New Research on Rama's Chart Riddle

[Guest guest]

SriRama Rama Rama

Namaste fritends,

 

As I was very busy over the last few days, I did not respond to the mails on

Rama's nakshatra. Here are some quick replies:

 

(1) To Venkateswara Reddy: Suklanta or Amanta makes no difference. Sri Rama

was born on Chaitra Sukla Navami.

 

(2) To those who think they have a monopoly over "tradition": There are many

traditions in India. In fact, what I wrote (namely Punarvasu being Rama's

lagna nakshatra and not Chandra nakshatra) is not my invention but what the

tradition I belong to taught me. When my guru Pt. Sanjay Rath taught this to

me, I immediately accepted it as it is the simplest way to explain the

riddle in Valmiki's writings. Pt Rath belongs to a tradition that traces

itself to Achyuta Dasa, one of the five associates of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

When many astrological traditions don't even know the importance of lagna

nakshatra, how can we expect them to even consider it? There are very few

traditions that know what lagna nakshatra stands for.

 

(3) Partha's long reply to my mail claiming that my suggestion implies that

Bharatha's lagna is Leo or something (as opposed to Pisces given by Valmiki)

is utter nonsense. Either he is confused or wants to confuse others. This is

the sequence I suggest: (a) Rama was born on a Navami day around noon with

Moon in Pushyami constellation and lagna in the first navamsa of Cancer

lagna. (b) Bharatha was then born a little time before the next sunrise

(i.e. about 17 hours or so after Rama), with Moon towards the end of

Pushyami. Lagna was Pisces (one sign before Sun). © Then sunrise took

place (abhudite ravau) and Moon entered Asresha. Later in the same day,

around noon, Lakshmana and Satrughna were born in Cancer lagna with Moon in

Asresha.

 

* * *

 

Now let me leave my previous position for a moment and consider alternatives

to fit everything Sage Valmiki wrote.

 

These are the explanations I have heard so far for the riddle of Navami:

 

(i) Sun's exaltation sign is Pisces instead of Aries. Sun is in Pisces in

Rama's chart and not in Aries as taught by tradition. Then Moon can be in

Punarvasu 4th quarter on Navami. This is too radical and inconsistent with

the teachings of maharshis.

 

This is a very radical hypothesis.

 

(ii) Let us say Sun is at x deg in Aries. Sukla Navami requires Moon to be

between (x+6) deg and (x+18) deg in Cn. To minimize (x+6), let us take x as

0. Let us assume that Moon is just above 6 deg. Now one can suggest that

nakshatra borders used to be different in ancient days and Punarvasu ended

at 6 deg 10 min instead of 3 deg 20 min.

 

On the face of it, it may seem acceptable. But the difference is too huge

and nakshatras are a uniform division of the zodiac.

 

Again, this is a very radical hypothesis.

 

(iii) I read the relevant verses in Valmiki Ramayana. After praying to

Vishnu, Shiva, Saptarshis, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Achyuta Dasa and my Guru

Pt. Sanjay Rath, I will offer a new interpretation of Valmiki for the

evaluation of learned scholars.

 

Valmiki wrote "swochcha sanstheshu panchasu". People interpreted this as

"with five planets in their exaltaltation signs". The prefix "swa" (own) has

been grouped with "uchcha" (exaltation) to just mean "their own exaltation

signs". I am surprised that nobody thought of it until now, but one can

certainly interpret "swochcha" (swa+uchcha) as "own or exaltation". In fact,

that would be my first interpretation - why would a maharshi waste a word

(swa)? If you say that a planet is in exaltation sign, it is obviously in

its own exaltation. If Jupiter is in Mercury's exaltation sign, you won't

say "Jupiter is in exaltation sign". So when you say that a planet is in

"exaltation sign", you mean the planet is in its own exaltation sign. Why

would Valmiki waste a word by qualifying "uchcha" with "swa" and introduce

unneeded ambiguity? Maharshis are far wiser than that. It is quite logical

to interpret swochcha as "own sign or exaltation sign".

 

This means Rama had five planets in own signs or exaltation signs. As per

the chart taught by tradition, SIX planets are in own/exaltation signs (Moon

in own sign, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus and Sun in exaltation signs).

Valmiki explicitly mentioned Moon and Jupiter in Cancer. So tradition has

one of the other four planets wrong and one of Saturn, Mars, Venus and Sun

is not exalted. If we take Sun in Pisces, then Moon can be in Punarvasu on

Sukla Navami day!

 

This is more plausible than (i) and (ii), which are outright rejectable. The

thing going against (iii), however, is that it is against tradition.

Tradition (atleast mine) teaches that Rama had exalted Sun in 10th and had 5

planets in exaltation and Moon in own sign. Could there be a corruption in

tradition? Possibly. But I am too fallible and too small a person to claim

to get it right. I will only submit my thoughts and the learned scholars can

evaluate them in time.

 

Could Rama have Meena Ravi in dharma sthana??

 

* * *

 

Another thing I could not understand earlier makes sense now, when I take

Sun in Pisces. Valmiki literally wrote in 1-18-15: "Bharatha was born in

Pushya in Meena lagna, twin sons of Sumitra were born in Rahu's nakshatra in

Cancer, with Sun rising".

 

The standard interpretation is that Lakshmana and Satrughna were born in

Asresha nakshatra with Cancer rising. The question is: How does "abhudite

ravau" (with Sun rising) fit there? How can Sun rise in Cancer on a

Navami/Dasami/Ekadasi day with Moon in Cancer? Clearly something is wrong.

Here is my interpretation:

 

Lakshmana and Satrughna did NOT have Cancer lagna as nomally accepted.

Valmiki clearly used the word "lagne" in the case of Rama and Bharatha. He

only said "kuLeere" (in Cancer) and did not say "kuLeere lagne" in the case

of Sumitra's twin sons. So he was not talking about lagna and talking about

Moon still. Why did he have to specify the Moonsign also after specifying

Moon's nakshatra? Well, Valmiki only said "saarpe" which means "in Rahu's

[constellation]". Perhaps Rahu owns another nakshatra and the Sage is

clarifying which one, by giving the rasi too. So, "in Rahu's nakshatra in

Cancer" means "in Asresha". Then, "abhyudite ravau" (with Sun rising)

presumably applies to both the lines, i.e. to Bharatha who has Moon in

Pushya and lagna in Pisces and to Sumitra's twin sons who have Moon in

Asresha. That must be why the Sage did not go through the trouble of

mentioning the lagna of the twins again!! (Sages avoid repitition whenever

something can be intelligently deduced.) So my final interpretation is:

 

"Bharatha was born in Pushya star in Pisces lagna and the twin sons of

Sumitra born in Asresha star, [all] with Sun rising."

 

In other words, Bharatha was born in Pisces lagna with Sun in Pisces and

Moon in Pushya. Twin sons of Sumitra were born on the next day with Moon in

Asresha and Sun rising in Pisces lagna.

 

If you don't interpret this way, "abhyudite ravau" (with Sun rising) after

"kuLeere" (Cancer) sits so awkwardly and does not fit. If you take Cancer as

Moonsign, you will be left with the question of what then is the lagna of

Lakshmana and Satrughna. My interpretation seems to me to be the only

logical interpretation.

 

One more relevant word:

 

Sage Parasara, a great astrologer, taught in BPHS that Vishnu'a avataras

have a quadrant lord and a trine lord together in Devalokamsa giving great

Raja yoga. In Rama's chart, lagna lord Moon and 9th lord Jupiter give a

great rajayoga (and Lakshmi yoga and Gaja-Kesari yoga). Presumably Moon and

Jupiter should be in Devalokamsa (in own/exaltation signs in exactly 7 out

of 10 divisional charts of dasa-varga scheme). If Moon is in Pushyami, he

cannot be in Devalokamsa. If Moon and Jupiter are in the first shashtyamsa

of Cancer (Vasudha nadi - earth), both would be in Devalokamsa, satisfying

Parasara's criterion for Vishnu's avataras. This is another point in support

of my interpretation.

 

* * *

 

This new interpretation is very logical and consistent. It seems to solve

the puzzle completely. It could very well be correct. But it could be wrong

too. As I said, I am too fallible and too small a person to solve age-old

riddles. I am just a student of astrology and Sanskrit and can only try my

best to apply myself, with the blessings of rishis and my gurus. I will wait

for the comments and blessings of Pt. Sanjay Rath and other scholars before

proceeding further on this.

 

Whether correct or not, this analysis made me very happy and gave me a lot

of satisfaction. I thank Partha for playing a role in forcing me to think

and Sanjay for his blessings. Usually my mind is very sharp for a couple of

days after I talk to Sanjay.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

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

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao email: pvr108

26 Seaver Farm Lane Tel: (508) 839-1218

South Grafton, MA 01560 email: pvr

 

**** Note the address change ****

 

Homepage: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Just a quick point to add to the logic in support of Rama having Sun

in Pisces:

 

Pt Sanjay Rath (i.e. our tradition) taught that Lord Rama's chara

atma karaka is Sun. It makes sense (just think...).

 

If Sun is at x deg in Aries and Moon is between (x+6) and (x+18) deg

in Cn (for Sukla Navami), Moon is more advanced than Sun. How can Sun

be Rama's AK then? Apart from other logic I presented in the other

mail based on Valmiki's verses, this point also suggests that Lord

Rama probably had Sun in Pisces. Then only chara atmakaraka can be

Sun on a Sukla Navami.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha