTERPRETATION. What was a luxury some years back is a

necessity today. The PRINCIPLES of Jyotish remain the same. But the

INTERPRETATIONS change according to the context. Every branch of

human knowledge has to adapt itself to the changes and needs of the

times. Otherwise it will perish. Even Sanatana dharma has adapted

itself over the centuries. But the basic principles underlying are

the same. Moreover an independent analysis has not been advocated by

any sage or modern scholar, and neither will anyone attempt because

everything is interdependent and connected. It is against the spirit

of Jyotish as well as Modern Physics. Why this fragmented approach to

the Whole?

 

>To think that we can simplistically talk about "the real self"

>and "the perceived self" is somewhat arrogant, unless the person

>saying it is a truly realized soul.

 

Realized souls dont need astrology and none of us are. Agreed that

all attempts to describe anything like the Universe or Jyotish

concepts, are an oversimplification. But we still have to do it.

Aren't your own attempts to view the divisional charts etc

independently, also equally "simplistic"?

 

Speaking of "Paradox", the beauty and bliss of the Universe is in its

very paradoxical nature. Isn't it paradoxical that Adi Sankaracharya

the greatest proponent of Non-duality(Advaita)composed some of the

finest devotional hymns?

 

Just because any description has to be simplistic, do we just refrain

from describing at all? Just because the glory and grandeur of the

Cosmic Lord beggars all description, have the saints refrained from

singing the glory of the Lord?

 

Questions raised should help to either clarify or stimulate. Using

intelligence one can raise many philosophical or paradoxical points.

It is very enjoyable "intellectually" to indulge in mental

gymnastics. But it doesnt help much in questioning the BASIC NATURE

of things, atleast it doesnt help in gaining predictive accuracy.

 

May astrology truly illuminate our lives,

Satya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahalinga Iyer,

 

> You seem to have been still thinking about my other post on arudhas

> when you replied to this one. My point is this:

>

> Per astrology, can you decide the education or profession of a

person

> based on 4th house in D-24 or 10th house in D-10 respectively?

>

> If yes, and assuming that male and female births are evenly

> interspersed in a time period, how does one explain that INSPITE of

> having the same (or very similar) D-24 or D-10 placements, till one

> point of time, FIFTY PERCENT of the population (ie women) did not

> either study any intensive subject, or work outside the home?

 

The reason I talked about arudhas is that they are most affected by

desa-kaala-paatra (place-age-class) than anything else.

 

True, the 4th in D-24 shows education. However, it has nothing to do

with whether one formally studies something or not, whether one

studies "any intensive subject" or not.

 

As you said, Indian ladies of 18th century may not have formally

studied in school. But, didn't they learn anything? Some Indian

housewives were excellent scholars and they learned just from talking

to husbands. A person who is destined to learn learns even if he/she

is left alone in a jungle. Education does not come only from books or

classes. Education from real-life experiences is not any less.

Education is merely the comfort (4th) one enjoys in one's

intellectual evolution (D-24).

 

However, the comfort one enjoys in one's intellectual evolution is

not seen by the rest of the world. It lives inside. The way this

manifests materially is in terms of formal education. Reading a book,

attending a class, enrolling in a seminar, studying at a university

are all things that exist in the material plane (and observable in

the material world) and they are *supposed* to show one's education

and learning activities. So A4 (arudha of 4th house) shows them. The

real education that happens inside one is not observable.

 

When we talk about the learning one's soul goes through, it is

absolute. OTOH, desa-kaaala-paatra (place-age-class) have a great

influence on A4. The ways in which one's learning activities manifest

materially and the things that are *supposed* to show one's learning

activities change from place to place, age to age and class to class.

For a normal person of today, attending a college may be the material

manifestation of education. For an Indian of 16th century, going to a

Gurukula was a material manifestation of education. For a deprived

low class person of the third world, just talking to learned men may

be the possible manifestation of education (as he cannot afford to

attend school).

 

When we judge the influences on A4, we can find out how one's

learning activities manifest in the material world. However, that

depends on the world the native lives in. For the 18th century ladies

of your example, attending school wasn't an option and A4 may only

show interactions with learned people at home.

 

This is why I did not talk about houses from lagna and concentrated

on arudhas. As Arudhas show things that exist in the material world,

understanding the world the native lives is very important.

 

You will probably have more questions, but I am running out of time

now. I will let others reply to your future questions on arudhas and

desa-kaala-paatra.

 

BTW, about the other thread on arudhas: I wasn't offended. But the

fact of the matter is that no conversation is possible when you say

that it's "arrogant" to think that astrology can let us differentiate

reality from illusion. We're at a dead-end in the dialog.

 

You talked about spirituality etc. Remember that astrology is not a

mundane subject like mathematics and physics. It is a divine subject.

One cannot grasp the finer points of astrology without spiritual

advancement.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Narasimha,

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my mail.

 

> > Per astrology, can you decide the education or profession of a

> > person based on 4th house in D-24 or 10th house in D-10

> > respectively?

 

I will restate my question:

 

Is it reasonable to decide the education or profession of a person

based on either lagna *OR* arudha lagna in D-1, D-10 or D-24, or

are there overriding factors in the social & economic realms that

will override (or modify) indications in these charts?

 

> True, the 4th in D-24 shows education. However, it has nothing to

> do with whether one formally studies something or not, whether one

> studies "any intensive subject" or not.

 

In numerous cases of chart rectification that I see in the archives,

I see references to the fourth house in D-24. Yourself, as well as

others take the presence of Mars etc there to mean the person studied

engineering, Mercury/Rahu to mean computers/electronics and so on.

Hence my question about 4th in D-24.

 

> As you said, Indian ladies of 18th century may not have formally

> studied in school. But, didn't they learn anything? Some Indian

> housewives were excellent scholars and they learned just from

> talking to husbands. A person who is destined to learn learns even

> if he/she is left alone in a jungle. Education does not come only

> from books or classes. Education from real-life experiences is not

> any less. Education is merely the comfort (4th) one enjoys in one's

> intellectual evolution (D-24).

 

I agree completely, and I applaud your open-minded and philosophical

outlook to learning.

 

My question was, can any divisional chart show *deterministically*

what area one would have studied in? As in electronics, arts, music,

commerce, engineering and so on?

 

> BTW, about the other thread on arudhas: I wasn't offended. But the

> fact of the matter is that no conversation is possible when you say

> that it's "arrogant" to think that astrology can let us

> differentiate reality from illusion. We're at a dead-end in the

> dialog.

 

As long as we agree that differentiating between the "real" qualities

and "perceived" qualities of a person is a non-trivial task, either

with or without the help of Jyotish, I think we can drop references

to "arrogance".

 

> You talked about spirituality etc. Remember that astrology is not a

> mundane subject like mathematics and physics. It is a divine

> subject. One cannot grasp the finer points of astrology without

> spiritual advancement.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope you do not (also) think that my

questions are a result of a non-spiritual approach to astrology,

or as a result of mechanistic or "left brain" thinking.

 

I remain,

 

Mahalinga Iyer

[Guest guest]

Dear Mahaling and Narasimha!

 

Just to add on.... Getting a gold medal might be an award for the best

student in an university whereas getting the best scholarship would be an

award in some other. The results manifest in some context and hence get

modified with it.

 

Regards

Sarajit

 

-

<pvr

<vedic astrology>

Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:41 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Modifying results based on one's society &

surroundings

 

 

> Namaste Mahalinga Iyer,

>

> Of course, one has to consider desa-kaala-paatra (place one lives in,

> the age one lives in and the class of a person) when interpreting

> planets, houses, arudhas and charts, as I mentioned in the chapter on

> arudhas my book.

>

> Material manifestation of intelligence may be scoring a high score in

> an exam in one age, getting a sanmaana (honor) from a king in court

> in another age, getting first class in graduate degree for a person

> from a backward section of society.

>

> How certain aspects of true self manifest in the material world

> depends on the world one lives in. This changes from place to place,

> time to time and class to class.

>

> Though we say that arudhas show illusions, they are the only ones

> that exist and manifest in the material world. They are the only

> things we can directly see. So they reflect the world that the native

> lives in.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

AUM SRI GURUVE NAMAH

Dear Mahalinga!

 

If I am right your query is why 50% of the population, i.e., female have

completely different life pattern than other 50% of the population that is

male, when probabilitistically the occurance of a particular pattern of life

is equally likely in both the sexes. Why this difference? Is the differnce

is moderated by the gender?

 

The question is completely valid and genuine. In my view this happens only

because the times of birth of individuals don't have equal propensity to

give similar results. Thus, the time of birth makes the difference.

 

Let me give an analogy to make me clear. Lets take a box full of Red and

Blue stones same in number and there is a group of people having 50% boys

and 50% girls. Each member of the groups is asked to pick up a stone putting

their hands into the box and pick up a stone without looking into the box.

The individual who gets a Red jewel has to work throughout the day and the

individual who gets a Blue stone can take rest.

 

After the excercise is over, the result should be that (probability), 50% of

Girls are working and 50% of them are taking rest and the same is true for

the boys. This is possible in lab experiment. Here we are assuming that both

boys and girls have equal probability to chose either stone.

 

But lets add one more dimension. The stones are kept in open and the boys

and girls are asked to pickup what they like. Here the girls probability of

chosing the blue stone is higher than the red one and the opposite is true

for the boys (This change in probability is guided by many things such as

attitude, liking, physical stength etc etc.). Under this condition we would

see that more boys are working whereas more girls are taking rest.

 

Human birth is similar to the latter case as the birth is not purely a

chance matter but guided by many things such as the soul's desire to come to

earth to take up a particular activity and the karma he has to realise. The

desire is again guided by his past lives and many more things. Thus, females

have greater propensity to take in such time which would guide them to take

up profession which need more softer skills and so on, whereas males have

greater propensity to take birth in such time which will guide them to take

up more tougher and outgoing profession. Hence the discrepancy.

 

You will find the similar discripancy accross castes, professions etc. For

illustration, if there are four castes in India, there should be equal

number of population in all the castes and if there are 100 professions,

there should be equal professionals in all of them... are they true. They

aren't as they are guided by many other factors than simply chance.

 

 

This is my understading

Comments awaited

 

Regards

Sarajit

 

 

-

<mahalinga_iyer

<vedic astrology>

Wednesday, June 20, 2001 6:06 AM

[vedic astrology] Re: Modifying results based on one's society &

surroundings

 

 

>

> Namaste Narasimha,

>

> > Of course, one has to consider desa-kaala-paatra (place one lives

> in,

> > the age one lives in and the class of a person) when interpreting

> > planets, houses, arudhas and charts, as I mentioned in the chapter

> on

> > arudhas my book.

>

>

> You seem to have been still thinking about my other post on arudhas

> when you replied to this one. My point is this:

>

> Per astrology, can you decide the education or profession of a person

> based on 4th house in D-24 or 10th house in D-10 respectively?

>

> If yes, and assuming that male and female births are evenly

> interspersed in a time period, how does one explain that INSPITE of

> having the same (or very similar) D-24 or D-10 placements, till one

> point of time, FIFTY PERCENT of the population (ie women) did not

> either study any intensive subject, or work outside the home?

>

> If the desa-kaala-paatra subjectivity is going to affect how we

> interpret charts of roughly half the population, how can we claim

> that we can see the area of study or area of work in D-24 or D-10?

>

> Or are we saying that some special aspect or modifying factor would

> show up in all women's charts (to explain why they did not either

> study much, or work outside the home) ?

>

> Mahalinga Iyer

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>