Guest guest Posted September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 While on the subject, can anyone confirm that the verse 10-11, chapter 4, is less explicit about the Moon's rulership than for the others, as in Sharma's translation? ("..Moon has been regarded as its Lord.") Regarding that Hora division, the commentary says the unequal signs are "male and cruel" (like the Sun) and the equal are female (like the Moon). I suppose this is stated more explicitly by some other source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 Dear Sanjay Rathji, Thanks a lot for the words of praise and encouragement. >Think again..male & female hora?? OK I am not giving any more hints. I got your purpose/aim. You just want to see if any one else riding his vehicle of 'Chintan' (thinking and deliberation) reaches near your conclusions and shares your arguments without knowing them in advance. This is good thinking and I always wanted to speak out my mind on it. Sun's hora represent male, and Moon's hora the female. Male signs i.e. the odd signs will start with male hora and feminine signs the even ones will start with female hora. In 'parivrittdvay' hora the signs of Mars, Jupiter, the Moon and the Sun are in solar Hora (male) only. Signs of rest of the planets Venus, Saturn and Mercury appear as lunar Hora (female) only. This brings out an interesting aspect of the 'pd' Hora chart and that is whenever Mars, Jupiter, the Moon and the Sun, which are friendly to each other are in each other's sign i.e. in friendly signs or in own signs in pd Hora chart, in the basic chart i.e. the main chart, they are only in solar Hora i.e, male Hora. For a male native presence of Mars, Jupiter, the Moon and the Sun in male, solar Hora will be preferred and Venus and Saturn in female lunar Hora will be preferred. Mercury in any hora, male or female is at home, as long as he remains in own or friendly planet's sign. The male female dichotomy is observed in other divisions too. Wherever the Sun and Moon delegate their gender dichotomy, they do it to Mars and Venus respectively i.e. where Sun and Moon are absent, Mars and Venus will play this role. In case of Trishansh D30, male sign will start with male D30 of Mars and female sign will start with Venus D30. In case of Chaturvishansh D24, male sign will start with male D24 of the Sun i.e. Leo, and female sign will start with Cancer The masculinity of male signs starts at the beginning and reaches lowest point at the end of sign where feminity is the maximum. In feminine signs (even), femininity is at the maximum and reaches its lowest at the end where masculinity is the maximum. The border of the two signs is the epoch of masculinty/femininity and the mid point of the male (odd) or any even sign is equally poised and balanced. That is why Mercury the eunuch is happiest here and attains exaltation point at 15 degree of Virgo. Straight line dividing Zodiac at Leo-Cancer border to Capricorn-Aquarius border is like representation of Purush-Prakriti or in another words Rudra's 'ArdhNarishwar Swaroop'- half the body is male and left half is female. Some divisional charts will then relate native to this 'Swaroop' There are many peculiarities attached to other divisional charts and some seem to be done wrong way. It is more so in case of Dasamsa D10. It can be discussed separately and later. In case of D30, Parashar has not assigned signs or may be those verses are lost and will have to be recovered or 'reconstructed' from hints here and there. The verse 16 of ch. 7 (Santhanam) gives such indication in 'Suryah kujphalam dhatte bhargavasya nishapatih. Trishanshke…..'. In your book 'Remedies' you have assigned signs to D30 in table 2-17. Is it on the basis of some 'source book' or your conclusion through 'chintan'. If it is not 'improper to ask', I will like to know the logic. May be it will help in deciding the 'boundaries' of 150 nadis of each sign which is not equal division of a sign in 150 parts but unequal and based on 16 vargas' boundaries, according to some (Surendra Bhagat/C S Patel). The name 'Chandra Kala Nadi' gives such hint. Best wishes and Jai Bhole!, Shiv Chadha >"Sanjay Rath" <srath >vedic astrology ><vedic astrology> >Re: [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya >Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:13:56 +0530 > > >Om Gurave Namah >-------------------------- >Dear Shiv, >Think again..male & female hora?? OK I am not giving any more hints. Yes >you >are brilliant, and that reference to saravali is correct. This is the Ayana >Division into Aho-Ratra for the Gods. > >You are very correct about the point that HORA relates to life principle >and >this is a point I have stressed in Vedic Remedies where Trimsamsa is for >death where none of the signs are owned by the Luminaries. thus, the >standard ol' Hora of two signs and trimsamsa where all signs excepting >Cancer 7 Leo are used relate to Life and death principle. > >Best Wishes >Sanjay Rath >- >Shiv Chadha <manoramaoccult ><vedic astrology> >Saturday, September 08, 2001 8:52 AM >Re: [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > > > > Namaste Sri Narsimha Rao and members, > > > > >In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify >them > > >as solar and lunar signs. Where >does this classification come from? >What > > >is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus a "lunar" > >sign? > > > > >You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their >cabinet. > > >But Ar being a solar sign and >Ta being a lunar sign does not fit. >What >is > > >the basis then? > > > > In the Hora Table 'Solar/Lunar classification' refers to two >classification > > of each half of sign to Sun's Hora and Moon's Hora. It is not >classification > > of signs based on story about Zodiac being divided into two parts > > originally-one half belonging to the Sun and another half to the Moon. > > > > Sun's half of Zodiac Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn > > Moon's half of Zodiac Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, Aries, Pisces, Acquarius. > > > > This story is referred to in Saravali too. I will give exact reference >after > > finding it again. > > > > The two things - 24 halves of 12 signs assigned to signs on the basis of > > 'parivritti dwayam' and another on 'story' should not be mixed. They >will > > create confusion. > > > > Reading from beginning to end my 'modified' version of Hora article sent >as > > attachment in last mail, should make things clear. I am vouching for two > > kinds of Hora divisions and both have use and purpose, as explained from > > examples given from Sarvarth Chintamani. Hora's importance in longevity > > determination is also highlighted there which will 'look peculiar'. > > > > The above two Hora classifications are on www.vedanet.com since April >1999 > > and people have done and found encouraging results from this >classification > > in financial astrology. When these results are published, we will learn > > more. > > > > Best wishes > > Shiv Chadha > > > > > > >pvr > > >vedic astrology > > >vedic astrology > > >[vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > > >Sat, 08 Sep 2001 00:40:49 -0000 > > > > > >Namaste Sri Shiv Chadha, > > > > > > > It is good you brought it up. It will furthur clarify this matter. > > > > I have talked of both kind of hora chart and both have uses and > > >each hora > > > > has dual category. They are either solar or lunar and also the > > >planetary > > > > lordship from Aries to Pisces. The full verse is, > > > > Rasherardh bhavedhorasta chaturvinshati smrata. > > > > meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet. > > > > Meaning half of a sign makes hora and they are 24 in number which > > >start with > > > > Aries etc. and make two cycles of signs. > > > > > >In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify > > >them as solar and lunar signs. Where does this classification come > > >from? What is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus > > >a "lunar" sign? > > > > > >You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their > > >cabinet. But Ar being a solar sign and Ta being a lunar sign does not > > >fit. What is the basis then? > > > > > >Obviously, you first decided the order as zodiacal (Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn > > >etc) based on "parivritti dwayam" and thereby assigned *your own* > > >solar and lunar classification to this pre-determined sequence of > > >signs. However, as I pointed out "parivritti dwayam" does not imply > > >zodiacal order. As I said, drekkana verse uses "parivritti trayam" > > >and yet the order (repeated thrice across the zodiac) is Ar, Le, Sg, > > >Ta, Vi, Cp etc (based on triplicities). > > > > > >You started with a wrong assumption and so you obviously had to come > > >up with your own solar/lunar classification of signs, which has no > > >sastric basis whatsoever. > > > > > >I have great respect for you, but some people will take your highly > > >questionable research seriously and get misled. This is not right. > > >After all, your solar/lunar classification of signs is totally > > >baseless. > > > > > >May Jupiter's light shine on us, > > >Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Om Gurave Namah -------------------------- Dear Narasimha, Let him try.. I cannot but encourage such a hard worker. He has all the right ingredients and must take some time out to think and mediatate.. He has strayed at a point, but then this happens to everyone. So what, keep walking and he will reach the destination. Best Wishes Sanjay Rath - <pvr <vedic astrology> Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:19 AM [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > Pranaam Gurudeva, > > > Dear Narasimha & shiv, > > As I pointed out, Shiv is very close to the truth. Point is that he > has done > > For whatever reason, you seem to think that he is very close to > truth. Well, then I will have to take back my statement that his > researches are not right and a step in the wrong direction. My > judgment was probably wrong. > > Also, I am glad that you are directly involved in this thread now. So > I can withdraw from this topic. > > Good luck to all in their search of truth... > > > so without any outside teaching from a Guru or someone else in this > and for > > this I give him and his work total credit. it shows a brilliant > mind. Jai > > Bhole.. > > Best Wishes > > Sanjay Rath > > Your sishya, > Narasimha > > PS: You commented on Pavithra's D-10 based on the chart she gave. She > entered the time zone as 5:14 east of GMT. I wonder if it is right. > They weren't using LMT in 1970's. Time was being measured in one > standard time (IST - 5:30 east of GMT). Unless Pavithra converted her > birthtime noted in IST to LMT (which I doubt), she made a mistake in > entering birthdata. > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 Om Gurave Namah -------------------------- Dear ?? Can we have the specific verse? Best Wishes Sanjay Rath - <cjjohans <vedic astrology> Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:57 PM [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > While on the subject, can anyone confirm that the > verse 10-11, chapter 4, is less explicit about the > Moon's rulership than for the others, as in Sharma's > translation? ("..Moon has been regarded as its Lord.") > > Regarding that Hora division, the commentary says > the unequal signs are "male and cruel" (like the Sun) > and the equal are female (like the Moon). I suppose > this is stated more explicitly by some other source. > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2001 Report Share Posted September 11, 2001 Dear Guru, it is marked as verses 10 and 11 of Chaper 4 (Zodiacal signs described) in my translation by Sharma. It describes the sign Cancer, and how the Moon rules it. In my translation it is a bit vague on the point that the Moon is the ruler. This is not very important to me, only a minor point of interest (because of what I have read elsewhere about the Moon). br, Carl Johansson vedic astrology, "Sanjay Rath" <srath@v...> wrote: > > Om Gurave Namah > -------------------------- > Dear ?? > Can we have the specific verse? > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath > - > <cjjohans@c...> > <vedic astrology> > Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:57 PM > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > > > > While on the subject, can anyone confirm that the > > verse 10-11, chapter 4, is less explicit about the > > Moon's rulership than for the others, as in Sharma's > > translation? ("..Moon has been regarded as its Lord.") > > > > Regarding that Hora division, the commentary says > > the unequal signs are "male and cruel" (like the Sun) > > and the equal are female (like the Moon). I suppose > > this is stated more explicitly by some other source. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology- > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.