The Nakshatra Lord

Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
Hello! I have a question that may sound funny to people who know Vedic astrology more than me(basically everyone xD) but I must admit that I became a little bit interested in the subject. No, I'm not doing an extensive research or even consider myself a beginner. I'm curious. I already know my Moon nakshatra and I've read almost every available interpretation in the web about it(not everything is accurate but I can't know anything without a personal reading) but what stays unanswered is the role of the Nakshatra lord. My lord is the Sun and the question is - how do I connect it with the Moon Nakshatra interpretation? Do I look just for placement and aspects or do I check its own Nakshatra. And if I do take into consideration the Sun's Nakshatra - what is the difference between the Moon NS and the Lord of the Moon's NS?
Thanks
P.S. One more thing: why there is almost nothing explained about the Ascendant Nakshatra? I find it just as accurate for me(even more if I take most of the interpretations of the Moon nakshatras seriously).
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
1) historically the nakshatra of greatest importance has been considered to be the nakshatra of the place of the Moon (this might be because the system of nakshatras-ie lunar mansions-might have been the original "astrology" used in the most ancient times, rather than the Sun-oriented, and Sign oriented, astrology systems arising near the beginning of the AD era); this natal-Moon nakshatra is considered to be "the birth asterism" (or "birth star", ie, the asterism in which the Moon is placed at birth); however, various delineative and predictive methods in the various branches of jyotish, DO consider the nakshatras of other planets in the chart, and of the ascendant, in their application

2) originally (ie in the Vedas, c 1700 BC) the nakshatras were not allocated planetary (or Nodal) lords: only their affinity to "dieties" (eg Visnu, Yama, etc) were considered; it appears that planetary lordships were allocated at a later date (possibly as late as the 4th-5th century BC); however, it is true that the similar Chinese sieu (ie, asterisms) did receive planetary lordships at a very remote time; however, in comparing the 2 asterism systems (Vedic and Chinese) we find differences in lordship allocations for the (essentially) same asterisms, to occur between one system and the other

3) In jyotish, perhaps the primary application of the nakshartra lord, is its use to determine the time-periods of the life of the individual: these time-periods (called "dashas"-also "dasas") start with the lord of the nakshatra of the natal Moon, and then proceed in a regular order of sequence: the most widely practiced of these nakshatra-based time-period systems is called "Vimshottari" although there are several others (probably the next most widely followed system is the "Yogini" dasha system)
 
Last edited:
Rajarshi

Rajarshi

Well-known member
Yanel said:
Hello! I have a question that may sound funny to people who know Vedic astrology more than me(basically everyone xD) but I must admit that I became a little bit interested in the subject. No, I'm not doing an extensive research or even consider myself a beginner. I'm curious. I already know my Moon nakshatra and I've read almost every available interpretation in the web about it(not everything is accurate but I can't know anything without a personal reading) but what stays unanswered is the role of the Nakshatra lord. My lord is the Sun and the question is - how do I connect it with the Moon Nakshatra interpretation? Do I look just for placement and aspects or do I check its own Nakshatra. And if I do take into consideration the Sun's Nakshatra - what is the difference between the Moon NS and the Lord of the Moon's NS?
Thanks
P.S. One more thing: why there is almost nothing explained about the Ascendant Nakshatra? I find it just as accurate for me(even more if I take most of the interpretations of the Moon nakshatras seriously).
Click to expand...

Ascendant nakshatra is one of the very important nakshatra for success & failure in life.

If your Moon nakshatra is Uttarphalguni ( Lord Sun).. It means you are starting with Sun Maha dasa ( main period) and Sun is supposed to be an important "Planet" in your chart....otherwise you would not have been born in Uttarphalguni. The whole chart needs to be correlated for relationships and respective influences, which cannot be explained in this note.

Best wishes
 
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
dr. farr said:
1) historically the nakshatra of greatest importance has been considered to be the nakshatra of the place of the Moon (this might be because the system of nakshatras-ie lunar mansions-might have been the original "astrology" used in the most ancient times, rather than the Sun-oriented, and Sign oriented, astrology systems arising near the beginning of the AD era); this natal-Moon nakshatra is considered to be "the birth asterism" (or "birth star", ie, the asterism in which the Moon is placed at birth); however, various delineative and predictive methods in the various branches of jyotish, DO consider the nakshatras of other planets in the chart, and of the ascendant, in their application

2) originally (ie in the Vedas, c 1700 BC) the nakshatras were not allocated planetary (or Nodal) lords: only their affinity to "dieties" (eg Visnu, Yama, etc) were considered; it appears that planetary lordships were allocated at a later date (possibly as late as the 4th-5th century BC); however, it is true that the similar Chinese sieu (ie, asterisms) did receive planetary lordships at a very remote time; however, in comparing the 2 asterism systems (Vedic and Chinese) we find differences in lordship allocations for the (essentially) same asterisms, to occur between one system and the other

3) In jyotish, perhaps the primary application of the nakshartra lord, is its use to determine the time-periods of the life of the individual: these time-periods (called "dashas"-also "dasas") start with the lord of the nakshatra of the natal Moon, and then proceed in a regular order of sequence: the most widely practiced of these nakshatra-based time-period systems is called "Vimshottari" although there are several others (probably the next most widely followed system is the "Yogini" dasha system)
Click to expand...

Wow, dr.farr, you're the book of wonders! I doubt there is something you don't know :lol:. Thanks for the info! It's good to know that everything comes from somewhere and astrology doesn't confuse anybody on purpose.

Rajarshi said:
Ascendant nakshatra is one of the very important nakshatra for success & failure in life.

If your Moon nakshatra is Uttarphalguni ( Lord Sun).. It means you are starting with Sun Maha dasa ( main period) and Sun is supposed to be an important "Planet" in your chart....otherwise you would not have been born in Uttarphalguni. The whole chart needs to be correlated for relationships and respective influences, which cannot be explained in this note.

Best wishes
Click to expand...
Hmm...my Moon nakshatra is Uttara Ashadha and its lord is the Sun. In a sidereal chart my Libra Sun is in the 7th house. So my second mahadasha will be the Moon position? Because according to the order the Moon is after the Sun? But how can a person know which is the current mahadasha?
Sorry for the many questions, I'm still trying things out.
 
Rajarshi

Rajarshi

Well-known member
Yanel said:
Wow, dr.farr, you're the book of wonders! I doubt there is something you don't know :lol:. Thanks for the info! It's good to know that everything comes from somewhere and astrology doesn't confuse anybody on purpose.


Hmm...my Moon nakshatra is Uttara Ashadha and its lord is the Sun. In a sidereal chart my Libra Sun is in the 7th house. So my second mahadasha will be the Moon position? Because according to the order the Moon is after the Sun? But how can a person know which is the current mahadasha?
Sorry for the many questions, I'm still trying things out.
Click to expand...

Sun balance mahadasa may be 2 years [ depending on how much left of that nakshatra]. Then Moon 10, Mars 7 years...so if you are 17 then you may be in Mars mahadasa.

try www.mykundali.com to get the chart
 
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
Rajarshi said:
Sun balance mahadasa may be 2 years [ depending on how much left of that nakshatra]. Then Moon 10, Mars 7 years...so if you are 17 then you may be in Mars mahadasa.

try www.mykundali.com to get the chart
Click to expand...
Thank you! I just checked in the site you suggested - yes, I am currently in Mars mahadasa.
Also, when I'm reading interpretations of nakshatras I never ignore my Ascendant nakshatra because I find it somehow complementary with my Moon Nakshatra and very close in nature to important characteristics of my personality. Although, I still can't make a definite difference between the two positions - not between the particular meanings but between the different purposes the two nakshatras have.
The whole Ascendant concept is confusing for me, it doesn't matter the kind of astrology. It is the sign rising whe you were born and the whole chart is built upon it and YET the Sun and the Moon are in the spotlight. So hypocritical...
 
Last edited:
V

VenusS

Well-known member
Moon is the mother, sun is the father and your ascendant is you. One cannot change the shlokas written in shastras(phaladeepika, garga, sravali), moon nakashtra is given utter importance. Sun nakashtra, not really but planet's nakashtra helps in determining the current state of planet. Let's say, saturn in pisces. Saturn is neutral to jupiter, but here what it is, saturn's is in his own nakashtra(uttara bhadra). So his condition is pretty good.
In dasha system, nakshtras are given importance. For example, mars dasha is going. So the results will be taken as strength and relation of planet AND ALSO nakshtra of mars, whether it is planet or house.
That is why astrology is very complicated unless you remember all the terms, and co relate it. Nakashtra has been given more importance even than chaya graha(gulika etc). You can find books on nakashtra lord online. :)

Regards
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
Yanel said:
The whole Ascendant concept is confusing for me, it doesn't matter the kind of astrology. It is the sign rising when you were born and the whole chart is built upon it and YET the Sun and the Moon are in the spotlight. So hypocritical...
Click to expand...

Not really, especially if we consider the trinity (triune) principle and recognize that its the ascendant AND Sun AND Moon, that represent the core of the given chart.

Also remember that in Vedic astrology-especially in the Jaimini branch-there are several "ascendants" (they call them "lagnas") which are taken into account-even in mainstream Parasara jyotish we have the "jamna lagna" (or "udaya lagna" which is the "regular" ascendant) and the "chandra lagna" (Moon sign as ascendant) both being accorded very close delineative scrutiny.

Other "ascendants" include the "Arudha (or Pada) lagna" (given equal, if not even more importantce, than the "regular" ascendant, in Jaimini astrology, which also gives much attention to another "ascendant" called the "Upapada lagna"), the "Surya lagna" (determined based on the Sun's position), the "Karaka lagna" (significator taken for all planets) and various "special application" ascendants ("lagnas") such as the "Sri lagna" (marriage and well-being), the "Gati lagna" (name and renown), the "Hora lagna" (finances), the "Indu lagna" (wealth potentials), the "Varnada lagna" (social relationships and connections) and others.

Personally I very much like the Vedic outllook regarding what we could refer to as "variable" ascendants-I know that using this perspective is very productive of insights and determination of the various trends in life, much moreso than giving attention to only the rising sign (the "regular ascendant") and not considering other "ascendants" at all, as is the case in Western astrological delineative and predictive models...
 
Last edited:
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
dr. farr said:
Not really, especially if we consider the trinity (triune) principle and recognize that its the ascendant AND Sun AND Moon, that represent the core of the given chart.

Also remember that in Vedic astrology-especially in the Jaimini branch-there are several "ascendants" (they call them "lagnas") which are taken into account-even in mainstream Parasara jyotish we have the "jamna lagna" (or "udaya lagna" which is the "regular" ascendant) and the "chandra lagna" (Moon sign as ascendant) both being accorded very close delineative scrutiny.

Other "ascendants" include the "Arudha (or Pada) lagna" (given equal, if not even more importantce, than the "regular" ascendant, in Jaimini astrology, which also gives much attention to another "ascendant" called the "Upapada lagna"), the "Surya lagna" (determined based on the Sun's position), the "Karaka lagna" (significator taken for all planets) and various "special application" ascendants ("lagnas") such as the "Sri lagna" (marriage and well-being), the "Gati lagna" (name and renown), the "Hora lagna" (finances), the "Indu lagna" (wealth potentials), the "Varnada lagna" (social relationships and connections) and others.

Personally I very much like the Vedic outllook regarding what we could refer to as "variable" ascendants-I know that using this perspective is very productive of insights and determination of the various trends in life, much moreso than giving attention to only the rising sign (the "regular ascendant") and not considering other "ascendants" at all, as is the case in Western astrological delineative and predictive models...
Click to expand...
That is in a way logical, to have different ascendants for different purposes. I see there is an ascendant that shows how others see you that is not the natal ascendant since in Vedic astrology the 1st house is not only what others see, am I right? But I get confused when I read that the Ascendant is you, the Sun is your ego and soul a.k.a. you and the Moon is your emotional self or thinking process a.k.a. you. Even if I think of them as a trinity the Ascendant still logically combines both the Moon and the Sun as it is the Self as a whole, not just different influences. But in Western astrology it is clearly said that the Sun is the Self and I personally don't believe that(because all the interpretations of my Sun sign that I have read are not true. They are not even close. Even my placements of some asteroids give me more information than the Sun). It is sure that there still is something that I don't know about the AC, the Moon and the Sun and how they work but this means that most people don't know, too(as not everyone is an astrologer or wants to know more) and still they use the archetypes they don't understand with pride and joy(especially the zodiac signs).
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
Another important point, when looking at the ascendant (and from our purely Western perspective this time): sure, sign X is "the ascendant", and yes, in a DIFFUSE way, forms the "background color" of all that the ascendant/1st house signifies. But is that ALL? No way! Because we also must look at the ascending DEGREE: that's the exact and most specific "center" (so to speak) of the ascendant. Yes, its in X sign-but WHAT ELSE??
Well, more specifically it is also in Y DECAN of X sign; and even more closely it is also in Z DUODENARY (DUAD) of X sign; and exactly, it is also in W MONOMOIRIA (sign monomoiria) of X sign. EACH OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS OF SIGN X ALSO EXERT A MODIFYING INFLUENCE UPON THE NATAL ASCENDANT/1ST HOUSE INVOLVED, and in point of fact can, and OFTEN DO, overshadow the indications of the diffuse ascendant sign, relative to the trends/potentials indicated by that ascendant/1st house:
For example:
-the ascendant = 25 Virgo 10; so, yes, Virgo is the ascendant: but HOW is it MODIFIED?
a) the ascending degree (25:10) is in the 3rd decan of Virgo which = Taurus; so Virgo gets modified by Taurus
b) the ascending degree is also in the 11th duodenary of Virgo which = Cancer, so Virgo gets additionally modified by Cancer
c) the ascending degree is also in the 25th sign monomoiria of Virgo which = Libra, so Virgo gets additionally modified by Libra
For our 25Virgo 10 ascendant, therefore, we have the basic Virgo BUT MODIFIED BY TAURUS AND CANCER AND LIBRA; can we simply say, then, that this ascendant is JUST Virgo-"pure" Virgo, etc, or-to be more accurate-should we say that this ascendant/1st house is Virgo but modified by Taurus, Cancer and Libra? Its this synthesis of modifying elements, that is the ART of astrological delineation, and-such blending is not all that simple: but neither are PEOPLE, and their characters and personalities-SIMPLE! To approach what really exists out there-how real people actually ARE-requires the analysis and synthesis (blending) of the many varying factors which comprise the natal chart: and certainly, a CORRECT way of understanding the ascendant AND WHAT COMPOSES IT, is a key part of such an undertaking...
 
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
dr. farr said:
Another important point, when looking at the ascendant (and from our purely Western perspective this time): sure, sign X is "the ascendant", and yes, in a DIFFUSE way, forms the "background color" of all that the ascendant/1st house signifies. But is that ALL? No way! Because we also must look at the ascending DEGREE: that's the exact and most specific "center" (so to speak) of the ascendant. Yes, its in X sign-but WHAT ELSE??
Well, more specifically it is also in Y DECAN of X sign; and even more closely it is also in Z DUODENARY (DUAD) of X sign; and exactly, it is also in W MONOMOIRIA (sign monomoiria) of X sign. EACH OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS OF SIGN X ALSO EXERT A MODIFYING INFLUENCE UPON THE NATAL ASCENDANT/1ST HOUSE INVOLVED, and in point of fact can, and OFTEN DO, overshadow the indications of the diffuse ascendant sign, relative to the trends/potentials indicated by that ascendant/1st house:
For example:
-the ascendant = 25 Virgo 10; so, yes, Virgo is the ascendant: but HOW is it MODIFIED?
a) the ascending degree (25:10) is in the 3rd decan of Virgo which = Taurus; so Virgo gets modified by Taurus
b) the ascending degree is also in the 11th duodenary of Virgo which = Cancer, so Virgo gets additionally modified by Cancer
c) the ascending degree is also in the 25th sign monomoiria of Virgo which = Libra, so Virgo gets additionally modified by Libra
For our 25Virgo 10 ascendant, therefore, we have the basic Virgo BUT MODIFIED BY TAURUS AND CANCER AND LIBRA; can we simply say, then, that this ascendant is JUST Virgo-"pure" Virgo, etc, or-to be more accurate-should we say that this ascendant/1st house is Virgo but modified by Taurus, Cancer and Libra? Its this synthesis of modifying elements, that is the ART of astrological delineation, and-such blending is not all that simple: but neither are PEOPLE, and their characters and personalities-SIMPLE! To approach what really exists out there-how real people actually ARE-requires the analysis and synthesis (blending) of the many varying factors which comprise the natal chart: and certainly, a CORRECT way of understanding the ascendant AND WHAT COMPOSES IT, is a key part of such an undertaking...
Click to expand...
These divisions seem like a very useful way of determining the qualities of the ascendant. I know about the decans but where can I check the duodenary of the sign and its monomoria? Or do I have to calculate them alone?
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
Duodenaries (duads) for each sign can be found in various sources generally available: basically they are 1/12th of each sign (2degrees30minutes each)-the first duodenary (0-2degrees29minutes of any sign) is the same as the sign, the 2nd is the next sign in order, etc; sign monomoiria (as contrasted to planet monomoiria) are the 1-degree rulers of every degree in every sign (thus they cover 1 degree each); for sign monomoiria, the 0 degree of a sign is the same as the sign itself, the next (1st degree) is the next sign in order, the next (2nd degree) is the sign following that in order, etc, through the 30 degrees of each sign.
 
Crystalpages

Crystalpages

Well-known member
Yanel said:
Hello! I have a question that may sound funny to people who know Vedic astrology more than me(basically everyone xD) but I must admit that I became a little bit interested in the subject. No, I'm not doing an extensive research or even consider myself a beginner. I'm curious. I already know my Moon nakshatra and I've read almost every available interpretation in the web about it(not everything is accurate but I can't know anything without a personal reading) but what stays unanswered is the role of the Nakshatra lord. My lord is the Sun and the question is - how do I connect it with the Moon Nakshatra interpretation? Do I look just for placement and aspects or do I check its own Nakshatra. And if I do take into consideration the Sun's Nakshatra - what is the difference between the Moon NS and the Lord of the Moon's NS?
Thanks
P.S. One more thing: why there is almost nothing explained about the Ascendant Nakshatra? I find it just as accurate for me(even more if I take most of the interpretations of the Moon nakshatras seriously).
Click to expand...



Nakshatras are 'undeliable?'

Rashis are HEAPS, each holding in its embrace, two+ nakshatras...?
Rashis create 12 houses. while nakshatras create padas and navamshas and a lot more...?

BOTH work, together, if BOTH get embraced.

The CONFUSION arises when we INSIST on mixing the Tropical with Sidereal, while not remaining beholden to ONE or the OTHER...?


Love and Light and REALITY...?

Rohiniranjan
 
Crystalpages

Crystalpages

Well-known member
Yanel said:
Hello! I have a question that may sound funny to people who know Vedic astrology more than me(basically everyone xD) but I must admit that I became a little bit interested in the subject. No, I'm not doing an extensive research or even consider myself a beginner. I'm curious. I already know my Moon nakshatra and I've read almost every available interpretation in the web about it(not everything is accurate but I can't know anything without a personal reading) but what stays unanswered is the role of the Nakshatra lord. My lord is the Sun and the question is - how do I connect it with the Moon Nakshatra interpretation? Do I look just for placement and aspects or do I check its own Nakshatra. And if I do take into consideration the Sun's Nakshatra - what is the difference between the Moon NS and the Lord of the Moon's NS?
Thanks
P.S. One more thing: why there is almost nothing explained about the Ascendant Nakshatra? I find it just as accurate for me(even more if I take most of the interpretations of the Moon nakshatras seriously).
Click to expand...


Dear Yanel,

I, generally, have avoided peeking into my birthchart! Let alone, peering too intently...?

But, Saturn and Jupiter, BOTH heavies seem to have claimed my attention, and Hermes the messenger too...?

Digging a bit deeper into BPHS, now they have created a divided nation with this Parashara vs Jaimini modern reality (?) -- the signals were simple and never disparate...!

Love and Light,

Rohiniranjan
 
Last edited:
M

markpattinson902

Member
Unique to Vedic astrology, the Nakshatras, or lunar constellations, are directly connected to the Moon and her myriad of expressions. The Moon changes signs (houses) roughly every 2.3 days, taking 28 days to move through the twelve signs of the zodiac. This gives two weeks for a waxing (bright half) Moon and two weeks for a waning (dark half) Moon. The Moon is connected to our intuition, intelligence and the nature of the mind and emotions. These “Moon parts” within us are ever-changing, fickle, and correlate to the endless movement and change of the Moon. Whereas the movement of the Sun is linked to the 12 signs of the zodiac, the movement of the Moon is connected to the 27 nakshatras. The Moon is the lord of all the nakshatras, where the Sun is the lord of all the rasis (signs). In the Vedic system of astrology, there are 27 nakshatras (though some texts refer to 28 for specific spiritual purposes) which easily divides the 360 degrees of entire zodiac into roughly 13.2 degrees of arc per nakshatra.
13 Moon Calendar
 
Crystalpages

Crystalpages

Well-known member
markpattinson902 said:
Unique to Vedic astrology, the Nakshatras, or lunar constellations, are directly connected to the Moon and her myriad of expressions. The Moon changes signs (houses) roughly every 2.3 days, taking 28 days to move through the twelve signs of the zodiac. This gives two weeks for a waxing (bright half) Moon and two weeks for a waning (dark half) Moon. The Moon is connected to our intuition, intelligence and the nature of the mind and emotions. These “Moon parts” within us are ever-changing, fickle, and correlate to the endless movement and change of the Moon. Whereas the movement of the Sun is linked to the 12 signs of the zodiac, the movement of the Moon is connected to the 27 nakshatras. The Moon is the lord of all the nakshatras, where the Sun is the lord of all the rasis (signs). In the Vedic system of astrology, there are 27 nakshatras (though some texts refer to 28 for specific spiritual purposes) which easily divides the 360 degrees of entire zodiac into roughly 13.2 degrees of arc per nakshatra...
Click to expand...

Very nice write-up, Mark! 13.333... actually, since each nakshatra extends 13 degrees and 20 minutes (1/3rd degree) to be exact. Abhiji or abhijin is believed to be the nakshatra of Lord Rama (Ramayana) when He was born, and considered generally auspicious, as well as utilized in dashas or lunar progressions used in Jyotish (arguably, a better term instead of Vedic or Hindu astrology).

Regards,

Rohiniranjan
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
Interesting about Abhijit: it was listed among the nakshatras in the Atharva Veda, but excluded from the list in in Rig Veda. The star involved is Vega (once spelled "Wega"), which is the 2nd brightest star in the Northern Hemisphere, and which was the Pole Star c. 12,000 BC and will become so again in 13,727 AD; "mansions" (nakshatras) are found among the Babylonians and the Chinese (both counted 28), yet the star of Abhijit, Vega, is exclusive only to the Vedic (jyotish) star system (Vega is mentioned in the Mahabharata)...
 
Crystalpages

Crystalpages

Well-known member
Great info, Dr. Farr! There is a great debate that has been going on between academicians as to whether Jyotish developed in this world like any other body of knowledge, brick by brick. We see that to some extent in the other occult disciplines as well and in Jyotish too at least in the later times as it incorporated Tajik, and KP and Lal Kitab (both with major departures!), Systems approach (minor shifts from mainstream) and even southern Nadi based systems which operate rather differently from what has been mainstream jyotish (Parashari which also includes the fundamentals of Jaimini principles). Other, more religious believers are of the FIRM faith that Jyotish was revealed, all in one package, to the ancient sages.

Fascinating, over all, and the debates-particularly since internet evolved (or was it revealed too, as it sometimes seems...! :)) and communication exploded (often rather literally!). I think at times that Kalki Awatar has finally arrived amidst us human beings worldwide.

Regards,

Rohiniranjan
 
Last edited:
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
Some early Western astrologers (eg, Manilius in 14 AD in Rome, Abu Mashar in the 800's in the Mideast) taught that astrology (as opposed to astronomy) was a revealation; as an esotericist I too follow this outlook.
 
Crystalpages

Crystalpages

Well-known member
dr. farr said:
Some early Western astrologers (eg, Manilius in 14 AD in Rome, Abu Mashar in the 800's in the Mideast) taught that astrology (as opposed to astronomy) was a revealation; as an esotericist I too follow this outlook.
Click to expand...

My belief is that the core (Initial Information) could very well have been intuitive/divine/meditative revelations, but then a mixture of revelations + empirical observations possibly over a long period in time + logical inputs (intrusions?) ensued over the thousands of years and therefore we have several interpretive variations-differences, just like in any other body of knowledge (Munde munde mati bhinna).

However, I also believe that none of these elements were offered, recommended and introduced without much serious and sincere thoughts going into those and hence should be approached with respect and gratitude since without those, we modern astrologers would've had to begin from square A in astrology!)

Regards,

Rohiniranjan
 
Last edited:
Top