Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Horoscope of Rama ----------------- In Southern version of the Vatmiki Ramayana there is a sloka that describes the horoscope of Rama. The sloka is given below – Tatascha dwadese mase chaitre navamike tithou Nakshatre aditidaivtye swocha samsteshu panchasu Graheshu karkate lagne vakpatavinduna saha Prodyaname jagannatham sarvaloka namaskritam (Vatmiki Ramayana) Meaning, 12 months after (the Homa), in the month of Chaitra, in Navami Thithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, while 5 planets were exalted, in Cancer lagna Moon was with Mercury, the lord to whom everyone bows took birth. There are so many controversies associated with this sloka, let us list them. • This sloka mentions Lagna and Cancer sign, which indicates that normal astrology with 12 signs and 27 Nakshatras was there in use even at Ramayana period. But in the whole of Vedic and Epic literature we can not find the mention of 12 Signs or any of there names such as `Mesha', `Vrishabha' etc, and never the mention of Lagna as something related to the sign. So how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? • There are many (at least four) versions of Vatmiki Ramayana, out of them only the Southern version (Dakshinatya patam) contains this sloka. In this condition how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? • Sun is exalted means it is in 10 deg Aries. Mo in Punarvasu means it is between 80 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 min. If we consider that Mo is in Cancer then Mo is between 90 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 min. Tithi is (Mo-Su)/15. Here if Su is in 10 deg Aries and Mo is in 93 deg 20 min then, the difference is 83 deg 20 min. • i.e. Tithi = (83 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = (5000 min)/(15*60) = 5.5555…. = 6th Tithi, which is Shashti ! How Vatmiki make such a gross mistake?! Let us think that Su was in the first deg of Aries, taking the maximum allowable distance for Punarvasu Nakshatra, i.e. 93 deg 20 min, then – Tithi = (93 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = 6.2222222……… = 7th Tithi, which is Saptami ! In essence Punarvasu Nakshatra and Navami Tithi can not coincide, while Su is in Aries. In this condition how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? • The above condition forces us to think that either Su is in Pisces or that Tithi is not Navami or that Nakshatra is not Punarvasu. In Pisces Su is not exalted, and the position of Su is not explicitly mentioned (though indirectly mentioned) in the sloka. So I take it as a choice. But this not the case with Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra, they are explicitly mentioned in the sloka and we have no right to change it. So can I assume that Su is in Pisces and proceed further? To what extend this approach can be accepted? Another point is that the sloka explicitly mentions the month as Chaitra, so Su should be in Aries, what can I do about it? Ok. That is enough. Now let us try to understand what the sloka says. The sloka gives the following Planetary position – +--------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | Ve | Su | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| | | | Mo Me |Mo | | | | | | | As Ju | | | | | | | | | |-----------| Rasi |-----------| | | | | | Ma | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sa | | | | | | | | | | | | +--------------+ Tithi = Navami Nakshatra = Punarvasu Month = Chaitra The position of Ra and Ke is not mentioned, and 5 planets are in their respective sign of exaltation. But by now we know that it is an impossible combination. If Mo is in the first, Navamsa of Cancer, then Mo is in Vargottama. Shall we take it as equivalent to exaltation? " Vargottame swacha phalam vidadyal " says Varaha hora. Meaning, if the graha is in Vargottama the results produced by it would be equivalent to the graha is exaltation. Ok. Then we consider Mo as one of the five exalted planets, and place Mo in Pisces. What else can we do?! Panchaga (Tithi, Karana, Vara, Nakshatra, Nityayoga) were so popular in those days and so we can not assume any error in calculating them. If Su is in the last quarter of Pi (let us assume, 325 deg 00 min), then, Tithi = (360 x 60 + (93 x 60)+20) – (325 x 60) = 8.55555……. = Navami Tithi. That seems to be ok, since the Navami Tithi and Punarvasu conditions are satisfied. But the problem is, if Su is in the last Nakshatra pada of Pisces then Su is also in Vargottama. If we considered Mo in Vargottama as exalted then we can say that Su in Vargottama can not be considered as Vargottama. That essentially means that 4 planets (Ve, Ma, Ju, Sa) are exalted and Su and Mo should be considered exalted, since they are in Vargottama. Thus we end up with 6 exalted grahas, contradicting the statement in the sloka! I drop it here, for others to ponder. I would assume that this sloka is not authentic, and is included by some one else into the southern version of Ramayana, and it is not at all a sloka written by Vatmiki. And thus assuming the existence of Lagna (thus house system) and Cancer sign (thus other signs as well), is wrong. Assuming the existence of normal astrology in Ramayana period solely based on this sloka is a pit fall which we should avoid. P.S. Manipulated slokas are one of the greatest hindrances in the study of literary history of astrology. While being proud of Ancient Indian heritage we should also be sincere enough to drop the inconsistent erroneous info as well. Love, Sreenadh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Horoscope of Rama > ----------------- > In Southern version of the Vatmiki Ramayana there is a sloka that > describes the horoscope of Rama. The sloka is given below – > > Tatascha dwadese mase chaitre navamike tithou > Nakshatre aditidaivtye swocha samsteshu panchasu > Graheshu karkate lagne vakpatavinduna saha > Prodyaname jagannatham sarvaloka namaskritam > (Vatmiki Ramayana) > Meaning, 12 months after (the Homa), in the month of Chaitra, in > Navami Thithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, while 5 planets were exalted, > in Cancer lagna Moon was with Mercury, the lord to whom everyone bows > took birth. > > There are so many controversies associated with this sloka, let us > list them. > • This sloka mentions Lagna and Cancer sign, which indicates > that normal astrology with 12 signs and 27 Nakshatras was there in > use even at Ramayana period. But in the whole of Vedic and Epic > literature we can not find the mention of 12 Signs or any of there > names such as `Mesha', `Vrishabha' etc, and never the mention of > Lagna as something related to the sign. So how can we believe that > this sloka is authentic? > • There are many (at least four) versions of Vatmiki Ramayana, > out of them only the Southern version (Dakshinatya patam) contains > this sloka. In this condition how can we believe that this sloka is > authentic? > • Sun is exalted means it is in 10 deg Aries. Mo in Punarvasu > means it is between 80 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 min. If we consider > that Mo is in Cancer then Mo is between 90 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 > min. Tithi is (Mo-Su)/15. Here if Su is in 10 deg Aries and Mo is in > 93 deg 20 min then, the difference is 83 deg 20 min. > • i.e. Tithi = (83 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = (5000 min)/(15*60) = > 5.5555…. = 6th Tithi, which is Shashti ! How Vatmiki make such a > gross mistake?! Let us think that Su was in the first deg of Aries, > taking the maximum allowable distance for Punarvasu Nakshatra, i.e. > 93 deg 20 min, then – Tithi = (93 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = 6.2222222……… > = 7th Tithi, which is Saptami ! In essence Punarvasu Nakshatra and > Navami Tithi can not coincide, while Su is in Aries. In this > condition how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? > • The above condition forces us to think that either Su is in > Pisces or that Tithi is not Navami or that Nakshatra is not > Punarvasu. In Pisces Su is not exalted, and the position of Su is not > explicitly mentioned (though indirectly mentioned) in the sloka. So I > take it as a choice. But this not the case with Navami Tithi and > Punarvasu Nakshatra, they are explicitly mentioned in the sloka and > we have no right to change it. So can I assume that Su is in Pisces > and proceed further? To what extend this approach can be accepted? > Another point is that the sloka explicitly mentions the month as > Chaitra, so Su should be in Aries, what can I do about it? > Ok. That is enough. Now let us try to understand what the sloka says. > The sloka gives the following Planetary position – > > > +--------------+ > | | | | | > | | | | | > | Ve | Su | | | > | | | | | > | | | | | > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > | | | Mo Me |Mo > | | | | > | | | As Ju | > | | | | > | | | | > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > | | | | > | Ma | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > | | | | | > | | | | | > | | | Sa | | > | | | | | > | | | | | > +--------------+ > > Tithi = Navami Nakshatra = Punarvasu Month = Chaitra > > The position of Ra and Ke is not mentioned, and 5 planets are in > their respective sign of exaltation. But by now we know that it is > an impossible combination. > If Mo is in the first, Navamsa of Cancer, then Mo is in Vargottama. > Shall we take it as equivalent to exaltation? " Vargottame swacha > phalam vidadyal " says Varaha hora. Meaning, if the graha is in > Vargottama the results produced by it would be equivalent to the > graha is exaltation. Ok. Then we consider Mo as one of the five > exalted planets, and place Mo in Pisces. What else can we do?! > Panchaga (Tithi, Karana, Vara, Nakshatra, Nityayoga) were so popular > in those days and so we can not assume any error in calculating them. > If Su is in the last quarter of Pi (let us assume, 325 deg 00 min), > then, > Tithi = (360 x 60 + (93 x 60)+20) – (325 x 60) = 8.55555……. = Navami > Tithi. That seems to be ok, since the Navami Tithi and Punarvasu > conditions are satisfied. But the problem is, if Su is in the last > Nakshatra pada of Pisces then Su is also in Vargottama. If we > considered Mo in Vargottama as exalted then we can say that Su in > Vargottama can not be considered as Vargottama. That essentially > means that 4 planets (Ve, Ma, Ju, Sa) are exalted and Su and Mo > should be considered exalted, since they are in Vargottama. Thus we > end up with 6 exalted grahas, contradicting the statement in the > sloka! > I drop it here, for others to ponder. I would assume that this > sloka is not authentic, and is included by some one else into the > southern version of Ramayana, and it is not at all a sloka written by > Vatmiki. And thus assuming the existence of Lagna (thus house system) > and Cancer sign (thus other signs as well), is wrong. Assuming the > existence of normal astrology in Ramayana period solely based on this > sloka is a pit fall which we should avoid. > > P.S. Manipulated slokas are one of the greatest hindrances in the > study of literary history of astrology. While being proud of Ancient > Indian heritage we should also be sincere enough to drop the > inconsistent erroneous info as well. > > Love, > Sreenadh Hi Sree, While it was not over exactly this matter, I do remember quizzing my guru on where was the reference in classics to each of the 27 nakshatras being equi-sized. And he wrote the following: [Cite] " The naksatras do not have any clear boundaries in the sky and for this reason the yoga tara (certain stars) identifying them have been earmarked by the seers. The mathematical derivation of span of nakshatra is an approximation based on division of circle by 27 and then accomodating a portion for abhijjit - you know all this. Now look at the motion of the Moon through the zodiac. Its motion is not uniform and speed is also varying. Further, we are looking at the Moon which is very close to the earth in the backdrop of the naksatra which are very far. So, if we consider the spped of the Moon then the span of the naksatra shall not be the same and some will be longer span than others. We are also aware that one third of the nakshatra give the results when the Moon is in it, while another third gives when the Moon has lest and the last one third give results just before the Moon arrives in them... Just bear in mind that the span of the naksatra has been made equal for mathematical purposes whereas in reality it is not so. For example mathematically I am born in xxxxxxxxx nakshatra but in reality this can be yyyyyyyy. Sorry if I have added to the confusion... but from the confusion can a clear picture emerge. Better still, forget these things for now. " [End cite] I haven't forgotten, though, not least because I've not gotten the final word on it. Not suggesting that the answer answer lies here but it might just too... what do you think? +++ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 Dear Verna ji, As your guru said: ==> Better still, forget these things (read the stupidities he said) for now. <== ==> > I do remember quizzing my > guru on where was the reference in classics to each of the 27 > nakshatras being equi-sized. <== It is available in most of the sidhantic texts like " Surya sidhanta " . As far as the first reference of the sky into 27 divisions and 12 signs are concerned, it is there in the oldest Rishi hora of astrology as per Arsha school (i.e. Skanda Hora) itself. The sloka starts like this - " Satyenotambhitam chakramupanalambe nabhastale Jyotishamekamadharamastita parivartata....... ............................................. Prajapatyaschatushpadyasteshu vai saptavimsati Akhnati tascha sambhooya navabhir navabhiH padaiH Rasayo nama geeyante tadavahana bhoomayaH dwadesavadhikerasya prananam sapta vimsatiH " Meaning, Without any support the wheel which form the base for the movements of grahas (and all luminaries) are placed. It constantly rotates (due to the revolution of earth). [The Rasichakra or Zodiac is mentioned here]. The 27 daughters of Braha (Nakshatras), with their 4 feets each (A sign is divided into 9 Nakshatra padas) strikes this wheel. The place where daughters of Brahma, starting with Aswini, strike in groups with their 9 feets (A sign is divided into 9 Nakshatra padas) is called a Rasi (Sign). There are 12 Signs, and the lengh of each min (Remember the Degree-min division) is 27 breaths. [Think why Chandrahari is after the rythem of breath]. Doesn't it all reflect the systematic understanding about Signs, Nakshatras, 21600 min that forms the total Rasichakra, Knowledge about Deg-Min division of Rasichakra etc? Is that not enough? There could be many more. But this is what comes to mind now. Skanda hora also says- " Tasya samstanamascharyamrishaya parimarginaH Prastita na nivartante sartbhi kalpalekshanaiH " Meaning, It (This Rasichakra) is wonderful, and the Rishi's who started in search of it actual shape and infulence, is not reaching a total conclusion even after a long period (a Kalpa). So beware you, me and all who are after astrology. It is a really dangerous subject. ) Love, Sreenadh , " vernalagnia " <vernalagnia wrote: > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Horoscope of Rama > > ----------------- > > In Southern version of the Vatmiki Ramayana there is a sloka that > > describes the horoscope of Rama. The sloka is given below – > > > > Tatascha dwadese mase chaitre navamike tithou > > Nakshatre aditidaivtye swocha samsteshu panchasu > > Graheshu karkate lagne vakpatavinduna saha > > Prodyaname jagannatham sarvaloka namaskritam > > (Vatmiki Ramayana) > > Meaning, 12 months after (the Homa), in the month of Chaitra, in > > Navami Thithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, while 5 planets were exalted, > > in Cancer lagna Moon was with Mercury, the lord to whom everyone bows > > took birth. > > > > There are so many controversies associated with this sloka, let us > > list them. > > • This sloka mentions Lagna and Cancer sign, which indicates > > that normal astrology with 12 signs and 27 Nakshatras was there in > > use even at Ramayana period. But in the whole of Vedic and Epic > > literature we can not find the mention of 12 Signs or any of there > > names such as `Mesha', `Vrishabha' etc, and never the mention of > > Lagna as something related to the sign. So how can we believe that > > this sloka is authentic? > > • There are many (at least four) versions of Vatmiki Ramayana, > > out of them only the Southern version (Dakshinatya patam) contains > > this sloka. In this condition how can we believe that this sloka is > > authentic? > > • Sun is exalted means it is in 10 deg Aries. Mo in Punarvasu > > means it is between 80 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 min. If we consider > > that Mo is in Cancer then Mo is between 90 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 > > min. Tithi is (Mo-Su)/15. Here if Su is in 10 deg Aries and Mo is in > > 93 deg 20 min then, the difference is 83 deg 20 min. > > • i.e. Tithi = (83 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = (5000 min)/(15*60) = > > 5.5555…. = 6th Tithi, which is Shashti ! How Vatmiki make such a > > gross mistake?! Let us think that Su was in the first deg of Aries, > > taking the maximum allowable distance for Punarvasu Nakshatra, i.e. > > 93 deg 20 min, then – Tithi = (93 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = 6.2222222……… > > = 7th Tithi, which is Saptami ! In essence Punarvasu Nakshatra and > > Navami Tithi can not coincide, while Su is in Aries. In this > > condition how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? > > • The above condition forces us to think that either Su is in > > Pisces or that Tithi is not Navami or that Nakshatra is not > > Punarvasu. In Pisces Su is not exalted, and the position of Su is not > > explicitly mentioned (though indirectly mentioned) in the sloka. So I > > take it as a choice. But this not the case with Navami Tithi and > > Punarvasu Nakshatra, they are explicitly mentioned in the sloka and > > we have no right to change it. So can I assume that Su is in Pisces > > and proceed further? To what extend this approach can be accepted? > > Another point is that the sloka explicitly mentions the month as > > Chaitra, so Su should be in Aries, what can I do about it? > > Ok. That is enough. Now let us try to understand what the sloka says. > > The sloka gives the following Planetary position – > > > > > > +--------------+ > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | Ve | Su | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > | | | Mo Me |Mo > > | | | | > > | | | As Ju | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > > | | | | > > | Ma | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | Sa | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > +--------------+ > > > > Tithi = Navami Nakshatra = Punarvasu Month = Chaitra > > > > The position of Ra and Ke is not mentioned, and 5 planets are in > > their respective sign of exaltation. But by now we know that it is > > an impossible combination. > > If Mo is in the first, Navamsa of Cancer, then Mo is in Vargottama. > > Shall we take it as equivalent to exaltation? " Vargottame swacha > > phalam vidadyal " says Varaha hora. Meaning, if the graha is in > > Vargottama the results produced by it would be equivalent to the > > graha is exaltation. Ok. Then we consider Mo as one of the five > > exalted planets, and place Mo in Pisces. What else can we do?! > > Panchaga (Tithi, Karana, Vara, Nakshatra, Nityayoga) were so popular > > in those days and so we can not assume any error in calculating them. > > If Su is in the last quarter of Pi (let us assume, 325 deg 00 min), > > then, > > Tithi = (360 x 60 + (93 x 60)+20) – (325 x 60) = 8.55555……. = Navami > > Tithi. That seems to be ok, since the Navami Tithi and Punarvasu > > conditions are satisfied. But the problem is, if Su is in the last > > Nakshatra pada of Pisces then Su is also in Vargottama. If we > > considered Mo in Vargottama as exalted then we can say that Su in > > Vargottama can not be considered as Vargottama. That essentially > > means that 4 planets (Ve, Ma, Ju, Sa) are exalted and Su and Mo > > should be considered exalted, since they are in Vargottama. Thus we > > end up with 6 exalted grahas, contradicting the statement in the > > sloka! > > I drop it here, for others to ponder. I would assume that this > > sloka is not authentic, and is included by some one else into the > > southern version of Ramayana, and it is not at all a sloka written by > > Vatmiki. And thus assuming the existence of Lagna (thus house system) > > and Cancer sign (thus other signs as well), is wrong. Assuming the > > existence of normal astrology in Ramayana period solely based on this > > sloka is a pit fall which we should avoid. > > > > P.S. Manipulated slokas are one of the greatest hindrances in the > > study of literary history of astrology. While being proud of Ancient > > Indian heritage we should also be sincere enough to drop the > > inconsistent erroneous info as well. > > > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > Hi Sree, > > While it was not over exactly this matter, I do remember quizzing my > guru on where was the reference in classics to each of the 27 > nakshatras being equi-sized. And he wrote the following: > > [Cite] > > " The naksatras do not have any clear boundaries in the sky and for > this reason the yoga tara (certain stars) identifying them have been > earmarked by the seers. The mathematical derivation of span of > nakshatra is an approximation based on division of circle by 27 and > then accomodating a portion for abhijjit - you know all this. Now look > at the motion of the Moon through the zodiac. Its motion is not > uniform and speed is also varying. Further, we are looking at the Moon > which is very close to the earth in the backdrop of the naksatra which > are very far. So, if we consider the spped of the Moon then the span > of the naksatra shall not be the same and some will be longer span > than others. We are also aware that one third of the nakshatra give > the results when the Moon is in it, while another third gives when the > Moon has lest and the last one third give results just before the Moon > arrives in them... > > Just bear in mind that the span of the naksatra has been made equal > for mathematical purposes whereas in reality it is not so. For example > mathematically I am born in xxxxxxxxx nakshatra but in reality this > can be yyyyyyyy. > > Sorry if I have added to the confusion... but from the confusion can a > clear picture emerge. Better still, forget these things for now. " > > [End cite] > > I haven't forgotten, though, not least because I've not gotten the > final word on it. > > Not suggesting that the answer answer lies here but it might just > too... what do you think? > > +++ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Dear shreenadh, this is certainly a prakshipta (an after inclusion) But it is not really impossible thing . Here Vakpati means Jupiter and not mercury, though the Vakpati connotes mercury. Otherwise, this in itself is an obvious contradiction, as Mercury can not be in cancer with Sun being in exaltation. On the other hand, there seems to be a possibility that Sun being in Aries but not exactly in exaltation for this to happen. think that over The sloka I have mentioned in my earlier posts comes in Ayodhya kanda , whereas the sloka you are talking about might be in Balakanda. Kishore patnaik , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Horoscope of Rama > ----------------- > In Southern version of the Vatmiki Ramayana there is a sloka that > describes the horoscope of Rama. The sloka is given below – > > Tatascha dwadese mase chaitre navamike tithou > Nakshatre aditidaivtye swocha samsteshu panchasu > Graheshu karkate lagne vakpatavinduna saha > Prodyaname jagannatham sarvaloka namaskritam > (Vatmiki Ramayana) > Meaning, 12 months after (the Homa), in the month of Chaitra, in > Navami Thithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, while 5 planets were exalted, > in Cancer lagna Moon was with Mercury, the lord to whom everyone bows > took birth. > > There are so many controversies associated with this sloka, let us > list them. > • This sloka mentions Lagna and Cancer sign, which indicates > that normal astrology with 12 signs and 27 Nakshatras was there in > use even at Ramayana period. But in the whole of Vedic and Epic > literature we can not find the mention of 12 Signs or any of there > names such as `Mesha', `Vrishabha' etc, and never the mention of > Lagna as something related to the sign. So how can we believe that > this sloka is authentic? > • There are many (at least four) versions of Vatmiki Ramayana, > out of them only the Southern version (Dakshinatya patam) contains > this sloka. In this condition how can we believe that this sloka is > authentic? > • Sun is exalted means it is in 10 deg Aries. Mo in Punarvasu > means it is between 80 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 min. If we consider > that Mo is in Cancer then Mo is between 90 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 > min. Tithi is (Mo-Su)/15. Here if Su is in 10 deg Aries and Mo is in > 93 deg 20 min then, the difference is 83 deg 20 min. > • i.e. Tithi = (83 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = (5000 min)/(15*60) = > 5.5555…. = 6th Tithi, which is Shashti ! How Vatmiki make such a > gross mistake?! Let us think that Su was in the first deg of Aries, > taking the maximum allowable distance for Punarvasu Nakshatra, i.e. > 93 deg 20 min, then – Tithi = (93 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = 6.2222222……… > = 7th Tithi, which is Saptami ! In essence Punarvasu Nakshatra and > Navami Tithi can not coincide, while Su is in Aries. In this > condition how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? > • The above condition forces us to think that either Su is in > Pisces or that Tithi is not Navami or that Nakshatra is not > Punarvasu. In Pisces Su is not exalted, and the position of Su is not > explicitly mentioned (though indirectly mentioned) in the sloka. So I > take it as a choice. But this not the case with Navami Tithi and > Punarvasu Nakshatra, they are explicitly mentioned in the sloka and > we have no right to change it. So can I assume that Su is in Pisces > and proceed further? To what extend this approach can be accepted? > Another point is that the sloka explicitly mentions the month as > Chaitra, so Su should be in Aries, what can I do about it? > Ok. That is enough. Now let us try to understand what the sloka says. > The sloka gives the following Planetary position – > > > +--------------+ > | | | | | > | | | | | > | Ve | Su | | | > | | | | | > | | | | | > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > | | | Mo Me |Mo > | | | | > | | | As Ju | > | | | | > | | | | > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > | | | | > | Ma | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > | | | | | > | | | | | > | | | Sa | | > | | | | | > | | | | | > +--------------+ > > Tithi = Navami Nakshatra = Punarvasu Month = Chaitra > > The position of Ra and Ke is not mentioned, and 5 planets are in > their respective sign of exaltation. But by now we know that it is > an impossible combination. > If Mo is in the first, Navamsa of Cancer, then Mo is in Vargottama. > Shall we take it as equivalent to exaltation? " Vargottame swacha > phalam vidadyal " says Varaha hora. Meaning, if the graha is in > Vargottama the results produced by it would be equivalent to the > graha is exaltation. Ok. Then we consider Mo as one of the five > exalted planets, and place Mo in Pisces. What else can we do?! > Panchaga (Tithi, Karana, Vara, Nakshatra, Nityayoga) were so popular > in those days and so we can not assume any error in calculating them. > If Su is in the last quarter of Pi (let us assume, 325 deg 00 min), > then, > Tithi = (360 x 60 + (93 x 60)+20) – (325 x 60) = 8.55555……. = Navami > Tithi. That seems to be ok, since the Navami Tithi and Punarvasu > conditions are satisfied. But the problem is, if Su is in the last > Nakshatra pada of Pisces then Su is also in Vargottama. If we > considered Mo in Vargottama as exalted then we can say that Su in > Vargottama can not be considered as Vargottama. That essentially > means that 4 planets (Ve, Ma, Ju, Sa) are exalted and Su and Mo > should be considered exalted, since they are in Vargottama. Thus we > end up with 6 exalted grahas, contradicting the statement in the > sloka! > I drop it here, for others to ponder. I would assume that this > sloka is not authentic, and is included by some one else into the > southern version of Ramayana, and it is not at all a sloka written by > Vatmiki. And thus assuming the existence of Lagna (thus house system) > and Cancer sign (thus other signs as well), is wrong. Assuming the > existence of normal astrology in Ramayana period solely based on this > sloka is a pit fall which we should avoid. > > P.S. Manipulated slokas are one of the greatest hindrances in the > study of literary history of astrology. While being proud of Ancient > Indian heritage we should also be sincere enough to drop the > inconsistent erroneous info as well. > > Love, > Sreenadh > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Dear Kishore ji, You are exactly right! In that sloka " Vakpati " should mean Ju and not Me. Otherwise that itself is an astronomical impossibility as you mentioned since Me can not be that far from Su. But I feel there is another choice for this sloka not being a prakshipta (an interpolated one) - an Idea I felt when I read through one of the articles of Subhash ji. I will speak about it later. ==> On the other hand, there seems to be a possibility that Sun being in Aries but not exactly in exaltation for this to happen. <== No that is impossible as per the concept of signs at present. If Su is in Aries then Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra can not occur at the same time. Love, Sreenadh , " kishore mohan " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > Dear shreenadh, > > this is certainly a prakshipta (an after inclusion) But it is not > really impossible thing . > > Here Vakpati means Jupiter and not mercury, though the Vakpati > connotes mercury. Otherwise, this in itself is an obvious > contradiction, as Mercury can not be in cancer with Sun being in > exaltation. > > On the other hand, there seems to be a possibility that Sun being in > Aries but not exactly in exaltation for this to happen. think that > over > > The sloka I have mentioned in my earlier posts comes in Ayodhya > kanda , whereas the sloka you are talking about might be in Balakanda. > > Kishore patnaik > > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > Horoscope of Rama > > ----------------- > > In Southern version of the Vatmiki Ramayana there is a sloka that > > describes the horoscope of Rama. The sloka is given below – > > > > Tatascha dwadese mase chaitre navamike tithou > > Nakshatre aditidaivtye swocha samsteshu panchasu > > Graheshu karkate lagne vakpatavinduna saha > > Prodyaname jagannatham sarvaloka namaskritam > > (Vatmiki Ramayana) > > Meaning, 12 months after (the Homa), in the month of Chaitra, in > > Navami Thithi and Punarvasu nakshatra, while 5 planets were > exalted, > > in Cancer lagna Moon was with Mercury, the lord to whom everyone > bows > > took birth. > > > > There are so many controversies associated with this sloka, let us > > list them. > > • This sloka mentions Lagna and Cancer sign, which indicates > > that normal astrology with 12 signs and 27 Nakshatras was there in > > use even at Ramayana period. But in the whole of Vedic and Epic > > literature we can not find the mention of 12 Signs or any of there > > names such as `Mesha', `Vrishabha' etc, and never the mention of > > Lagna as something related to the sign. So how can we believe that > > this sloka is authentic? > > • There are many (at least four) versions of Vatmiki Ramayana, > > out of them only the Southern version (Dakshinatya patam) contains > > this sloka. In this condition how can we believe that this sloka is > > authentic? > > • Sun is exalted means it is in 10 deg Aries. Mo in Punarvasu > > means it is between 80 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 min. If we consider > > that Mo is in Cancer then Mo is between 90 deg 00 min and 93 deg 20 > > min. Tithi is (Mo-Su)/15. Here if Su is in 10 deg Aries and Mo is > in > > 93 deg 20 min then, the difference is 83 deg 20 min. > > • i.e. Tithi = (83 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = (5000 min)/(15*60) = > > 5.5555…. = 6th Tithi, which is Shashti ! How Vatmiki make such a > > gross mistake?! Let us think that Su was in the first deg of Aries, > > taking the maximum allowable distance for Punarvasu Nakshatra, i.e. > > 93 deg 20 min, then – Tithi = (93 deg 20 min)/(15x60) = > 6.2222222……… > > = 7th Tithi, which is Saptami ! In essence Punarvasu Nakshatra and > > Navami Tithi can not coincide, while Su is in Aries. In this > > condition how can we believe that this sloka is authentic? > > • The above condition forces us to think that either Su is in > > Pisces or that Tithi is not Navami or that Nakshatra is not > > Punarvasu. In Pisces Su is not exalted, and the position of Su is > not > > explicitly mentioned (though indirectly mentioned) in the sloka. So > I > > take it as a choice. But this not the case with Navami Tithi and > > Punarvasu Nakshatra, they are explicitly mentioned in the sloka and > > we have no right to change it. So can I assume that Su is in Pisces > > and proceed further? To what extend this approach can be accepted? > > Another point is that the sloka explicitly mentions the month as > > Chaitra, so Su should be in Aries, what can I do about it? > > Ok. That is enough. Now let us try to understand what the sloka > says. > > The sloka gives the following Planetary position – > > > > > > +--------------+ > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | Ve | Su | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > | | | Mo Me |Mo > > | | | | > > | | | As Ju | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > > | | | | > > | Ma | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | Sa | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > +--------------+ > > > > Tithi = Navami Nakshatra = Punarvasu Month = Chaitra > > > > The position of Ra and Ke is not mentioned, and 5 planets are in > > their respective sign of exaltation. But by now we know that it is > > an impossible combination. > > If Mo is in the first, Navamsa of Cancer, then Mo is in > Vargottama. > > Shall we take it as equivalent to exaltation? " Vargottame swacha > > phalam vidadyal " says Varaha hora. Meaning, if the graha is in > > Vargottama the results produced by it would be equivalent to the > > graha is exaltation. Ok. Then we consider Mo as one of the five > > exalted planets, and place Mo in Pisces. What else can we do?! > > Panchaga (Tithi, Karana, Vara, Nakshatra, Nityayoga) were so > popular > > in those days and so we can not assume any error in calculating > them. > > If Su is in the last quarter of Pi (let us assume, 325 deg 00 min), > > then, > > Tithi = (360 x 60 + (93 x 60)+20) – (325 x 60) = 8.55555……. = > Navami > > Tithi. That seems to be ok, since the Navami Tithi and Punarvasu > > conditions are satisfied. But the problem is, if Su is in the last > > Nakshatra pada of Pisces then Su is also in Vargottama. If we > > considered Mo in Vargottama as exalted then we can say that Su in > > Vargottama can not be considered as Vargottama. That essentially > > means that 4 planets (Ve, Ma, Ju, Sa) are exalted and Su and Mo > > should be considered exalted, since they are in Vargottama. Thus we > > end up with 6 exalted grahas, contradicting the statement in the > > sloka! > > I drop it here, for others to ponder. I would assume that this > > sloka is not authentic, and is included by some one else into the > > southern version of Ramayana, and it is not at all a sloka written > by > > Vatmiki. And thus assuming the existence of Lagna (thus house > system) > > and Cancer sign (thus other signs as well), is wrong. Assuming the > > existence of normal astrology in Ramayana period solely based on > this > > sloka is a pit fall which we should avoid. > > > > P.S. Manipulated slokas are one of the greatest hindrances in the > > study of literary history of astrology. While being proud of > Ancient > > Indian heritage we should also be sincere enough to drop the > > inconsistent erroneous info as well. > > > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Kishore ji, > You are exactly right! Atlast, you have agreed to something i have said I will wait for your message. Kishore patnaik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > If Su > is in Aries then Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra can not occur > at the same time. > Love, > Sreenadh Sreenadh, Something struck my thoughts just now. I think Sun in Aries with Moon in Punarvasu on navami tithi is possible. Give it a thought. I'll give you my ill-formed reasoning tomorrow (if I survive the night). +++ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Dear Verna ji, I am waiting to read your post. But since the Tithi calculation is based on the longitudinal difference between Sun and Moon, if Su is in 1st degree Aries and Moon in 3 deg 20 min Cancer (i.e. 93 deg 20 min; extreem deg of Punarvasu Nakshatra), then too - (93 * 60 + 20) - 0 = 7.777.... = Ashtami Tithi So, " Sun in Aries with Moon in Punarvasu on navami tithi is IMPOSSIBLE " . But the other possibility (that I was thinking about) is that, the sloka only says that it is the month of Chaitra and Su is exalted. Now if the month Chaitra didn't represented Aries (if Chaitra was NOT equivalent to Aries, and covered a different area in sky) at that time, and if if exaltation/debilitation concept was also associated to the months like Chaitra then, the statement could become right. (I need to check this possibility, and study more) In this scenario, Su will be in Pisces and still would be considered exalted since the exaltation/debilitation concepts then gets associated the months like Chaitra. Thus Ramayana statement could become correct. But this is an immature guess, and I will try to present my exact views after enough study, and collection of data related to it. Love, Sreenadh , " vernalagnia " <vernalagnia wrote: > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > If Su > > is in Aries then Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra can not occur > > at the same time. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > Sreenadh, > > Something struck my thoughts just now. I think Sun in Aries with Moon > in Punarvasu on navami tithi is possible. Give it a thought. I'll give > you my ill-formed reasoning tomorrow (if I survive the night). > > +++ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Dear Verna ji, I am waiting to read your post. But since the Tithi calculation is based on the longitudinal difference between Sun and Moon, if Su is in 1st degree Aries and Moon in 3 deg 20 min Cancer (i.e. 93 deg 20 min), then too - (93 * 60 + 20) - 0 = 7.777.... = Ashtami Tithi So, " Sun in Aries with Moon in Punarvasu on navami tithi is IMPOSSIBLE " . But the other possibility (that I was thinking about) is that, the sloka only says that it is the month of Chaitra and Su is exalted. Now if the month Chaitra didn't represented Aries (if Chaitra was NOT equivalent to Aries, and covered a different area in sky) at that time, and if if exaltation/debilitation concept was also associated to the months like Chaitra then, the statement could become right. (I need to check this possibility, and study more) In this scenario, Su will be in Pisces and still would be considered exalted since the exaltation/debilitation concepts then gets associated the months like Chaitra. Thus Ramayana statement could become correct. But this is an immature guess, and I will try to present my exact views after enough study, and collection of data related to it. Love, Sreenadh , " vernalagnia " <vernalagnia wrote: > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > If Su > > is in Aries then Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra can not occur > > at the same time. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > Sreenadh, > > Something struck my thoughts just now. I think Sun in Aries with Moon > in Punarvasu on navami tithi is possible. Give it a thought. I'll give > you my ill-formed reasoning tomorrow (if I survive the night). > > +++ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Dear All, Sorry, there was a typo. Read the claculation like this - [(93 * 60 + 20) - 0]/[(60 x 12)] = 7.777.... = Ashtami Tithi Love, Sreenadh , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Verna ji, > I am waiting to read your post. But since the Tithi calculation is > based on the longitudinal difference between Sun and Moon, if Su is > in 1st degree Aries and Moon in 3 deg 20 min Cancer (i.e. 93 deg 20 > min; extreem deg of Punarvasu Nakshatra), then too - > (93 * 60 + 20) - 0 = 7.777.... = Ashtami Tithi > So, " Sun in Aries with Moon in Punarvasu on navami tithi is > IMPOSSIBLE " . > But the other possibility (that I was thinking about) is that, the > sloka only says that it is the month of Chaitra and Su is exalted. > Now if the month Chaitra didn't represented Aries (if Chaitra was NOT > equivalent to Aries, and covered a different area in sky) at that > time, and if if exaltation/debilitation concept was also associated > to the months like Chaitra then, the statement could become right. (I > need to check this possibility, and study more) In this scenario, Su > will be in Pisces and still would be considered exalted since the > exaltation/debilitation concepts then gets associated the months like > Chaitra. Thus Ramayana statement could become correct. > But this is an immature guess, and I will try to present my exact > views after enough study, and collection of data related to it. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , " vernalagnia " > <vernalagnia@> wrote: > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > If Su > > > is in Aries then Navami Tithi and Punarvasu Nakshatra can not > occur > > > at the same time. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > Sreenadh, > > > > Something struck my thoughts just now. I think Sun in Aries with > Moon > > in Punarvasu on navami tithi is possible. Give it a thought. I'll > give > > you my ill-formed reasoning tomorrow (if I survive the night). > > > > +++ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Verna ji, > I am waiting to read your post. But since the Tithi calculation is > based on the longitudinal difference between Sun and Moon, if Su is > in 1st degree Aries and Moon in 3 deg 20 min Cancer (i.e. 93 deg 20 > min), then too - > (93 * 60 + 20) - 0 = 7.777.... = Ashtami Tithi > So, " Sun in Aries with Moon in Punarvasu on navami tithi is > IMPOSSIBLE " . > But the other possibility (that I was thinking about) is that, the > sloka only says that it is the month of Chaitra and Su is exalted. > Now if the month Chaitra didn't represented Aries (if Chaitra was NOT > equivalent to Aries, and covered a different area in sky) at that > time, and if if exaltation/debilitation concept was also associated > to the months like Chaitra then, the statement could become right. Dear Sree, I've for quite a while had this quibble with astrologers using the sayana and nirayana rasichakras idiotically. The sayana zodiac can't but be seasonal. It begins and ends with the vernal equinox, with attendant connotations. If this is used for astrological predictions, the entire system of predictions becomes Sun-centered. No wonder there's daylight between our vedic and the sayana western astrology. The nirayana zodiac, otoh, would be farcical to use in seasonal events and references. If you had Chitra for Aries per the nirayanachakra, as you suggest, about 3,000 years down the line, you'll have the ayanamsa somewhere in Capricorn with celebrations of Chaitra not in spring but after the monsoons when Sun enters Aries! You and the rest here are all very erudite but I beg to differ with you on this one. Unless you use the sayana chakra, you *cannot* equate months with the unchanging zodiac. Hope I don't get shafted for saying that +++ 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.