wildoat 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2008 Dear all, I am absolutely new to Jyotish and to the list. Much less than a beginner. An Indian friend brought me some books by Prof. BV Raman I have started to read. In the first chapter of "How to judge a horoscope" Raman stresses about the need of considering the term house as a synonym for bhava and not for rasi. He advices us to consider the rasi, the navamsa and the bhav table. In his astronomical work he teaches us how to calculate the ascendant and the midpoint of all bhavas. Some horoscopes of his are defined with references to bhavas that are different from rasis even though they represent a small percent of the total. In his "Graha and Bhava Balas", after the Shadbala method, he explains a mathematical method useful to define the weak and strong bhavas. Such method is based on the conceipt of different size bhavas and the attribution of the lordship of the bhava to the lord of the midbhava sign. Now, even in the equal bhava hypothesis - 30 degree each bhava -, if we consider the I bhava starting 15 degrees before the ascendant and ending at 15 degrees after it, we obtain that for each planet there is 75% chance to get the equivalence between rasi and bhava. Following a binomial distribution, everyone should have a mean of about 2 planets in different position between rasi and bhava. Here are my questions. Should we use the bhava system (bhava not equal to rasi) or the rasi system (bhava equal rasi) ? In the hypothesis of the bhava system, should we prefer the equal size or the unequal size ? If we consider the unequal size, what about the planets with 3 lordships and the planets without lordship ? In the hypotesis of the rasi system, does it make sense to measure the bhavas as Raman teaches ? Why did Raman apply bhava (vs rasi) analysis just to 5-10 percent of charts, when almost everyone has at least one planet in different position (rasi vs bhava) ? Ciao and thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
