Parasara's Hora Chart (Cn and Le Riddle...)

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

 

> Here contrary to what is interpreted it appears, at least to me with my >

limited knowledge, what is being said is that Surya's devata (first > hora in

Vishama rasi and second Hora of Sama rasi) is Deva and that of

 

Well, I cannot agree. The verses are:

 

sUryendvorvishhame rAshau same tadviparItakam.h || 5||

pitarashchandrahoreshA devAH sUryasya kIrtitAH |

rAsherarddhaM bhaveddhorA tAshchaturviMshatiH smR^itA |

meshhAdi tAsAM horANAM parivR^ittidvayaM bhavet.h || 6|

 

The horas are clearly mentioned to be "Sun's horas" and "Moon's horas" and Devas

and Pitris are specifically mentioned as the devatas. Thus, suggesting that Sun

and Moon are only the devatas of the horas does not seem correct. Devas and

Pitris are the devatas. Sun and Moon have some other kind of ownership of the

horas.

 

However, this is different from saying that the horas fall in Cn and Le. Sun and

Moon don't own only Cn and Le. It may be Cn/Le or some other bifurcation of the

zodiac where Sun and Moon are the presiding planets. Day and night sign

bifurcation seems quite logical. Sun owns the day signs (half of the zodiac)

and Moon owns the night signs (otjher half of the zodiac). This is the basis of

SJC's secret chart from tradition - Kashinathe Hora chart.

 

> Chandra (first Hora of Sama rasi and second Hora of Vishama Rasi) the > Devata

is Pitara and he is talking about Parivritti dvaya Hora clearly > and not as

Horas being lorded over by Sun and Moon for Vishama rasi and > the other way

round for Sama rasi. So there appears to be much confusion > about what

Parashara has said. Many astrologers appear to project as if > Parashara has

said first Hora in Vishama rasi belonging to rasi of Sun > and second to the

Moon means they fall in Leo and Cancer rasis. The > above shloka of BPHS, does

not seem to suggest that. Rather it is said > by Varahamihira in his

Brihajjatakam.

I don't agree that this is said only by Varahamihira and not by Parasara. As I see it, BOTH said it.

 

* * *

 

One interesting thing about the way Parasara defined divisional charts is that

he defined the lords of the signs containing divisions and not the signs

themselves. For example, he defined the lords of the 9 navamsas in Aries as the

lords of the 9 signs from Aries (i.e. Mars, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Sun, Mercury,

Venus, Mars and Jupiter) and the lords of the 9 navamsas in Taurus as the lords

of the 9 signs from Capricorn (i.e. Saturn, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus,

Mercury, Moon, Sun and Mercury) and so on.

 

This does not fix the navamsa signs. Several possibilities are there. For

example, the nine navamsas of Ar can be mapped as Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn, Le, Vi, Li,

Sc and Sg and the nine navamsas of Ta can be mapped as Cp, Aq, Pi, Ar, Ta, Ge,

Cn, Le and Vi. This is one way. This is the most common way and this is the

standard navamsa. But a different navamsa called Kalachakra navamsa is used by

some and Kalachakra dasa is defined based on it. In it, the nine navamsas of Ar

are still mapped as Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn, Le, Vi, Li, Sc and Sg, but the nine navamsas

of Ta are mapped as Cp, Aq, Pi, Sc, Li, Vi, Le, Cn and Ge. One may note that the

lordships mentioned by Parasara are still valid.

 

Thus, there may be different variations of several divisional charts that have

specific meanings. With spiritual sadhana, it may be possible to get the

blessings of maharshis and the wisdom needed to understand the uses of several

variations.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-------------------------------Free Jyotish

lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software

(Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website:

http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------------

 

> Dear Narasimha,> I accept that Varahamihira said that the opinion about Rasi

lord being > lord of the first Hora and Lord of the 11th the 2nd Hora is of

other > Acharyas. The fact of the shloka preceding it is as you say about first

> Hora being of Sun and second of Moon.> > Having said that, may I point out

that Bhattotpal in his commentary says > about the reason of allotting First

Hora to Sun and second to Moon as:> "àyaejnm! - sUyRhaeraya< jataStejiSvníNÔSy

haeraya< m&ÊSvÉava ÉviNt,> prayojanam - süryahoräyäà jätästejasvinaçcandrasya

horäyäà mådusvabhävä > bhavanti|"> > So at least as far as interpretation of

Bhattopal goes this (Surya as > first horesha and Chandra as second horesha for

Vishama and reverse for > Sama) has to do with the nature of Jataka.> > Now if

we relate this to what Parashara has said:> tT]eÇ< tSy oeqSy razeyaeR ySy

nayk>,> tatkñetraà tasya kheöasya räçeryo yasya näyakaù|> sUyeRNÖaeivR;me razaE

sme tiÖprItkm!.5.> süryendvorviñame räçau same tadviparétakam||5||>

iptríNÔhaereza deva> sUyRSy kIitRta>,> pitaraçcandrahoreçä deväù süryasya

kértitäù|> razerÏ¡ ÉveÏaera taítuiv¡zit> Sm&ta>.> räçerarddhaà bhaveddhorä

täçcaturviàçatiù småtäù||> me;aid tasa< haera[a< pirv&iÄÖy< Évet!.6.> meñädi

täsäà horäëäà parivåttidvayaà bhavet||6||> > Here contrary to what is

interpreted it appears, at least to me with my > limited knowledge, what is

being said is that Surya's devata (first > hora in Vishama rasi and second

Hora of Sama rasi) is Deva and that of > Chandra (first Hora of Sama rasi and

second Hora of Vishama Rasi) the > Devata is Pitara and he is talking about

Parivritti dvaya Hora clearly > and not as Horas being lorded over by Sun and

Moon for Vishama rasi and > the other way round for Sama rasi. So there appears

to be much confusion > about what Parashara has said. Many astrologers appear to

project as if > Parashara has said first Hora in Vishama rasi belonging to rasi

of Sun > and second to the Moon means they fall in Leo and Cancer rasis. The >

above shloka of BPHS, does not seem to suggest that. Rather it is said > by

Varahamihira in his Brihajjatakam. But even here Bhattotpala > commentary gives

a new direction to that and appears to be more logical.> > Again my point is

that since Parashara says one should look at wealth > from Hora chart and 11th

house Lord being Labhesha giving one of the two > Horas of a rasi, depending on

whether the Rasi is Sama or Vishama > appears to be more in line with areas of

influence of Bhavas. Actually > if for Sama rasi 3rd house is considered as

giving 2nd Hora, this would > be even more logical count being reverse and

Parakrama of a person has > as much bearing on his wealth as his income.> > Of

course what I have said may appear to be not in line with what is > believed to

be said by Parashara to those more learned than me.> > Regards,> Chandrashekhar.