Sanskrit : parivrtti

[Guest guest]

Dear list members,

I would be very grateful if any learned list members could advise me

with regard to a question about the possible meanings of the

Sanskrit term "parivrtti" (sorry about the transcription,

pointed "r" of course). As you know, this is used in slokas III.56

and III.57 of BPHS in the definition of the hora and drekkana charts:

III.56: Raserdhambhavethora taschaturvimsath smrtah

Meshadi tasam horanam parivrttidvayam bhavet

III.57: Rasitribhaga drekkanasteca shadtrimsadeeritah

Parivrttitrayam tesham Meshadeh kramaso bhavet

As we saw in a recent detailed posting by Sri Narasimha Rao in the

Forum of Vedic Astrology , the drekkana definition also includes

further indications concerning the 1-5-9 arrangement of the

drekkana. Similarly, the hora definition given just before the above

one, in III.55 seems to propose a simple division into rulership by

Sun or Moon (Sun for 1st half of odd signs and 2nd half of even

signs, Moon vice-versa). There are a number of ways that learned

astrologers have sought to reconcile these two definitions, some of

which are included as options in JH program. I have also heard of a

different interpretation of the Sun/Moon rulership, not included in

JH: the first half of an odd rasi is the hora of itself, the second

half is the hora of the next rasi; whereas the second hora of an

even rasi is itself and the first half is the next rasi. Ie: horas

of Mesha would be Mesha-Vrishabha; horas of Vrishabha would be

Mithuna-Vrishabha; horas of Mithuna would be Mithuna-Kartaka; horas

of Kartaka would be Simha-Kartaka, etc. In this way there is a

continuous movement through the zodiac, without jumps or gaps, but

with a "zig-zag" movement, and a retrograde sequence of subdivisions

in the even rasis. As even rasis are often considered to

be "negative" or feminine", they could also be considered to

be "lunar", so this might allow the construction of a real chart

using the "Sun/Moon" rulerships as proposed by sloka III.55.

My knowledge of Sanskrit is very rudimentary: just vocabulary and

root-etymologies, practically no grammar, and only in transcription.

So what I would like to know from anyone with good knowledge of

Sanskrit is: could the definition I have described above also

correspond to a possible definition of the term "parivrtti", and

more particularly "parivrttidvayam". I know that is usually

translated in Jyotish as meaning "a revolution through the zodiac in

Regular cyclic order from 0° to 360° or From Mesha to Meena",

so "parivrttidvayam" would mean "cycling the twelve rasis twice

from Mesha". But since Sanskrit is a complex and very dense and

concise language, and since the element "-dvayam" is here in the

visesya (qualified) position rather than in the visesana

(qualifying) position, I would like to know if it could possibly

ALSO mean "there is a cyclic movement in pairs" -- possibly with a

reversal of direction in successive odd and even signs, ie. a "zig-

zag" movement.

I know, for example, that in yoga asana, "parivritti" means a twist

posture, first in one direction, then in the other. Also, T.K.V.

Desikachar (son of Krishnamacharya of Chennai) says in an interview

that in yoga practice we are sometimes led to change direction in

our lives: "This sense of reorientation is communicated in the

Sanskrit term "parivritti"... seeing a bit ahead and redirection is

what is meant by the concept of "parivritti"."

Also, the Western words derived from the Sanskrit root "pari-"

sometimes mean "round in the same direction" (eg. periphery),

sometimes "turning in a new direction" (eg. peripetia: a sudden

change of direction of fortune, as in Greek tragedy). And in Vedic

astrology itself, while we have "paridhi" (circumference)

and "parikrama" (revolution), we also have "parivarthana" (exchange

of places).

So what I am really asking is: could "parivritti", AS WELL AS

referring to a movement round and round (like the hands of a clock),

also POSSIBLY signify a movement turning back and forth (like the

thread on a weaver's loom).

I would be very grateful indeed if anyone could help me to clarify

my thinking on this point, or simply to give an opinion, either via

the forum or directly to me.

Very best wishes to all.

Graham Fox