Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Dear Narsimha Rao and members, >Though Parasara said "meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet", >he also made it very clear >that Sun and Moon are the lords of these horas. >Shiv Chadha's interpretation ignored this most important factor (Moon and >Sun) and got distracted by the >expression "parivritti dwayam". It is good you brought it up. It will furthur clarify this matter. I have talked of both kind of hora chart and both have uses and each hora has dual category. They are either solar or lunar and also the planetary lordship from Aries to Pisces. The full verse is, Rasherardh bhavedhorasta chaturvinshati smrata. meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet. Meaning half of a sign makes hora and they are 24 in number which start with Aries etc. and make two cycles of signs. >Why don't you look at the next stanzas under dreshkana (D-3) and find a >parallel? Those stanzas teach >that we take 1st, 5th and 9th (swa pancha >navamaanaam) from a rasi for the 3 parts. But stanza 7 (of >chapter 6 >(Santhanam) or 7 (GC Sharma)) also says "parivritti trayam teshaam >meshaadeh kramaso >bhavet". This is exactly like the line found in the hora >stanza! >Now, are you going to replace the standard 1st/5th/9th D-3 with Parivritti >Traya Drekkana (tricyclical D->3)? In D3 "parivritti trayam teshaam meshaadeh kramaso bhavet" states that three cycles of signs from Aries to Pisces are made but specifies how 36 D3s are arrived at in "swa pancha navamaanaam' and asks to take 1st, 5th and 9th from a rasi for the 3 parts but no such specification is given for hora in "meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet." That makes all the difference. The principle will stand out in these two combinations taken from Sarvarth Chintamani. (1) Ascendant second half of Gemini while Mars occupies the first half : lives for full life span. (sc12/46a) This demonstrates that benefic sign but lunar hora in the ascendant and Mars, planet of physical energy in the ascendant but in solar hora, promotes and gives full life span. (2) Ascendant second half of Gemini with Jupiter while Mars occupies the first half, Mercury with Venus being in an angle : lives for more than 100 years and is pious. (sc12/50) Here, we are talking about the main chart with "parivrittidwayam" Hora chart coming in the picture indirectly. In Gemini ascendant main chart, Mercury willl rule two angles, the ascendant and the 4th house; Venus will rule the 12th and the 5th house, a trine. Their association in angles can be in one of Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius or Pisces sign, ruled by Jupiter and Mercury and both the planets will be in the angles i.e. the sign dispositor of Mercury-Venus combination is ensured to be in an angle. Coming to Hora chart with Virgo ascendant, Mercury here again rules two angles while Venus rules the 2nd and the 9th house, a trine. So the combination of Mercury and Venus in an angle in the main chart is the combination of lord of two angles and a trine of both the charts- the main as well as Hora. Notice that Mercury-Venus combination being in an angle in the main chart is not ensuring that they remain in angle in Hora chart too; they can be in Leo or Aquarius in Hora falling in the 12th or the 6th house of Hora chart but in the solar Hora. In whichever half of sign Mercury-Venus combination falls, they are in solar or lunar hora which is acceptable for dual-charactered Mercury the ascendant lord of the two charts. The angular position in hora chart for Mercury is not important and for Venus hora position and place is irrelevant as long as he remains trinal lord in both the charts. Next to BPHS, I consider Sarvarth Chintamani the other most important classic with hidden rules for interpretation of divisional charts. Unfortunately, this is far more ill-treated and translated classic. One translation by B Suryanarain Rao has 10% less verses translated. He simply omitted what could not be understood. His wrongly-translated verses found their way into B V Raman's 'Three Hundred Important Combinations.' Another translation in the name of J N Bhasin, has all the verses but ridiculous translation. Late J N Bhasin could never finish the translation; only little was done by him before his death. Somebody else finished the work and name of Bhasin was retained to get commercial advantage but it gives bad name to Late Bhasin. I am attaching modified and more clear version of my article on 'Hora' to help one understand it better. Best wishes, Shiv Chadha >"Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr >vedic astrology ><vedic astrology> >[vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya >Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:52:32 -0400 > >Dear Lucas, > > > Dear Shiv, Narasimha and others, > > > > First, big thanks for your encouragements. > > I am doing this translation with great pleasure and am happy that >members >of > > this list appreciate it. > > I read about the mistakes emphasized by Mr Chadha and, as I see that >you're > > OK if I mention your source on my web site, I'll modify my translation > > according to your article. > > I am surprised that PD Hora was explained in BPHS! > >Actually, my advice would be to leave it as taught by Santhanam and others. >I read Shiv Chadha's article. I am afraid it is a misrepresentation of >Parasara's teaching. > >Though Parasara said "meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet", >he also made it very clear that Sun and Moon are the lords of these horas. >Shiv Chadha's interpretation ignored this most important factor (Moon and >Sun) and got distracted by the expression "parivritti dwayam". > >Why don't you look at the next stanzas under dreshkana (D-3) and find a >parallel? Those stanzas teach that we take 1st, 5th and 9th (swa pancha >navamaanaam) from a rasi for the 3 parts. But stanza 7 (of chapter 6 >(Santhanam) or 7 (GC Sharma)) also says "parivritti trayam teshaam >meshaadeh >kramaso bhavet". This is exactly like the line found in the hora stanza! >Now, are you going to replace the standard 1st/5th/9th D-3 with Parivritti >Traya Drekkana (tricyclical D-3)? > >Parasara obviously didn't mean that we repeat the 12 signs three times in >the zodiacal order. He only meant that we start from Aries and go around >the >zodiac and, after finding 3 signs corresponding to each sign, we end up >going across the zodiac 3 times. He did NOT mean we go across the zodiac 3 >times in the *regular* order (i.e. he did not say that the 3 parts of Ar >are >Ar, Ta, Ge, the 3 parts of Ta are Cn, Le, Vi and so on). This is obvious >because he taught the 1st/5th/9th rule. You have to mix that trine rule >with >"parivritti traya" (going around three times). > >Then the same logic holds for hora too!! We have to find a mapping of rasis >in such a way that we go across the zodiac twice. This mapping is, however, >not necessarily regular (Ar, Ta for Ar; Ge, Cn for Ta and so on), because >that does not accommodate the Moon-Sun rule! > >Clearly, Cancer-and-Leo-only chart is not what Parasara intended. However, >you are better off teaching THAT than what Shiv Chadha taught. > >I know that I also taught the same version taught by Shiv Chadha a couple >of >years ago on this list. But I never said it was the hora chart taught by >Parasara. It's not. It does not show money. It shows family matters. > >I cannot say anything more on Parasara's hora chart. Please don't ask any >further questions. > > > And for verse 16 of chapter 8, you're right that this verse seems a bit > > "weird" to understand. > >Not only that verse, but several verses in that chapter were >poorly/inadequately interpreted by authors. Some verses at the end of the >previous chapter were also poorly handled. > >However, don't worry. > >Build something first. You can perfect it later! > > > I must say that one quality of a web version of BPHS is that it can be > > corrected easily. > >Exactly! > > > Second, I thank Narasimha for his explanation and explicit examples of > > Paryaaya dasa. > > I hope the whole list wil benefit positively from that. > > I suppose that the rules for strengths of houses are the same as in >Narayana > > dasa, as I see that years are counted as in Narayana dasa. > > I suppose also that antadasas are calculated the same way as in Narayana > > dasa? > >Yes. > > > Now I can better understand the several times where this dasa was >mentioned. > > > > Concerning Varnada dasa, you mentioned there was a controversy. > > If I look at the explanations in BPHS and in an article by Gauranga das, > > there are differences. > >Actually, the controversy I referred to is different. Some people use rasi >numbers in additions and subtractions involved in the definition of Varnada >Lagna and some people use the exact longitudes. Based on BPHS verses, I >think the former is more logical. But you never know.... > > > Maybe these differences are due to a wrong translation made by one of >the > > two? > > In BPHS, the final step in finding varnada lagna (chap 6 verse 13-16) is > > seeing if the number obtained is odd or even, and then you count > > respectively from Aries or Pisces. > > Whereas in the Gauranga Version (in brihaspati.net, article entitled > > "special ascendants"), if the LAGNA is odd you count from Aries, and > > reversely for even signs. > >Well, BPHS does not make that clear. It only says "if the two numbers have >the same oddity, add them.. Else, find the difference. Now count those many >signs from Aries or Pisces". Aries or Pisces based on what criterion? It's >not clear. > >The BPHS translation you have is basically saying this: You look at the >final sum/difference number and decide based on it. If it is odd, you count >from Ar and you count from Pi if it is even. But, look at this: If you >count >only an odd number of rasis from Aries or only an even number of rasis from >Pisces, then Varnada lagna will always be in an odd sign! I cannot think >that there would be such a restriction. So I should say that Gauranga's >interpretation that you decide whether to count zodiacally from Aries or >anti-zodiacally from Pisces based on the oddity of lagna (and NOT the >oddity >of the final sum/difference number) is quite logical. Clearly, the other >approach of deciding based on the final number is illogical. You canno rule >out half the zodiac for a special lagna. > > > Second thing that is not clear : the counting of years. > > In BPHS, the translation doesn't explain if we count years clockwise or > > counter-clockwise. > >I'll skip Varnada dasa for now. Some other time... > > > Can we also use paryaaya dasa for every ennemies? > >Yes, that was what I was taught. But I use it only for medical diagnosis of >health problems. > > > Lucas > >May Jupiter's light shine on us, >Narasimha > >--------------------- >Narasimha P.V.R. Rao email: pvr108 >26 Seaver Farm Lane Tel: (508) 839-1218 >South Grafton, MA 01560 email: pvr > > **** Note the address change **** > > Homepage: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org >--------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > >Your use of is subject to > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Attachment: (application/msword) Hora.doc [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Namaste Sri Shiv Chadha, > It is good you brought it up. It will furthur clarify this matter. > I have talked of both kind of hora chart and both have uses and each hora > has dual category. They are either solar or lunar and also the planetary > lordship from Aries to Pisces. The full verse is, > Rasherardh bhavedhorasta chaturvinshati smrata. > meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet. > Meaning half of a sign makes hora and they are 24 in number which start with > Aries etc. and make two cycles of signs. In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify them as solar and lunar signs. Where does this classification come from? What is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus a "lunar" sign? You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their cabinet. But Ar being a solar sign and Ta being a lunar sign does not fit. What is the basis then? Obviously, you first decided the order as zodiacal (Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn etc) based on "parivritti dwayam" and thereby assigned *your own* solar and lunar classification to this pre-determined sequence of signs. However, as I pointed out "parivritti dwayam" does not imply zodiacal order. As I said, drekkana verse uses "parivritti trayam" and yet the order (repeated thrice across the zodiac) is Ar, Le, Sg, Ta, Vi, Cp etc (based on triplicities). You started with a wrong assumption and so you obviously had to come up with your own solar/lunar classification of signs, which has no sastric basis whatsoever. I have great respect for you, but some people will take your highly questionable research seriously and get misled. This is not right. After all, your solar/lunar classification of signs is totally baseless. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Namaste Sri Narsimha Rao and members, >In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify them >as solar and lunar signs. Where >does this classification come from? What >is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus a "lunar" >sign? >You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their cabinet. >But Ar being a solar sign and >Ta being a lunar sign does not fit. What is >the basis then? In the Hora Table 'Solar/Lunar classification' refers to two classification of each half of sign to Sun's Hora and Moon's Hora. It is not classification of signs based on story about Zodiac being divided into two parts originally-one half belonging to the Sun and another half to the Moon. Sun's half of Zodiac Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn Moon's half of Zodiac Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, Aries, Pisces, Acquarius. This story is referred to in Saravali too. I will give exact reference after finding it again. The two things - 24 halves of 12 signs assigned to signs on the basis of 'parivritti dwayam' and another on 'story' should not be mixed. They will create confusion. Reading from beginning to end my 'modified' version of Hora article sent as attachment in last mail, should make things clear. I am vouching for two kinds of Hora divisions and both have use and purpose, as explained from examples given from Sarvarth Chintamani. Hora's importance in longevity determination is also highlighted there which will 'look peculiar'. The above two Hora classifications are on www.vedanet.com since April 1999 and people have done and found encouraging results from this classification in financial astrology. When these results are published, we will learn more. Best wishes Shiv Chadha >pvr >vedic astrology >vedic astrology >[vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya >Sat, 08 Sep 2001 00:40:49 -0000 > >Namaste Sri Shiv Chadha, > > > It is good you brought it up. It will furthur clarify this matter. > > I have talked of both kind of hora chart and both have uses and >each hora > > has dual category. They are either solar or lunar and also the >planetary > > lordship from Aries to Pisces. The full verse is, > > Rasherardh bhavedhorasta chaturvinshati smrata. > > meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet. > > Meaning half of a sign makes hora and they are 24 in number which >start with > > Aries etc. and make two cycles of signs. > >In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify >them as solar and lunar signs. Where does this classification come >from? What is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus >a "lunar" sign? > >You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their >cabinet. But Ar being a solar sign and Ta being a lunar sign does not >fit. What is the basis then? > >Obviously, you first decided the order as zodiacal (Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn >etc) based on "parivritti dwayam" and thereby assigned *your own* >solar and lunar classification to this pre-determined sequence of >signs. However, as I pointed out "parivritti dwayam" does not imply >zodiacal order. As I said, drekkana verse uses "parivritti trayam" >and yet the order (repeated thrice across the zodiac) is Ar, Le, Sg, >Ta, Vi, Cp etc (based on triplicities). > >You started with a wrong assumption and so you obviously had to come >up with your own solar/lunar classification of signs, which has no >sastric basis whatsoever. > >I have great respect for you, but some people will take your highly >questionable research seriously and get misled. This is not right. >After all, your solar/lunar classification of signs is totally >baseless. > >May Jupiter's light shine on us, >Narasimha > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Om Gurave Namah -------------------------- Dear Narasimha & shiv, As I pointed out, Shiv is very close to the truth. Point is that he has done so without any outside teaching from a Guru or someone else in this and for this I give him and his work total credit. it shows a brilliant mind. Jai Bhole.. Best Wishes Sanjay Rath - <pvr <vedic astrology> Saturday, September 08, 2001 6:10 AM [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > Namaste Sri Shiv Chadha, > > > It is good you brought it up. It will furthur clarify this matter. > > I have talked of both kind of hora chart and both have uses and > each hora > > has dual category. They are either solar or lunar and also the > planetary > > lordship from Aries to Pisces. The full verse is, > > Rasherardh bhavedhorasta chaturvinshati smrata. > > meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet. > > Meaning half of a sign makes hora and they are 24 in number which > start with > > Aries etc. and make two cycles of signs. > > In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify > them as solar and lunar signs. Where does this classification come > from? What is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus > a "lunar" sign? > > You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their > cabinet. But Ar being a solar sign and Ta being a lunar sign does not > fit. What is the basis then? > > Obviously, you first decided the order as zodiacal (Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn > etc) based on "parivritti dwayam" and thereby assigned *your own* > solar and lunar classification to this pre-determined sequence of > signs. However, as I pointed out "parivritti dwayam" does not imply > zodiacal order. As I said, drekkana verse uses "parivritti trayam" > and yet the order (repeated thrice across the zodiac) is Ar, Le, Sg, > Ta, Vi, Cp etc (based on triplicities). > > You started with a wrong assumption and so you obviously had to come > up with your own solar/lunar classification of signs, which has no > sastric basis whatsoever. > > I have great respect for you, but some people will take your highly > questionable research seriously and get misled. This is not right. > After all, your solar/lunar classification of signs is totally > baseless. > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 Om Gurave Namah -------------------------- Dear Shiv, Think again..male & female hora?? OK I am not giving any more hints. Yes you are brilliant, and that reference to saravali is correct. This is the Ayana Division into Aho-Ratra for the Gods. You are very correct about the point that HORA relates to life principle and this is a point I have stressed in Vedic Remedies where Trimsamsa is for death where none of the signs are owned by the Luminaries. thus, the standard ol' Hora of two signs and trimsamsa where all signs excepting Cancer 7 Leo are used relate to Life and death principle. Best Wishes Sanjay Rath - Shiv Chadha <manoramaoccult <vedic astrology> Saturday, September 08, 2001 8:52 AM Re: [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > Namaste Sri Narsimha Rao and members, > > >In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify them > >as solar and lunar signs. Where >does this classification come from? What > >is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus a "lunar" >sign? > > >You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their cabinet. > >But Ar being a solar sign and >Ta being a lunar sign does not fit. What is > >the basis then? > > In the Hora Table 'Solar/Lunar classification' refers to two classification > of each half of sign to Sun's Hora and Moon's Hora. It is not classification > of signs based on story about Zodiac being divided into two parts > originally-one half belonging to the Sun and another half to the Moon. > > Sun's half of Zodiac Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn > Moon's half of Zodiac Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, Aries, Pisces, Acquarius. > > This story is referred to in Saravali too. I will give exact reference after > finding it again. > > The two things - 24 halves of 12 signs assigned to signs on the basis of > 'parivritti dwayam' and another on 'story' should not be mixed. They will > create confusion. > > Reading from beginning to end my 'modified' version of Hora article sent as > attachment in last mail, should make things clear. I am vouching for two > kinds of Hora divisions and both have use and purpose, as explained from > examples given from Sarvarth Chintamani. Hora's importance in longevity > determination is also highlighted there which will 'look peculiar'. > > The above two Hora classifications are on www.vedanet.com since April 1999 > and people have done and found encouraging results from this classification > in financial astrology. When these results are published, we will learn > more. > > Best wishes > Shiv Chadha > > > >pvr > >vedic astrology > >vedic astrology > >[vedic astrology] Re: BPHS and Paryaaya > >Sat, 08 Sep 2001 00:40:49 -0000 > > > >Namaste Sri Shiv Chadha, > > > > > It is good you brought it up. It will furthur clarify this matter. > > > I have talked of both kind of hora chart and both have uses and > >each hora > > > has dual category. They are either solar or lunar and also the > >planetary > > > lordship from Aries to Pisces. The full verse is, > > > Rasherardh bhavedhorasta chaturvinshati smrata. > > > meshaadi taasaam horaanaam parivritti dwayam bhavet. > > > Meaning half of a sign makes hora and they are 24 in number which > >start with > > > Aries etc. and make two cycles of signs. > > > >In the table, you give the two parts of Ar as Ar and Ta and classify > >them as solar and lunar signs. Where does this classification come > >from? What is the basis for calling Aries a "solar" sign and Taurus > >a "lunar" sign? > > > >You mentioned the story about luminaries sharing signs with their > >cabinet. But Ar being a solar sign and Ta being a lunar sign does not > >fit. What is the basis then? > > > >Obviously, you first decided the order as zodiacal (Ar, Ta, Ge, Cn > >etc) based on "parivritti dwayam" and thereby assigned *your own* > >solar and lunar classification to this pre-determined sequence of > >signs. However, as I pointed out "parivritti dwayam" does not imply > >zodiacal order. As I said, drekkana verse uses "parivritti trayam" > >and yet the order (repeated thrice across the zodiac) is Ar, Le, Sg, > >Ta, Vi, Cp etc (based on triplicities). > > > >You started with a wrong assumption and so you obviously had to come > >up with your own solar/lunar classification of signs, which has no > >sastric basis whatsoever. > > > >I have great respect for you, but some people will take your highly > >questionable research seriously and get misled. This is not right. > >After all, your solar/lunar classification of signs is totally > >baseless. > > > >May Jupiter's light shine on us, > >Narasimha > > > > > > > _______________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 Pranaam Gurudeva, > Dear Narasimha & shiv, > As I pointed out, Shiv is very close to the truth. Point is that he has done For whatever reason, you seem to think that he is very close to truth. Well, then I will have to take back my statement that his researches are not right and a step in the wrong direction. My judgment was probably wrong. Also, I am glad that you are directly involved in this thread now. So I can withdraw from this topic. Good luck to all in their search of truth... > so without any outside teaching from a Guru or someone else in this and for > this I give him and his work total credit. it shows a brilliant mind. Jai > Bhole.. > Best Wishes > Sanjay Rath Your sishya, Narasimha PS: You commented on Pavithra's D-10 based on the chart she gave. She entered the time zone as 5:14 east of GMT. I wonder if it is right. They weren't using LMT in 1970's. Time was being measured in one standard time (IST - 5:30 east of GMT). Unless Pavithra converted her birthtime noted in IST to LMT (which I doubt), she made a mistake in entering birthdata. 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.