Four Yes or No Questions (Cn and Le Riddle...)

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha Rao,

 

The answer to all your questions is "Yes".

 

The issue arises only when we try to map the second hora of Virgo or Libra.

We have two possibilities:

 

(1) To consider the Sun and the Moon as two separate entities. This results

in mapping the respective signs to Leo and Cancer irrespective of them being

Day strong sign or night strong sign (as suggested by me)

(2) To consider the Sun and the Moon as one. Cancer becomes the night sign

of the Sun and Leo, day sign of Moon (as suggested by you)

 

Both have positives and negatives points.

 

For Option (1), we are ensuring consistency at the beginning ie considering

Sun and Moon as separate entities, but when it comes to mapping the day sign

of the Moon or night sign of the Sun, we fail.

 

For Option (2), we can effectively map the day sign of the Moon and night

sign of the Sun and ensure consistency at the second level. Accepting the

Sun and the Moon as one does not ensure consistency at the beginning.

 

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.

 

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. This could give us a different mapping

altogether! However, this mapping deviates from the normal definition as

Cancer repeats thrice and Leo repeats once.

 

Om Tat Sat,

 

Raman Suprajarama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[] On

Behalf Of Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

Monday, August 22, 2005 12:28 AM

vedic astrology;

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

 

Dear Raman,

 

I am quoting from the PDF file you uploaded: "If the portion of the sign is

ruled by sun, it corresponds to day sign in Hora chart and if by moon, night

sign."

 

Let me ask a few straight-forward yes or no questions to make my point.

 

(1) With Virgo being an even sign, do you agree that the first half of Virgo

is "ruled by Moon"?

 

(2) Do you agree that the second half of Virgo is "ruled by Sun"?

 

(3) Do you agree that the second half of Virgo corresponds to a "day sign in

Hora chart"?

 

(4) Do you agree that Cn is a night sign (i.e. not a day sign)?

 

If your answer to all these questions is yes, how can then the second half

of Virgo correspond to Cn in Hora chart? In your original table, you mapped

the second half of Vi to Le. But, in the latest table, you changed it to Cn

and that breaks the rule I quoted from you above. There is a similar issue

with the second half of Libra.

 

If you are uncomfortable dealing with these questions, you may not answer. I

will be happy to drop this thread. I am writing only because I am assuming

that you did not understand my point.

 

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

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

 

> Dear Narasimha Rao,

>

>

>

> The dichotomy of day/night is created by Sun and Moon and the zodiac

>

> is divided into two halves. Each planet except Sun and Moon own one

>

> day sign and one night sign each. The irony of this whole thing is

>

> that Sun and Moon created this whole dichotomy, but they need to

>

> combine into ONE entity in order to take part in this dichotomy!

>

>

>

> While constructing the Hora chart, we clearly differentiate between Sun

and

> Moon. We have to continue with this principle in order to maintain

> consistency. The allotment of signs is based on Sun and Moon lordship and

> not on Day signs and Night signs. We have considered Day/Night strong

signs

> based on the ownership of Sun/Moon and not the reverse.

>

>

>

> If we consider the normal Hora chart, we find that the planets go into

> Cancer and Leo. We could take a clue from this and consider the Sun and

the

> Moon as two separate grahas and not one.

>

>

>

> Om Tat Sat,

>

>

>

> Raman Suprajarama

>

>

>

>

>

>

> []

On

> Behalf Of pvr108

> Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:02 PM

>

> [vedic astrology] Cn and Le Riddle (Re: (Multiple

> replies) RE: New method...)

>

>

>

> Dear Raman,

>

>

>

> > For Sun and Moon, there are no day signs and night signs. Hence we

>

> consider

>

> > Cancer for Moon and Leo for Sun. This ensures consistency.

>

>

>

> I argue that this does not ensure consistency, but makes things

>

> highly inconsistent. You are mapping both the halves of Vi to night

>

> signs (Ge and Cn) and both the halves of Li to day signs (Li and

>

> Le). This is a total collapse of the paradigm of each sign mapped to

>

> one day sign and one night sign. If the only reason for breaking the

>

> paradigm is that Sun and Moon have only sign, why can't we combine

>

> them so that there are two signs now?

>

>

>

> The dichotomy of day/night is created by Sun and Moon and the zodiac

>

> is divided into two halves. Each planet except Sun and Moon own one

>

> day sign and one night sign each. The irony of this whole thing is

>

> that Sun and Moon created this whole dichotomy, but they need to

>

> combine into ONE entity in order to take part in this dichotomy!

>

>

>

> In JHora, I will give Raman Hora the way you defined it now. After

>

> all, it is your research. But I will also give a variation based on

>

> the Cn/Le change I am suggesting. Ironically, you too had it the way

>

> I like it in your original rough draft that was uploaded!

>

>

>

> Despite my strong reservation about your treatment of Cn and Le, I

>

> think the whole idea of combining two seemingly disjoint statements

>

> of Varahamihira into one coherent teaching is quite brilliant and I

>

> look forward to more contributions from you to the knowledge pool of

>

> Jyotisha!

>

>

>

> 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

>

> -------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

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.netFree Jyotish software

(Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website:

http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------------

 

> Dear Narasimha Rao,> > The answer to all your questions is "Yes".> > The issue

arises only when we try to map the second hora of Virgo or Libra.> We have two

possibilities:> > (1) To consider the Sun and the Moon as two separate

entities. This results> in mapping the respective signs to Leo and Cancer

irrespective of them being> Day strong sign or night strong sign (as suggested

by me)> (2) To consider the Sun and the Moon as one. Cancer becomes the night

sign> of the Sun and Leo, day sign of Moon (as suggested by you)> > Both have

positives and negatives points.> > For Option (1), we are ensuring consistency

at the beginning ie considering> Sun and Moon as separate entities, but when it

comes to mapping the day sign> of the Moon or night sign of the Sun, we fail. >

> For Option (2), we can effectively map the day sign of the Moon and night>

sign of the Sun and ensure consistency at the second level. Accepting the> Sun

and the Moon as one does not ensure consistency at the beginning.> > 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.> > 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. This could

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

normal definition as> Cancer repeats thrice and Leo repeats once.> > Om Tat

Sat,> > Raman Suprajarama> > >

[] On> Behalf

Of Narasimha P.V.R. Rao> Monday, August 22, 2005 12:28 AM> To:

vedic astrology; > Subject:

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

Raman,> > I am quoting from the PDF file you uploaded: "If the portion of the

sign is> ruled by sun, it corresponds to day sign in Hora chart and if by moon,

night> sign."> > Let me ask a few straight-forward yes or no questions to make

my point.> > (1) With Virgo being an even sign, do you agree that the first

half of Virgo> is "ruled by Moon"?> > (2) Do you agree that the second half of

Virgo is "ruled by Sun"?> > (3) Do you agree that the second half of Virgo

corresponds to a "day sign in> Hora chart"?> > (4) Do you agree that Cn is a

night sign (i.e. not a day sign)?> > If your answer to all these questions is

yes, how can then the second half> of Virgo correspond to Cn in Hora chart? In

your original table, you mapped> the second half of Vi to Le. But, in the

latest table, you changed it to Cn> and that breaks the rule I quoted from you

above. There is a similar issue> with the second half of Libra.> > If you are

uncomfortable dealing with these questions, you may not answer. I> will be

happy to drop this thread. I am writing only because I am assuming> that you

did not understand my point.> > 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>

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

[Guest guest]

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

vedic astrology;

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

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

 

> Dear Narasimha Rao,

>

> The answer to all your questions is "Yes".

>

> The issue arises only when we try to map the second hora of Virgo or

Libra.

> We have two possibilities:

>

> (1) To consider the Sun and the Moon as two separate entities. This

results

> in mapping the respective signs to Leo and Cancer irrespective of them

being

> Day strong sign or night strong sign (as suggested by me)

> (2) To consider the Sun and the Moon as one. Cancer becomes the night sign

> of the Sun and Leo, day sign of Moon (as suggested by you)

>

> Both have positives and negatives points.

>

> For Option (1), we are ensuring consistency at the beginning ie

considering

> Sun and Moon as separate entities, but when it comes to mapping the day

sign

> of the Moon or night sign of the Sun, we fail.

>

> For Option (2), we can effectively map the day sign of the Moon and night

> sign of the Sun and ensure consistency at the second level. Accepting the

> Sun and the Moon as one does not ensure consistency at the beginning.

>

> 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.

>

> 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. This could give us a different

mapping

> altogether! However, this mapping deviates from the normal definition as

> Cancer repeats thrice and Leo repeats once.

>

> Om Tat Sat,

>

> Raman Suprajarama

>

>

> []

On

> Behalf Of Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

> Monday, August 22, 2005 12:28 AM

> vedic astrology;

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

>

> Dear Raman,

>

> I am quoting from the PDF file you uploaded: "If the portion of the sign

is

> ruled by sun, it corresponds to day sign in Hora chart and if by moon,

night

> sign."

>

> Let me ask a few straight-forward yes or no questions to make my point.

>

> (1) With Virgo being an even sign, do you agree that the first half of

Virgo

> is "ruled by Moon"?

>

> (2) Do you agree that the second half of Virgo is "ruled by Sun"?

>

> (3) Do you agree that the second half of Virgo corresponds to a "day sign

in

> Hora chart"?

>

> (4) Do you agree that Cn is a night sign (i.e. not a day sign)?

>

> If your answer to all these questions is yes, how can then the second half

> of Virgo correspond to Cn in Hora chart? In your original table, you

mapped

> the second half of Vi to Le. But, in the latest table, you changed it to

Cn

> and that breaks the rule I quoted from you above. There is a similar issue

> with the second half of Libra.

>

> If you are uncomfortable dealing with these questions, you may not answer.

I

> will be happy to drop this thread. I am writing only because I am assuming

> that you did not understand my point.

>

> 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

> -------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links