Guest guest Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 At 01:18 PM 11/5/2009 +0000, ccjohans wrote: >P. 238 >Satya gives virtually the same rule, only changing the emnity of a planet >in the eight place to friendship in order to equalize the odds; however >instead of using this rule to determine temporary friends, by specifying >the lords of the signs he utilizes it to establish natural friends, >enemies and neutrals > >P. 240 >Satya's natural friendship is repeated by Minaraj, Varahamihira, Parasara, >Kalyanavarman, Gunakara, Vidyamadhava etc. (in other words became the >standard). ------------------------------ Many thanks for pointing out this text. I re-read the original YJ text and Pingree's commentary. It's interesting that the YJ text regarding permanent friends and enemies is different than the standard Jyotish tables used today. As with much of the material in classic Indian astrology texts, it would be a full-time task for many years tracing the origin and development of concepts, though Pingree's surveys are more complete than anyone else's. There are no " neutrals " in the temporary friends/enemies arrangement in theYJ text, but Pingree has added the neutral list when he's discussing Satya's change to permanent status (p. 238). If the " Satya " Pingree quotes is the same sage as the " Satya " of SATYA JATAKAM (S. K. Raman, Ranjan Publications, 1979), then the category of " neutral " also appears there with no explanation: " The friendly planets to a given planet are those which own the 5th, 12th, 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th houses counted from the Moolatrikona rasi of the planet. The rest are his enemies. " (p. 41) The table which follows this text is the traditional Jyotish table listing friends, enemies and neutrals for each planet. Presumably, Pingree copied that table (from the original Sanskrit) for his YJ commentary. It doesn't make a lot of symbolic (numeric) sense, however, that planets in 12th or 8th from a Moolatrikona sign would be friends to a planet. It's interesting that " trikona " refers to three houses in trine, and if " Moola " is " Mula " whose fundamental meaning is " root, " so we have the " root of three. " This might suggest the Hellenistic trigon relationship of planetary friends. It almost seems as if the Moolatrikona scheme is an elaborate effort to explain planets that are in harmony to each other. In the scheme that has come down to us, many " friends " have been inexplicably re-assigned as " neutrals. " From curiosity, I diagrammed the scheme for each planet: (1) 2nd from MT: All but two of these planets have been moved to the " neutral " category. The other two (Gemini for the Moon and Libra for Mercury) are not needed because the same planets are in trigonal signs. So position 2 can be cancelled for friends. (2) Several " enemies " according to the MT rule have also been moved to the neutral category, so they mix with the friends that have been moved. (3) Only two of the 12th house positions are needed (Moon for Sun and Sun for Mercury). The others have been moved to the neutral category, are duplicates of trinal positions or are a sign of the planet itself. (4) The 8th from MT isn't needed because planets have been moved to the neutral category, are duplicates of trinal signs or are signs of the planet itself. Only the Moon (Cancer) for Jupiter applies. (5) The same goes for the 4th as for the 8th and 12th. As the scheme stands, all the signs that remain in 4, 8, and 12 are either Cancer or Leo. We know that traditionally in India the Moon was given greater importance than in the west, and these positions don't match the trigonal scheme. (6) If we take only the signs in trine to the Moolatrikona signs as friends, only twice has a planet been moved to the neutral category. (2 out of 14 trinal houses) Both of these are Capricorn/Saturn. (9th for the Taurus Moon and 5th for Mercury in Virgo) Perhaps the designers of this scheme didn't like the idea of Saturn being friends with the Moon or Mercury, so they made the planet neutral to both. Signs in trine to each other are always of the same sect, diurnal (Aries and Gemini trigons) or nocturnal (Taurus and Cancer trigons). In every instance except the two cited above (Saturn-Capricorn) where a sign/planet was changed from a friend to a neutral, the sign associated with the planet is of the opposite sect from the Moolatrikona sign/planet. Of the five 2nd house positions changed to neutrals: --\ -------------------------- Sun-Leo: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Virgo moved Mars-Aries: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Taurus moved Jupiter-Sagittarius: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Capricorn moved Venus-Libra: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Scorpio moved Saturn-Aquarius: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Pisces moved 4th positions changed to neutrals: --------- Mercury-Virgo: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Sagittarius moved Jupiter-Sagittarius: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Pisces moved 8th and 12th house positions changed to neutrals: ---------------------------- 8th: Moon-Taurus: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Sagittarius moved 8th: Mercury-Virgo: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Aries moved 12th: Moon-Taurus: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Aries moved The origins of Jyotish principles being lost in time, we don't definitely know why a number of " friends " became neutrals, but every neutral that was once a friend belongs to the opposite sect in the diurnal/nocturnal scheme. (Except for Capricorn for Mercury and the Moon.) In summary: --------------- Signs in trine to the Moolatrikona signs cover all but two original " friends, " and these are both Saturn/Capricorn. All of the 10 remaining changes from friends to neutrals are in trigons opposite in sect to the Moolatrikona sign. 2nd from MT can be discarded because 5 planets have been changed to neutrals, and 2 are duplicates of trines. If it weren't for Cancer and Leo (Moon and Sun), there would be no need for 4th, 8th and 12th from the Moolatrikona sign to determine friends according to the traditional scheme. All the other signs are either duplicates of trinal rulerships, the sign of the MT planet itself or signs/planets changed to neutrals. All of the duplicate rulerships are signs of the opposite sect. This is due to the mathematical structure of sign rulerships with each planet ruling one nocturnal and one diurnal sign. Harmony exists among trines (Jupiter's aspect) while houses 4 and 8 are inharmonious to house 1, and houses 2 and 12 can't form aspects with that house. This is why the Moolatrikona scheme (not considering the planetary changes to neutrals) is rather strange and seems to be without a logical foundation. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 From a quick look it seemed to me there was at least another exception in this scheme, Jupiter becoming neutral to Venus but not being in 2nd, 4th, 8th or 12th opposite sect (and Venus becoming enemy to Jupiter). To me the logic is plain enough, enemy+friend=neutral. As I said before I have yet to see any notion of a harmonic relationship between signs in Indian astrology and particularly not in the YV, so to me Pingree's scheme is logical in that context (Jupiter's trine aspect is as far as I know only an arbitrary modification of the Yavanajataka aspects, without any explanation or justification, in Kalyavarma's Saravali). This seems to me actually the main point of difference between western and eastern astrology, one considers aspects and relationships more than the other. , Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 01:18 PM 11/5/2009 +0000, ccjohans wrote: > >P. 238 > >Satya gives virtually the same rule, only changing the emnity of a planet > >in the eight place to friendship in order to equalize the odds; however > >instead of using this rule to determine temporary friends, by specifying > >the lords of the signs he utilizes it to establish natural friends, > >enemies and neutrals > > > >P. 240 > >Satya's natural friendship is repeated by Minaraj, Varahamihira, Parasara, > >Kalyanavarman, Gunakara, Vidyamadhava etc. (in other words became the > >standard). > ------------------------------ > > Many thanks for pointing out this text. I re-read the original YJ text and > Pingree's commentary. It's interesting that the YJ text regarding permanent > friends and enemies is different than the standard Jyotish tables used today. > > As with much of the material in classic Indian astrology texts, it would be > a full-time task for many years tracing the origin and development of > concepts, though Pingree's surveys are more complete than anyone else's. > There are no " neutrals " in the temporary friends/enemies arrangement in > theYJ text, but Pingree has added the neutral list when he's discussing > Satya's change to permanent status (p. 238). > > If the " Satya " Pingree quotes is the same sage as the " Satya " of SATYA > JATAKAM (S. K. Raman, Ranjan Publications, 1979), then the category of > " neutral " also appears there with no explanation: > > " The friendly planets to a given planet are those which own the 5th, 12th, > 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th houses counted from the Moolatrikona rasi of the > planet. The rest are his enemies. " (p. 41) > > The table which follows this text is the traditional Jyotish table listing > friends, enemies and neutrals for each planet. Presumably, Pingree copied > that table (from the original Sanskrit) for his YJ commentary. It doesn't > make a lot of symbolic (numeric) sense, however, that planets in 12th or > 8th from a Moolatrikona sign would be friends to a planet. > > It's interesting that " trikona " refers to three houses in trine, and if > " Moola " is " Mula " whose fundamental meaning is " root, " so we have the " root > of three. " This might suggest the Hellenistic trigon relationship of > planetary friends. > > It almost seems as if the Moolatrikona scheme is an elaborate effort to > explain planets that are in harmony to each other. In the scheme that has > come down to us, many " friends " have been inexplicably re-assigned as > " neutrals. " From curiosity, I diagrammed the scheme for each planet: > > (1) 2nd from MT: All but two of these planets have been moved to the > " neutral " category. The other two (Gemini for the Moon and Libra for > Mercury) are not needed because the same planets are in trigonal signs. So > position 2 can be cancelled for friends. > > (2) Several " enemies " according to the MT rule have also been moved to the > neutral category, so they mix with the friends that have been moved. > > (3) Only two of the 12th house positions are needed (Moon for Sun and Sun > for Mercury). The others have been moved to the neutral category, are > duplicates of trinal positions or are a sign of the planet itself. > > (4) The 8th from MT isn't needed because planets have been moved to the > neutral category, are duplicates of trinal signs or are signs of the planet > itself. Only the Moon (Cancer) for Jupiter applies. > > (5) The same goes for the 4th as for the 8th and 12th. As the scheme > stands, all the signs that remain in 4, 8, and 12 are either Cancer or Leo. > We know that traditionally in India the Moon was given greater importance > than in the west, and these positions don't match the trigonal scheme. > > (6) If we take only the signs in trine to the Moolatrikona signs as > friends, only twice has a planet been moved to the neutral category. (2 out > of 14 trinal houses) Both of these are Capricorn/Saturn. (9th for the > Taurus Moon and 5th for Mercury in Virgo) Perhaps the designers of this > scheme didn't like the idea of Saturn being friends with the Moon or > Mercury, so they made the planet neutral to both. > > Signs in trine to each other are always of the same sect, diurnal (Aries > and Gemini trigons) or nocturnal (Taurus and Cancer trigons). In every > instance except the two cited above (Saturn-Capricorn) where a sign/planet > was changed from a friend to a neutral, the sign associated with the planet > is of the opposite sect from the Moolatrikona sign/planet. > > Of the five 2nd house positions changed to neutrals: > --\ -------------------------- > > Sun-Leo: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Virgo moved > Mars-Aries: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Taurus moved > Jupiter-Sagittarius: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Capricorn moved > Venus-Libra: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Scorpio moved > Saturn-Aquarius: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Pisces moved > > 4th positions changed to neutrals: > --------- > Mercury-Virgo: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Sagittarius moved > Jupiter-Sagittarius: Diurnal trigon, nocturnal Pisces moved > > 8th and 12th house positions changed to neutrals: > ---------------------------- > 8th: Moon-Taurus: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Sagittarius moved > 8th: Mercury-Virgo: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Aries moved > 12th: Moon-Taurus: Nocturnal trigon, diurnal Aries moved > > The origins of Jyotish principles being lost in time, we don't definitely > know why a number of " friends " became neutrals, but every neutral that was > once a friend belongs to the opposite sect in the diurnal/nocturnal scheme. > (Except for Capricorn for Mercury and the Moon.) > > In summary: > --------------- > Signs in trine to the Moolatrikona signs cover all but two original > " friends, " and these are both Saturn/Capricorn. > > All of the 10 remaining changes from friends to neutrals are in trigons > opposite in sect to the Moolatrikona sign. > > 2nd from MT can be discarded because 5 planets have been changed to > neutrals, and 2 are duplicates of trines. > > If it weren't for Cancer and Leo (Moon and Sun), there would be no need for > 4th, 8th and 12th from the Moolatrikona sign to determine friends according > to the traditional scheme. All the other signs are either duplicates of > trinal rulerships, the sign of the MT planet itself or signs/planets > changed to neutrals. All of the duplicate rulerships are signs of the > opposite sect. This is due to the mathematical structure of sign rulerships > with each planet ruling one nocturnal and one diurnal sign. > > Harmony exists among trines (Jupiter's aspect) while houses 4 and 8 are > inharmonious to house 1, and houses 2 and 12 can't form aspects with that > house. This is why the Moolatrikona scheme (not considering the planetary > changes to neutrals) is rather strange and seems to be without a logical > foundation. > > Therese > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 What I myself maybe find more interesting than the later enemy-friend scheme (which also is rarely mutual) with the maulatrikonas is that the two planets that can perhaps both be considered neutral (Mercury & Moon) are in the same passive/feminine sect while the rest are in the diurnal sect (and it's also at the same time exceptionally their exaltations). Neutrality is defined as the planetary nature being determined by outside associations so it can maybe also be seen as passive and impressionable in nature. 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.