On the hora chart

[Guest guest]

Dear Raman Suprajarama,

 

> You current email has a valid point. If you say that it is mutual> dependence,

then it is fine with me. But if you say that they need to> combine as they are

the same, I would respectfully disagree.

If it is fine with you, that is what I shall say then. :-)

 

It is immaterial to me whether they are considered as one or whether they are

considered as two that co-operate with each other due to mutual dependence and

lend signs mutually. I am interested in the bottomline, which is that Cancer

and Leo can be pooled as the complementary day/night sign pair (like Ar and Sc

or like Ta and Li or like Ge and Vi).

 

* * *

 

I will have to go into hybernation once more. But let me say one final word.

 

I will not be surprised if all of us are still far away from truth.

 

FRor example, we are conveniently ignoring the statement of Parasara that there

is a "parivritti dwayam" of horas when we start from the beginning of Aries and

go to the end of Pisces. To me, that very clearly means that there is a list of

12 signs that repeats twice and that list of 24 signs comprises the hora

mapping.

 

However, I definitely don't agree with Parivritti Dwaya hora of JHora for this

purpose (i.e. two halves of Ar go into Ar, Ta and two halves of Ta go into Ge,

Cn etc). It obeys the "repitition twice" criterion, but fails to obey the

Sun-Moon link criterion. I consider the Sun-Moon link a non-negotiable

criterion. Though some may suggest that Sun and Moon are only devatas of the

horas, I am of the opinion that Parasara clearly mentioned Devas and Pitris as

devatas and Sun and Moon have some other kind of ownership of the hora signs.

Definitely, day-strong and night-strong sign division as we used in Jagannatha

Hora, Kashinatha Hora and Raman Hora charts seems plausible.

 

However, this has to be combined with the Parivritti dwaya criterion and then

only one can get the hora chart that Parasara taught. There is some other list

of 12 signs that repeats twice and follows the Sun-Moon link paradigm.

 

There is a chart intuited and experimented by me, along these lines. When the

right time comes with the blessings of Uma and Shambhu, I may share it with

all.

 

Now, I go back into hybernation...

 

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 Rao,> > When getting into technical research, we need to make

use of philosophy.> Apart from this, there should also be a spirit of

scientific enquiry. This> was what both grandfather and father have taught me

and hence my arguments.> > I will make this simple. If we were to consider the

Sun and the Moon as one,> why was there a need to divide the Hora based on

Sun/Moon rulership? There> was no need of a Hora chart at all. We could have

just considered the Rasi> chart (as the Sun and the Moon are both the same) to

look into the details.> > You current email has a valid point. If you say that

it is mutual> dependence, then it is fine with me. But if you say that they

need to> combine as they are the same, I would respectfully disagree.> > Om Tat

Sat,> > Raman Suprajarama> > >

[] On> Behalf

Of Narasimha P.V.R. Rao> Friday, August 26, 2005 5:21 AM> To:

vedic astrology; > Subject:

Re: Four Yes or No Questions (Re: Cn and Le> Riddle...)> > Dear

Raman,> > I just want to mention that the method I suggested (for resolving

the> conflict between the two principles you combined) is not my original

idea,> but used by our tradition in the definition of Kashinathe Hora chart.>

> > I prefer to use Option (1). My understanding is that we have a clear> >

distinction between those signs ruled by the Sun and those ruled by the> >

Moon. We are mapping them to Day signs because they are ruled by the Sun> and>

> not the reverse. An assumption is made that the Sun does not have control> >

over the Moon and vice-versa. I am ensuring consistency at the very> >

foundation despite the weak mapping at the second level.> > Well, it depends

on what you consider as "foundation" and what you consider> as "second level".

That is debatable.> > To me, the first half of an odd sign and the second half

of an even sign> belonging to Sun (i.e. being day-strong signs in the

interpretation of both> of us) and the second half of an odd sign and the first

half of an even sign> belonging to Moon (i.e. being night-strong signs in the

interpretation of> both of us) is the fundamental point or foundation. After

all, this is the> only point that was clearly mentioned by both Parasara and

Varahamihira as> their own view.> > The second point, namely the two halves of

a sign belonging to the lord of> the sign and the 11th lord from it, was

mentioned by Varahamihira> indirectly, and represented as the view of "some

others". Thus, I would> consider that to be the second level factor and give it

less priority when> conflict arises.> > If I were to combine these factors as

you did, I will consider the former to> be the foundation.> > > Even if we

assume that the Sun has control over the Moon (as the Moon> > derives his light

from the Sun), we can map the night sign of Sun to> Cancer> > but not the Day

sign of Moon to Leo.> > Well, the way I look at it, neither Shiva (Sun) nor

Parvati (Moon) controls> the other. Neither Ida nor Pingala controls the other.

Neither the male> element controls the female element nor vice versa. Thw qay I

look at it, It> is not an issue of control at all.> > Shiva is the perfect

male element. Parvati is the perfect female element.> They created this whole

male/female dichotomy. All other beings participate> in this dichotomy and have

male/female sides to their existence. But Shiva> and Parvati do not have

male/female sides to them, as Shiva is perfectly> male and Parvati is perfectly

female. In order to have both the sides to> their being, they have to combine

into Ardha Naareeswara. Same holds for Sun> and Moon. It is not an issue of

control, but an issue of mutual dependence> for completeness.> > > This could

give us a different mapping> > altogether! However, this mapping deviates from

the normal definition as> > Cancer repeats thrice and Leo repeats once.> >

Well, obviously that mapping is wrong. Either treat Cn as the day sign as> well

night sign owned by Moon and Le as the day sign as well as night sign> owned by

Sun (as you did) or treat Cn and Le as the night and day signs> owned by both

Sun and Moon (as we do in our tradition in Kashinatha Hora).> There is

absolutely no middle ground. Don't look at it from the point of> "control" and

don't assume superiority of one element over the other. Sun> needs Moon for

completeness just as Moon needs Sun.> > May Jupiter's light shine on us, >

Narasimha> ------------------------------->

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish

software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC)

website: http://www.SriJagannath.org>

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