Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Hello Karthik, According to the dictums of jyotish, the two things one cannot determine from the Rasi are; race and gender. However, within all races there are darker or lighter complexioned natives. Indira Ghandi comes to mind...I believe she was fairly light skinned for her race and, if memory serves me, I think she has fair maiden Moon aspecting her ascendant. Saturn and Rahu darken the complexion (in any race), Moon lightens the complexion, whilst Mars gives a ruddy (reddish) complexion. Regards Wendy Karthik wrote ============= One thing which surprises me, is the complexion and color of different races. The first house is supposed to reflect the complexion/ color of the person. How do you explain the relatively fair color of skin for the americans, the dark color for the africans, in between complexion for the asian race based on astrology? Any comments in this direction would be appreciated. Regards, Karthik gjlist- Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Hello Karthik and Wendy: One question on this that has intrigued me is why both 1st and 2nd houses can considered for appearance, complexion and beauty. I have often seen factors influencing ascendant as determining complexion but since 2nd house is the face, Moon in 2nd will also give fair complexion and beauty. Is there any meaningful distinction in using the these houses? Chris At 04:41 PM 4/16/01 +0800, you wrote: >Hello Karthik, > >According to the dictums of jyotish, the two things one cannot determine >from the Rasi are; race and gender. However, within all races there are >darker or lighter complexioned natives. Indira Ghandi comes to mind...I >believe she was fairly light skinned for her race and, if memory serves me, >I think she has fair maiden Moon aspecting her ascendant. > >Saturn and Rahu darken the complexion (in any race), Moon lightens the >complexion, whilst Mars gives a ruddy (reddish) complexion. > >Regards >Wendy > >Karthik wrote >============= >One thing which surprises me, is the complexion and color of >different races. The first house is supposed to reflect the >complexion/ color of the person. >How do you explain the relatively fair color of skin for the >americans, the dark color for the africans, in between complexion for >the asian race based on astrology? > >Any comments in this direction would be appreciated. >Regards, >Karthik > > > >gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > >gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Hi Chris, As per my understanding, each house represents certain parts of the body; i.e. 1st Head/Forehead/Brain, 2nd Face/Neck, 3rd Shoulders/Arms/Hands, etc..... These (body parts) however have LESS to do with (general) appearance, which is seen primarily from Lagna, and MORE to do with possible affliction to those parts, which one may not necessarily be born with but may develop at sometime during the dasa of a malefic occupying said house. In a nutshell: The body part represented by the house can be afflicted if it is occupied by a malefic...this will be more likely (for instance) if the afflicted house happens to be the 8th house. The signs also govern certain areas of the body, so that if it's lord is suffering affliction (again, particularly in 8th) then the part of the body represented by that sign can be afflicted (most particularly during the relevant dasas). In my opinion the Lagna shows (more) the physical characteristics we were born with...tall, short, fair, dark (depending on race), etc.... Just one more point is the "age of maturity" of malefic planet(s)...I have found that the effect (on particular body parts) from malefic occupation is likely to take a more solid hold (come to fruition) once that planet reaches maturity. If the said planet is both a natural malefic and a functional malefic, the affliction is more certain. Regards Wendy Chris wrote =========== Hello Karthik and Wendy: One question on this that has intrigued me is why both 1st and 2nd houses can considered for appearance, complexion and beauty. I have often seen factors influencing ascendant as determining complexion but since 2nd house is the face, Moon in 2nd will also give fair complexion and beauty. Is there any meaningful distinction in using the these houses? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Hey Wendy: Thanks for your ideas on this. As usual, they are informative. A couple of questions below. At 11:12 PM 4/16/01 +0800, you wrote: >Hi Chris, > >As per my understanding, each house represents certain parts of the body; >i.e. 1st Head/Forehead/Brain, 2nd Face/Neck, 3rd Shoulders/Arms/Hands, >etc..... > >These (body parts) however have LESS to do with (general) appearance, which >is seen primarily from Lagna, and MORE to do with possible affliction to >those parts, which one may not necessarily be born with but may develop at >sometime during the dasa of a malefic occupying said house. > >In a nutshell: The body part represented by the house can be afflicted if it >is occupied by a malefic...this will be more likely (for instance) if the >afflicted house happens to be the 8th house. Right, so say somebody has their 3rd lord in the 8th (or 6th I should think), this ought to make their arms and hands more suspectible to problems. That makes good sense to me. > >The signs also govern certain areas of the body, so that if it's lord is >suffering affliction (again, particularly in 8th) then the part of the body >represented by that sign can be afflicted (most particularly during the >relevant dasas). > >In my opinion the Lagna shows (more) the physical characteristics we were >born with...tall, short, fair, dark (depending on race), etc.... Right, and this makes good sense too. I would also say that lagnesh is important too for appearance. Associations to lagnesh by Moon and Venus especially will often enhance appearance. Most famously, Marilyn Monroe's Moon aspected her Ascendant. Queen Elizabeth has Ketu in her lagna but Moon aspects both her lagnesh Jupiter and 2nd house. But it isn't difficult to find charts of good looking people who do not apparently follow the above rules. Take JFK, who besides being famous for being assassinated, was also famous for being a young, good looking president. (May 29 1917 3.00 pm Brookline, MA -- Houck has recitified his time to 3.13 but the lagna remains the same) He has Virgo rising with only an aspect (and a very wide one indeed) to it by Jupiter in Taurus. I wouldn't normally think of Jupiter as conferring good looks in this situation but it is a benefic, so it's possible. Lagnesh Mercury is closely conjunct Mars so that can't be doing any favours to appearance either. Interestingly, 2L Venus is in its own house conjunct Jupiter and Sun. So on the face of it(pun intended!), I would say that the 2nd house does play a role. I've only started to look at appearance in the horoscope and it's a fasinating area for sure. One thing that confounds me a bit is the height question. I have seen contriadictory writings on which signs confer height. De Fouw, for example, links tall signs with signs with long ascensions, Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio. However, Agarwal's Practical Vedic Astrology says Gemini, Libra, Scorpio, and Capricorn are tall. I'm sure if I looked at more books, I would find different combinations. Any thoughts? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Dear Chris, You wrote =========== Right, so say somebody has their 3rd lord in the 8th (or 6th I should think), this ought to make their arms and hands more suspectible to problems. That makes good sense to me. My reply ======== I think it's also relevant to consider if said house is moolatrikona sign or not...dosha (vata/pitta/kapha) of sign will also point to type of affliction...i.e. vata influence can lead to chronic (8th) arthritis in hands, etc.... As another example I have 2nd lord Saturn in 6th, and in my 20's I was plagued with throat infections, tonsillitis etc...that situation improved and eventually ceased altogether...6th being a "growing" house where planets grow stronger over time. You wrote ========= But it isn't difficult to find charts of good looking people who do not apparently follow the above rules. Take JFK, who besides being famous for being assassinated, was also famous for being a young, good looking president. (May 29 1917 3.00 pm Brookline, MA -- Houck has recitified his time to 3.13 but the lagna remains the same) He has Virgo rising with only an aspect (and a very wide one indeed) to it by Jupiter in Taurus. I wouldn't normally think of Jupiter as conferring good looks in this situation but it is a benefic, so it's possible. Lagnesh Mercury is closely conjunct Mars so that can't be doing any favours to appearance either. Interestingly, 2L Venus is in its own house conjunct Jupiter and Sun. So on the face of it(pun intended!), I would say that the 2nd house does play a role. My reply ======== In JFK's chart both JU & SA are aspecting ascendant. Of the two, JU is the stronger influence being in house of great friend (SA is neutral). Quite obviously Jupiter's influence on Asc will be determined by the influences upon him...HIS NATURE IS AFFECTED BY ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER PLANETS! In this chart JU is associated with Moon's dispositor(SU) and Venus, the planet of beauty. The only aspect on 2nd house is from MA/ME neither of which will bestow a beautiful appearance. You wrote ========= I've only started to look at appearance in the horoscope and it's a fasinating area for sure. One thing that confounds me a bit is the height question. I have seen contriadictory writings on which signs confer height. De Fouw, for example, links tall signs with signs with long ascensions, Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio. However, Agarwal's Practical Vedic Astrology says Gemini, Libra, Scorpio, and Capricorn are tall. I'm sure if I looked at more books, I would find different combinations. Any thoughts? Chris My reply ======== As Inder Jit Sahni has stated, height and colour are very much dependant on race...but within the parameters of race, height/complexion is determined by ascendant sign, and modified by aspects to it. I think that Asc lord has more to say regarding height...i.e. Saturn natives are usually tall (if there are no limiting aspects to Asc). I am quite tall (Capricorn rising), and my twin sister (Aquarius rising) is even taller. Regards Wendy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 Hello friends, It is primarily the ascendant, the planets in the ascendant and the planets aspecting the ascendant and those associated with ascendant lord which are responsible for physical body structure of a person. Thats my view. Manoj _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Dear Wendy: >My reply >======== >In JFK's chart both JU & SA are aspecting ascendant. Of the two, JU is the >stronger influence being in house of great friend (SA is neutral). JU is in the house of a great friend to what? Venus as friend to Asc lord Mercury? I wasn't aware of this principle of friendly planets outweighing enemy planets. Where does this come from? Quite >obviously Jupiter's influence on Asc will be determined by the influences >upon him...HIS NATURE IS AFFECTED BY ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER PLANETS! In this >chart JU is associated with Moon's dispositor(SU) and Venus, the planet of >beauty. The only aspect on 2nd house is from MA/ME neither of which will >bestow a beautiful appearance. Right. This is an interesting way to look at it (I'd save the caps for another time though). Jupiter may be affected by its association with other planets, but aren't all planets? What if Mars was aspecting lagna but was in the sign of the Moon's dispositor while Saturn was aspecting lagna in the sign of Venus's dispositor? If we used associations with dispositors of Moon or Venus, then I think everyone in the world would be beautiful! :-) Obviously, I'm being selective myself here by omitting consideration of Jupiter's conj with Venus, but I just wanted to make the point. The number of logical connections required to link planets to a given configuration in a chart varies inversely with their relative impact on that configuration. And why do you only consider aspects on the 2nd house? The 2L Venus is equally important, isn't it? Moreover, we should also consider Venus' strength without respect to house association. Being in its sign with benefic Jupiter, Venus is strong. That by itself would enhance appearance. Our problem here is disentangling its karaka role from its 2L role. I'll look around and find another chart that can show some of these issues more clearly. >As Inder Jit Sahni has stated, height and colour are very much dependant on >race...but within the parameters of race, height/complexion is determined by >ascendant sign, and modified by aspects to it. I think that Asc lord has >more to say regarding height...i.e. Saturn natives are usually tall (if >there are no limiting aspects to Asc). I am quite tall (Capricorn rising), >and my twin sister (Aquarius rising) is even taller. But height should have more to do with situation of asc lord, no? Capricorn rising people may or may not be tall -- I should think there is precious little difference in the respective heights of different ascendants. The trick is where is lagnesh and what are aspects on lagna as well. A Capricorn rising person with Saturn in a short sign like Pisces aspected by the Moon(a short planet) will be short. A Capricorn rising person with Saturn in a medium height sign like Cancer unaspected will be of average height. But this presupposes some notion of what the tall signs are. DeFouw mentiones that Saturn and Jupiter are the tall planets and yet, are their signs are tall? Pisces is never mentioned as a tall sign, and Sagittarius is either average or short, from the sources I've seen. Any thoughts? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Just very quickly here Chris as I don't have time for lengthy debates at the moment, sorry... You wrote ========= JU is in the house of a great friend to what? Venus as friend to Asc lord Mercury? I wasn't aware of this principle of friendly planets outweighing enemy planets. Where does this come from? My reply ======== According to the tenets of jyotish a planet has full strength (to advance the affairs of the houses it occupies or aspects) when in exaltation; 3/4 strength in moolatrikona sign; 1/2 strength in own sign; 1/4 in friendly sign; 1/8th in neutral (or equal) sign, and so forth...see BPHS chapter 3, verses 51-60 for detailed account of temporary relationship scheme. Regards Wendy gjlist- Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Definitely last post for awhile, but I had to respond briefly to this by reiterating what I said earlier regarding Saturn adding height. You wrote ========= But height should have more to do with situation of asc lord, no? Capricorn rising people may or may not be tall -- I should think there is precious little difference in the respective heights of different ascendants. The trick is where is lagnesh and what are aspects on lagna as well. A Capricorn rising person with Saturn in a short sign like Pisces aspected by the Moon(a short planet) will be short. A Capricorn rising person with Saturn in a medium height sign like Cancer unaspected will be of average height. But this presupposes some notion of what the tall signs are. DeFouw mentiones that Saturn and Jupiter are the tall planets and yet, are their signs are tall? Pisces is never mentioned as a tall sign, and Sagittarius is either average or short, from the sources I've seen. Any thoughts? My reply ======== My husband has Cancer rising with Saturn in ascendant aspected by Jupiter...Asc lord Moon is in (supposedly) short sign Pisces. My husband is quite tall. So you have: 1) Ascendant Cancer.....short sign 2) Asc lord in Pisces...short sign and we have a tall native....... Wendy gjlist- Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Dear wendy, Chris et al, i have not gone into this matter of "appearance" much, know that one must relate it to recial basics. But even there one has to be careful. In India, in families like mine the complexion ranges from very very dark - negro black - to Italian fairness of skin. but there are sections of people in india who are much lighter in complexion, have grey/blue eyes. This fairness is "comparable" to that of the people in the middle east, whose fairness is not the transparent colour of the true white race, but a whitish pallor. In Nigeria I saw "blacks" who were very light-skinned, and they were called "yellow people". When it comes to a sense of beauty, things are more different. The average African black does not find the white skin very attractive. But the Indian does, to an extent that the fair skin can overcome all other defective features like crooked nose, squinting eyes, buck-teeth! Then comes the idea of figure. The Indian and European ideals are similar, but the Indian - at least in classical times, a 1000 years or so ago - goes for bigger breasts and broader hips in a woman. The ideal man seems to be the same, muscular, but a belly is accepted. Arabs and some Africans like fat women. Very fat! Now being obese may be a sign of beauty in the area, but also a sign of ill-health! The chinese value tiny feet and trippling gait. So how does one judge from a chart at all? As Wendy says, one must concentrate only on health, deformation, size and absolute colour - and leave out "beauty". regards Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Dear Chris and Wendy, Namaskaar, While judging color and complexion on the basis of asc, 1st priority goes to the Rashi of the Ascendant, 2nd to the ascendant occupant (consider bhava lagna that will be more appropriate), a planet near the ascendant degree will have more say , 3rd to the aspecting planet. In my experience Gemini, cancer , Libra, Scorpio, Capricorn and Aquarius all produce tall persons. Saturn, Rahu added to these ascendant confirms the tallness. Jupiter gives fat, Sun gives Avg. height. But Sun in Capricorn ascendant will give Avg. tall , Saturn in the same may give above avg. tall. If there is no occupant and aspect to the Ascendant then only we should consider Ascendant lord in that also priority remains with the Ascendant Rashi. Last but not the least we must consider Navmasha lagna lord and its placement in the nativity. With regards. Inder Jit Sahni - Wendy Vasicek gjlist Tuesday, April 17, 2001 10:33 PM RE: [gjlist] Complexion & colour. Definitely last post for awhile, but I had to respond briefly to this by reiterating what I said earlier regarding Saturn adding height. You wrote ========= But height should have more to do with situation of asc lord, no? Capricorn rising people may or may not be tall -- I should think there is precious little difference in the respective heights of different ascendants. The trick is where is lagnesh and what are aspects on lagna as well. A Capricorn rising person with Saturn in a short sign like Pisces aspected by the Moon(a short planet) will be short. A Capricorn rising person with Saturn in a medium height sign like Cancer unaspected will be of average height. But this presupposes some notion of what the tall signs are. DeFouw mentiones that Saturn and Jupiter are the tall planets and yet, are their signs are tall? Pisces is never mentioned as a tall sign, and Sagittarius is either average or short, from the sources I've seen. Any thoughts? My reply ======== My husband has Cancer rising with Saturn in ascendant aspected by Jupiter...Asc lord Moon is in (supposedly) short sign Pisces. My husband is quite tall. So you have: 1) Ascendant Cancer.....short sign 2) Asc lord in Pisces...short sign and we have a tall native....... Wendy gjlist- Your use of is subject to gjlist- Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Hello Chris et al, Temptation to add another point too great to resist, so taking leave of busy typing (other project) for a few minutes, may I add another method of determining physical characteristics...much the same as Inder Jit Sahni has said (I too in a round-about way). We know that one's prikriti (body type) is determined from the ascendant, therefore knowing the characteristics of the doshas one may better judge the height/complexion of the native...i.e. Vata types are generally thin and quite tall but can be small and waif like (like a delicate fairy), which can probably be determined by observing if Saturn is influencing Lagna (then you'd surely have the very tall Vata type), skin is somewhat dry, etc; Pitta types are generally of medium size and have well proportioned bodies, fair or ruddy complexion, often freckled; Kapha types generally have the most solid (powerful) build, prone to obesity, skin more oily than other types. Determining the Prikriti is virtually the same method as laid out by Inder Jit Sahni (and my round-about-self) to determine physical attributes from Lagna. The great advantage in going "one step further" to determine the prikriti is the greater wealth of information at hand such as; possible health issues, weaknesses, strengths, dietary advice, etc... For the benefit of those interested I give the doshas of the Signs and planets. Note that a couple may differ from other sources, but I believe these to be correct...you may try them on your own horoscope and see if you can determine your own prikriti. ARIES: Pitta TAURUS: Vata GEMINI: Vata/Pitta/Kapha Cancer: Kapha LEO: Pitta VIRGO: Vata LIBRA: Vata/Pita/Kapha SCORPIO: Kapha SAGITTARIUS: Pitta CAPRICORN: Vata AQUARIUS: Vata/Pitta/Kapha PISCES: Kapha =================================== SUN: Pitta MOON: Vata/Kapha (waning Vata, waxing Kapha) MARS: Pitta MERCURY: Vata/Pitta/Kapha JUPITER: Kapha VENUS: Kapha/Vata SATURN: Vata RAHU: Vata KETU: Vata ================================= One's Vrikriti (imbalance) can also be determined. By judging any afflictions in 8th house (in particular, and I think(?) 6th). Regards Wendy Dear Chris and Wendy, Namaskaar, While judging color and complexion on the basis of asc, 1st priority goes to the Rashi of the Ascendant, 2nd to the ascendant occupant (consider bhava lagna that will be more appropriate), a planet near the ascendant degree will have more say , 3rd to the aspecting planet. In my experience Gemini, cancer , Libra, Scorpio, Capricorn and Aquarius all produce tall persons. Saturn, Rahu added to these ascendant confirms the tallness. Jupiter gives fat, Sun gives Avg. height. But Sun in Capricorn ascendant will give Avg. tall , Saturn in the same may give above avg. tall. If there is no occupant and aspect to the Ascendant then only we should consider Ascendant lord in that also priority remains with the Ascendant Rashi. Last but not the least we must consider Navmasha lagna lord and its placement in the nativity. With regards. Inder Jit Sahni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Dear Inder Jit, May I ask you to help this girl who wrote to me privately? I am giving her mail in parts for you to study. Considering her situation let us just call her G for girl And the husband H. Her query number is 246 best regards Mani "I am currently a student over in Canada. I am from tamil nadu (I am assuming you are tamil speaking, but not sure). I have a request and was wondering if you could find some time to take a look at my horoscope and my husband's. This is a personal request and so would appreciate it if you could keep it away from the list. We got married just 4 months ago and we aren't living together since I am in Canada studying and he is in US working. Can you take a look at our charts and let us know when we can live together and the children and stuff? I am a little worried at times........... My husband: 10th May, 1972 in Cannanore (Kerala) at 17:30 (Lagna: Thula, Rasi: Meenam) Me: 1st September, 1974 in Madras at 16:07 (Lagna: Makara, Rasi: Kumbham) Some special dates in my life: 1. got married on 11th December, 2000 at 9:47 a.m. (believe me, the charts are wonderful at that time, atleast that is what I think, from the little astrology I knew). 2. My mother died on July 14, 1996 at 10:10 a.m. 3. My sister had died 3 months or so after she was born, so don't have a recollection of her. Her birthdate is August 1st, 1975 - not sure of the time. Nakshatram was Bharani. 4. I came to Canada to study on Jan 1st, 1996. I had gotten admission here in September, but couldn't come. I was kind of demoted from what I was studying (probably due to the Guru dhasa).. I was doing my MSc in Madras and had gotten admission for a MBA too part time but left all that for a BSc in Canada. Now I am doing my PhD. As far as my husband goes, I don't have much info on the exact dates (will write to him and get it for you though). He came to US in 1997. He got into his first job in 1995 I think (he thinks he is really lucky at that time). We both met by MERE CHANCE on the internet sometime in September 1998. We met each other for the first time in person on September 2nd, 1999. Till September 2000, we NEVER has one feeling that we would get married. To us, it was a totally unexpected thing. One concern I have about us is when we will live together? Right now I go once in a month and visit him for short durations. I would also like to know when we might have kids (yeah I know these things depend on us, but there is a time for all that). We currently have no plans of having a kid because we would like to live with each other for sometime before we think of additions to the family." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Dear Wendy and All: Hard to know where to start given all the stuff out there. I think it's best to step back, look at a few charts to see what's going on in them and reconvene. Here are some of the key issues at stake as I see them: 1) is there a connection between traditional understandings of beauty and skin complexion? References in the classics to Moon in the Asc often combines the idea of light complexion and beauty -- something that is often forgotten, but not by Mani. Certainly, there is good reason to suspect that the traditional line on this was biased towads fair skin. So perhaps beauty has nothing to do with the Ascendant, only light complexion,and beauty is connected only with the relative strength of the Moon ahn Venus. I personally doubt this, but it's possible. 2) is appearance only a 1st house matter (including lagnesh and navamsha)? I've heard you and Inder talk about it, and you've definitely got some good points here. However, I want to look at a few more charts before I exclude the 2nd house/face. I am more confident about the strength of beauty-inducing planets Moon and Venus. It's early, but my sense is that they don't have to have a connection with lagna to confer beauty. If they are strong by sign and house placement, etc that can give appearance a boost -- and here I AM thinking physical attractiveness, not merely fair skinned. 3) Height. This will be very difficult since there is no agreement on which signs confer height. I think we all agree that Saturn and Rahu are good for height and Jupiter may be. To figure this out, we might need to look at some charts of basketball players. I have 7-foot one-inch Wilt Chamberlain's but perhaps if somebody has Michael Jordan's or some other players charts, they can share them with us. Chamberlain (Aug 21 1936 11.27 pm EDT Philadelphia) has Taurus lagna (not tall) with a Jupiter in Scorpio (tall?) aspect to it. Lagnesh Venus is in Leo(tall?) aspected by Saturn in Aquarius (a double dose of tall there). Rahu (tall) in Sg (not tall) also aspects Venus. So likely some tallness there by conventional wisdom, but not really in the 7 foot range. He has Aq rising in navamsha so maybe the rest of the tall story is told there somehow. All contributions welcome as I'm just groping in the dark here. >My reply >======== >My husband has Cancer rising with Saturn in ascendant aspected by >Jupiter...Asc lord Moon is in (supposedly) short sign Pisces. My husband is >quite tall. So you have: > >1) Ascendant Cancer.....short sign >2) Asc lord in Pisces...short sign > >and we have a tall native....... I don't get it. First you say how signs are important and now they're not. Anyway, I would agree that tall planets aspecting the lagna/lagnesh would overrule signs. Planets are the integers and the signs are to the right of the decimal point. Still, it would be nice to know what the relative effects of planets in which signs actually are. For instance, it may turn out that Pisces isn't a short sign at all. yours in the quagmire, Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Dear Chris, One thing I think we're all forgetting is the karaka for Asc (SU) having a say in "beauty". In JFK's chart SU is flanked by JU & VE. And being as objective as I can be, I wish to add that I won a beauty contest when I was a young girl...I have SU conjunct VE and both are in constellation of Venus. Of course that's definitely NOT the case today. Since Asc lord Saturn's age of maturity, the "looks like a crone" applies more and more every year :-) Wendy You wrote ========= Dear Wendy and All: Hard to know where to start given all the stuff out there. I think it's best to step back, look at a few charts to see what's going on in them and reconvene. Here are some of the key issues at stake as I see them: 1) is there a connection between traditional understandings of beauty and skin complexion? References in the classics to Moon in the Asc often combines the idea of light complexion and beauty -- something that is often forgotten, but not by Mani. Certainly, there is good reason to suspect that the traditional line on this was biased towads fair skin. So perhaps beauty has nothing to do with the Ascendant, only light complexion,and beauty is connected only with the relative strength of the Moon ahn Venus. I personally doubt this, but it's possible. 2) is appearance only a 1st house matter (including lagnesh and navamsha)? I've heard you and Inder talk about it, and you've definitely got some good points here. However, I want to look at a few more charts before I exclude the 2nd house/face. I am more confident about the strength of beauty-inducing planets Moon and Venus. It's early, but my sense is that they don't have to have a connection with lagna to confer beauty. If they are strong by sign and house placement, etc that can give appearance a boost -- and here I AM thinking physical attractiveness, not merely fair skinned. 3) Height. This will be very difficult since there is no agreement on which signs confer height. I think we all agree that Saturn and Rahu are good for height and Jupiter may be. To figure this out, we might need to look at some charts of basketball players. I have 7-foot one-inch Wilt Chamberlain's but perhaps if somebody has Michael Jordan's or some other players charts, they can share them with us. Chamberlain (Aug 21 1936 11.27 pm EDT Philadelphia) has Taurus lagna (not tall) with a Jupiter in Scorpio (tall?) aspect to it. Lagnesh Venus is in Leo(tall?) aspected by Saturn in Aquarius (a double dose of tall there). Rahu (tall) in Sg (not tall) also aspects Venus. So likely some tallness there by conventional wisdom, but not really in the 7 foot range. He has Aq rising in navamsha so maybe the rest of the tall story is told there somehow. All contributions welcome as I'm just groping in the dark here. >My reply >======== >My husband has Cancer rising with Saturn in ascendant aspected by >Jupiter...Asc lord Moon is in (supposedly) short sign Pisces. My husband is >quite tall. So you have: > >1) Ascendant Cancer.....short sign >2) Asc lord in Pisces...short sign > >and we have a tall native....... I don't get it. First you say how signs are important and now they're not. Anyway, I would agree that tall planets aspecting the lagna/lagnesh would overrule signs. Planets are the integers and the signs are to the right of the decimal point. Still, it would be nice to know what the relative effects of planets in which signs actually are. For instance, it may turn out that Pisces isn't a short sign at all. yours in the quagmire, Chris gjlist- 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.