Horsepower of a horse...? Astrological context!!
Moderators: eye_of_tiger, shalimar123, RishiRahul
-
- Posts: 7470
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: N.A.
Horsepower of a horse...? Astrological context!!
Rayudu (PVR) a very lucid jyotishi-writer (Daivagna Ratna), from engineering background who has penned some brilliant expositions on nadi astrology, in one of his articles wrote about jeeva-sarira concept of planets. He explains Jeeva as the consciousness-spirit while sarira is the activity-body of a planet. The engine and wheels of an automobile or horsepower and horse [my analogies].
The lord of the nakshatra in which a planet is placed forms the jeeva.
The lord of the nakshatra in which jeeva is placed gets designated as sarira.
If mercury is in ashvini [Erratum: ardra was a typo as pointed out by fellow-member Votive] then ketu is jeeva of mercury
If such a ketu is in anuradha, then saturn is considered as sarira of mercury
But what if sun (different chart) is in krittika (sun's star)? By the above algorithm sun would be the jeeva and sarira of sun!
No! Rayudu advices that in such cases where a planet is in the star ruled by itself, it can only be considered jeeva, but its sign dispositor (mars in this case or venus, since krittika straddles aries and taurus) be taken as the sarira.
WAIT!! There is another consideration if such a tie ensues!!! If such a jeeva planet is in its own sign, then ONLY it can serve as its own jeeva as well as sarira. So, sun in last quarter of leo and jupiter in the first quarter of pisces would be in the distinguished position of being their own jeeva and sarira.
What do folks think of this cosmic arrangement vis-a-vis the jeeva-sarira conceptualization?
There is at least one other algorithm for this jeeva-sarira business, but in this thread let us follow Rayudu's formulation alone lest the thread turns into a heap of sphagetti (delicious though that sounds...!)
Your move...!
Rohiniranjan
The lord of the nakshatra in which a planet is placed forms the jeeva.
The lord of the nakshatra in which jeeva is placed gets designated as sarira.
If mercury is in ashvini [Erratum: ardra was a typo as pointed out by fellow-member Votive] then ketu is jeeva of mercury
If such a ketu is in anuradha, then saturn is considered as sarira of mercury
But what if sun (different chart) is in krittika (sun's star)? By the above algorithm sun would be the jeeva and sarira of sun!
No! Rayudu advices that in such cases where a planet is in the star ruled by itself, it can only be considered jeeva, but its sign dispositor (mars in this case or venus, since krittika straddles aries and taurus) be taken as the sarira.
WAIT!! There is another consideration if such a tie ensues!!! If such a jeeva planet is in its own sign, then ONLY it can serve as its own jeeva as well as sarira. So, sun in last quarter of leo and jupiter in the first quarter of pisces would be in the distinguished position of being their own jeeva and sarira.
What do folks think of this cosmic arrangement vis-a-vis the jeeva-sarira conceptualization?
There is at least one other algorithm for this jeeva-sarira business, but in this thread let us follow Rayudu's formulation alone lest the thread turns into a heap of sphagetti (delicious though that sounds...!)
Your move...!
Rohiniranjan
Last edited by Rohiniranjan on Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" If mercury is in ardra then ketu is jeeva of mercury
If such a ketu is in anuradha, then saturn is considered as sarira of mercury "
This does not seem right, something is missing...Ardra...Rahu or Ketu?
Can we say that in this case...
For a Mercury in Ardra Nakshatra, the jeeva of Mercury is Rahu and if Saturn is the Nakshatra dispositor of Rahu, then this Mercury has:
Jeeva: Rahu and Sarira: Saturn.
The Focus on Nakshatra dispositors?
votive
If such a ketu is in anuradha, then saturn is considered as sarira of mercury "
This does not seem right, something is missing...Ardra...Rahu or Ketu?
Can we say that in this case...
For a Mercury in Ardra Nakshatra, the jeeva of Mercury is Rahu and if Saturn is the Nakshatra dispositor of Rahu, then this Mercury has:
Jeeva: Rahu and Sarira: Saturn.
The Focus on Nakshatra dispositors?
votive
-
- Posts: 7470
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: N.A.
Sorry -- I meant ashvini, ketu's nakshatra. Or could be the remaining two nakshatras of ketu for the sake of this example.Votive wrote:" If mercury is in ardra then ketu is jeeva of mercury
If such a ketu is in anuradha, then saturn is considered as sarira of mercury "
This does not seem right, something is missing...Ardra...Rahu or Ketu?
Can we say that in this case...
For a Mercury in Ardra Nakshatra, the jeeva of Mercury is Rahu and if Saturn is the Nakshatra dispositor of Rahu, then this Mercury has:
Jeeva: Rahu and Sarira: Saturn.
The Focus on Nakshatra dispositors?
votive
Thanks!
-
- Posts: 7470
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: N.A.
More like a combination of nakshatra and sign disposition it appears (in chapter 23 of primer I ponder upon a third possibility). The nadi source (like rest of jyotish and many mystical texts) is pithy and taciturn (Saturn+jupiter as opposed to mercury presumably?).Votive wrote: ...
The Focus on Nakshatra dispositors?
votive
One may argue that perhaps the body must always be tied to the sign dispositor if one can conceptualize the signs as body (external, apparent, distinctive shapes) and nakshtras as the heart or essence (inner, less apparent, less distinctive form, etc).
-
- Posts: 7470
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: N.A.
Laws, particularly natural laws, Votive, tend to be a-logical (not illogical!) and a-moral (not immoral!) {here *a* meaning without or perhaps ^above^!} and thus axiomatic? Kind of like laws of physics etc.?
The usage, logic, morality is then left to the free-will (?) of humans (whether to produce clean electricity or medical isotope OR a destructive life-annihilating device).
Of course, for all we know, different laws (axioms?) might be operating differently in the other universes (parallel-universes, multiverses) which seem to be gradually appearing to be testable (as claimed by Dr. Chari of NASA).
The yogi who can produce objects out of (seemingly) thin air, or tapping into birth data and horoscopes over the phone or just by seeing an individual (like Mr. Karve) might be tapping into universes (dimensions) other than this base one (and only) available to most of us...? After all, Mother Nature is frugal and would not have provided so many shariras (bodies, sheaths as some call those) if one alone were enough to *explore*?
We should have discussed and shared all these common interests when we met <LOL>
The usage, logic, morality is then left to the free-will (?) of humans (whether to produce clean electricity or medical isotope OR a destructive life-annihilating device).
Of course, for all we know, different laws (axioms?) might be operating differently in the other universes (parallel-universes, multiverses) which seem to be gradually appearing to be testable (as claimed by Dr. Chari of NASA).
The yogi who can produce objects out of (seemingly) thin air, or tapping into birth data and horoscopes over the phone or just by seeing an individual (like Mr. Karve) might be tapping into universes (dimensions) other than this base one (and only) available to most of us...? After all, Mother Nature is frugal and would not have provided so many shariras (bodies, sheaths as some call those) if one alone were enough to *explore*?
We should have discussed and shared all these common interests when we met <LOL>
We will, when we meet!Rohiniranjan wrote:Laws, particularly natural laws, Votive, tend to be a-logical (not illogical!) and a-moral (not immoral!) {here *a* meaning without or perhaps ^above^!} and thus axiomatic? Kind of like laws of physics etc.?
The usage, logic, morality is then left to the free-will (?) of humans (whether to produce clean electricity or medical isotope OR a destructive life-annihilating device).
Of course, for all we know, different laws (axioms?) might be operating differently in the other universes (parallel-universes, multiverses) which seem to be gradually appearing to be testable (as claimed by Dr. Chari of NASA).
The yogi who can produce objects out of (seemingly) thin air, or tapping into birth data and horoscopes over the phone or just by seeing an individual (like Mr. Karve) might be tapping into universes (dimensions) other than this base one (and only) available to most of us...? After all, Mother Nature is frugal and would not have provided so many shariras (bodies, sheaths as some call those) if one alone were enough to *explore*?
We should have discussed and shared all these common interests when we met <LOL>
Just an ''e'' between met and meet!
Re: Horsepower of a horse...? Astrological context!!
A significant and noticeable departure this.Rohiniranjan wrote:
WAIT!! There is another consideration if such a tie ensues!!! If such a jeeva planet is in its own sign, then ONLY it can serve as its own jeeva as well as sarira. So, sun in last quarter of leo and jupiter in the first quarter of pisces would be in the distinguished position of being their own jeeva and sarira.
[/color]
.....
Your move...!
Rohiniranjan
If we notice the spatial distribution of the zodiac, A planet in a sign is normally carrying the nakshatras owned by a different group.
That is, if we divide the Zodiac in two basic groups, the Sun/Moon/Ju/Ma group and the Sa/Ve/Me/Nodes group. For example, Mesha, owned by Mars has Nakshatras of Ketu and Venus for 8 out of 9 parts. So a Jupiter in Mesha, a friendly sign is more likely to be in Nakshatras of the other group.
Rather small parts of the Zodiac are so mapped that they find such resonance as above.
A Jupiter in the first three degrees of Pisces should then be noticeably different as the Sun in the last 8/9 of Leo would be. Worth exploring.
votive
-
- Posts: 7470
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:11 pm
- Location: N.A.
Re: Horsepower of a horse...? Astrological context!!
Wouldn't the difference be simply (and inherently) because sun is sun and not Jupiter, and similarly Jupiter is Jupiter and not sun ;-P ?Votive wrote:A significant and noticeable departure this.Rohiniranjan wrote:
WAIT!! There is another consideration if such a tie ensues!!! If such a jeeva planet is in its own sign, then ONLY it can serve as its own jeeva as well as sarira. So, sun in last quarter of leo and jupiter in the first quarter of pisces would be in the distinguished position of being their own jeeva and sarira.
[/color]
.....
Your move...!
Rohiniranjan
If we notice the spatial distribution of the zodiac, A planet in a sign is normally carrying the nakshatras owned by a different group.
That is, if we divide the Zodiac in two basic groups, the Sun/Moon/Ju/Ma group and the Sa/Ve/Me/Nodes group. For example, Mesha, owned by Mars has Nakshatras of Ketu and Venus for 8 out of 9 parts. So a Jupiter in Mesha, a friendly sign is more likely to be in Nakshatras of the other group.
Rather small parts of the Zodiac are so mapped that they find such resonance as above.
A Jupiter in the first three degrees of Pisces should then be noticeably different as the Sun in the last 8/9 of Leo would be. Worth exploring.
votive
Why complicate the obvious...?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests