Nakshatra in your Navamsha - the Second big Misconception about Nakshatra
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Vic's Website: vicdicara.com
2: Aṁśa Nakṣatra
Over the past year or two people have begun talking a lot about nakshatras in their aṁśa charts, especially their navāṁśa.
“I have Venus in Anurādhā in my Navāṁśa.”
As far as I know, this is an extremely new thing, not much older than a few years. If any of you knows of any older sources for this practice, please lmk in the comments.
Some would say this itself is an argument against the practice. While I personally think the lack of its use in classical astrology doesn’t contribute confidence in a practice, it also does not, in itself, discount the practice.
So let’s look at the practice itself and examine if it is theoretically sound.
The Theory
This practice of ascertaining nakshatras within amśas is based on this concept:
0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎ is synonymous with Aśvinī. Aśvinī literally is 0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎.
So, wherever we deal with 0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎ we dealing with Aśvinī, even if we are in an Aries aṁśa within another sign, and thus in another nakṣatra.
Ex: ☽ 2° Aries is in Aśvinī, and d9 Bharanī.
☽ 2° s.♈︎
- is in Āśvinī
- in d9 ♈︎
It is 2° into that d9 amśa.
2° is 60% through the aṁśa (3°20’)
60% of a 30° sign is 18°
18° of s.♈︎ is in Bharaṇī
1° = 60’ x 2 = 120’
3°20’ = 180’+20’ = 200’
120/200 = 60%
60% of 30° = 18°
Therefore ☽ 2° s.♈︎ is in Aśvinī, but in Bharanī in the navamsha.
The 1st Problem: Nakshatra and Rāśi are not bound
The theory rests on the concept that 0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎ is synonymous with Aśvinī but this is only true in a sidereal zodiacal framework.
It is not very difficult to work around the math here, but it is the need for the workaround that exposes the second, more significant problem with the theory.
The 2nd Problem: Nakshatra aren’t slices of Rāśi
Even if we ignore or discount the tropical zodiac, there is another big problem demonstrating that Nakshatra are not parts of the Rāśi - and therefore are not contained within the Rāśī’s aṁśa.
All the aṁśas of a raśī (from hora to navamsha all the way to sastyamasa) fit perfectly inside a single rāśi, because they are literally “aṁśa” (integral, inherent parts). The fact that Nakshatra borders line up with Rashi borders only 3 out of 27 times (and that’s only if we go ahead and embrace the sidereal concept of rāśi) shows that Nakshatra are quite unlike aṁśa. They are not integral parts of rāśi.
Therefore when a rāśi is reflected or replicated as an aṁśā, there is not rationale for assuming that the nakshatras reflect or replicate along with it.
The 3rd Problem: Infinite Regress
Sidereal theory proposes that Nakshatra Pada are synonymous with navāṁśa.
☽ at 2° Aries, is 18° into Aries d9
This means it would be in the 2nd pada of navamsha Bharaṇī.
That means it is in Virgo navamsha.
Wait, I thought it was in Aries Navamsha?
Furthermore it would be at 12° Virgo
That means it is in Hasta.
Wait, I thought it was in Bharani, no, Aśvinī
So where does this end???
And why?
Conclusion
Astrology is sophisticated and complicated enough with just the fundamental components.
Inventing new techniques that introduce infinite regression and aren’t based on an accurate understanding of the distinction between Rāśi and Nakshatra just puts more mud into the water of a subject that is already very misunderstood and poorly practiced.
That’s why I list this practice as a “Nakshatra Misconception” and prefer to focus my energy on using the fundamental components of classical astrology more and more effectively, without introducing anything cumbersome and unnecessary.
I want to argue with you about this. Are you up?
sure, ofc. would you please start in reference to what i have presented here?
@@VicDiCaraAstrology thats a man. I saw you talking about about how navamsa and the nakshatras aren't actually compatible. So the idea of nakshatra padas is dum by itself. One other thing that i picked up is that it is too complicated of an idea as one planet cannot be in more than one nakshatra(whcih i agree!) And is just for the sake of making it complicated to satisfy the customer and the fandom. And also i remember you saying at the start of the video how you dont see not having vedic base as a lacking of positive point but not a negative. This is what i got from watching the vid.feel free to Correct me if i got it wrong. I know i probably forgot one or two points but i didnt want to watch the video again just so you know i didnt comment mindlessly. Or maybe i did thats for you to judge. Im waiting for your answer
The basic premise I present is that Nakshatras are divisions of stellar space (they are based on stars) while rashi are divisions of solar space (they are based on the sun's relationship to the earth's equator - "meru") - lets compare them to two floors of a building. If i build walls on the first floor, this does not affect the space on the second floor. Similarly the boundaries and divisions of the rashi do not affect the boundaries and divisions of the nakshatra.
Nakshatra-in-Navamsha is based on a theory that is incompatible with this. It is based on the idea that nakshatra are a subdivision of rashi ("rooms on the first floor").
Nakshatra pada is different thing - but a side-effect of the same theory.
The point about epistemology is simply that if an idea is given by a very very experienced expert (a "rishi") that is a plus for it. Also if an idea can pass tests of logic and scrutiny, that is another plus for it. However, the idea of Nakshatra-in-Navamsha has neither plus.
@@VicDiCaraAstrology do you agree that is better to use navamsa planets with the same asc of rasi as the body and its parts (houses) cannot be moved?
I agree with what you say but im going on another route and its quite long so i need to take it step by step
I do not clearly understand what you said. Are you asking "when interpreting planets in nakshatras, should we use lordships?"
If this is what you are asking, my reply is "this is situational, depending on your approach. If you are using solely zodiacal approach, you will not do so (you will not use nakshatra at all). If you are using solely nakshatra approach you also will not do so (since houses are derived from the zodiac signs, not the nakshatras). If you are overlaying the two approaches you can do so.
Anticipating your argument, you may say, "since you use houses from the rashi space to interpret planets in the nakshatra space, you violated your own principle that these two circles are two separate spaces."
My reply is that a planet is in an intermediate layer between the zodiac and the nakshatra, and therefore touches both (similar to how the ceiling of the first level in a building is structurally identical to the floor of the second level). Intepreting a planet to have effects from both the nakshatra and the rashi is therefore not equivalent to assuming that nakshatras exist within subdivisions of the zodiac signs.
Vic, the edits! Hahaha! Fantastic point made!
I think I'm seeing this more and more in the departments of learning where people bring in unnecessary layers of complexity. I am almost considering not doing my PhD in English literature because through the entire Postgrad degree, I saw "academicians" validate themselves by conjuring a knot out of thin air! It's like an infinite loop that only serves them.
Thank you for bringing our attention back to the basics!
Cool, thank you. I love all the graphics you used to indicate the confusion! Your assessments remove it - whew!
Those editing skills really drive it home
This was such a great video
Thank you
I love your edits to this video! 🤣 I had noticed the different Nakshatras in the Navamsa, and immediately felt overwhelmed contemplating how it would be used... made the same face! As always, thank you for your work.
Poornimidah poornmadah....
Not only Navamsa, each varga chart has Nakshatras.
But the correct way of finding the degrees of planets (& Lagna...) in Divisional chart no one explained yet. I had found that correct method & doing research. And I am seeing the success.
I will reveal that thing later..
What is that method???
Thank you Vic!🌹It will be interesting to see any arguments against this, lol. Have a nice day.💚
I still don't see why your arguments are valid justification for not using nakshatras in amsa charts.
1) okay, amsas are based on divisions of rasi and not nakshatras. But once an amsa is created, the interpretation are made quite independently right? When I look at an amsa chart as a newly created chart, why can't I use nakshatras?
2) infinite ingress can also happen with Rashis
3) Nakshatras are appealing and actually simplifying our understanding because they are directly connecting to the vedas and scriptures. For eg, Sri Aurobindo has written extensively in the "secret of the vedas" about the nakshatras deities, how they manifest within ourselves and also attract external circumstances. So my point is, when nakshatras are really making it easier to understand a chart, why can't one apply it to the amsa chart as well?
😂😂so jyeshtha in a worm hole goes to Kritika oh genius genius 💯
Being an astrologer (genuine one) is so tough nowadays people want rubbish to get sold to them. My father told me people have unusual desires whoever fullfill them they feel yeah that's the right person. They want to use astrology for ass wipping timing. When you don't reply to them they feel you don't have answers. The thing is your question is absolutely rubbish need recycling
I'm agree with you brow.... More than Vic in this theme Vic's always doing his research his own way you know I know this...
And vics si cara had nothing to say on this question... So I guess he's not sure what's he is talking about..... Anymore...👀👀👁️👁️👄👄👅👅👀💀💀💀☠️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️💪💪💀☠️☠️👉🏻👈🏻
So do you find nakshatra in divisional chart to working as well??
Excellent Vic. Having nakshatras in the D9 is a modern conjecture based on krs and Dr Pai's ideas. It is something that was born right here on youtube, not in ancient times and only neophytes and teenagers are impressed with this very defective idea. I would probably say that this trade mark (d9 nakshatras) might have a copy right in order to protect this creative artificial nuance in jyotish. This is just an elaborate ploy to sell more within the modern astrological business. God bless that marketing but be aware, this is an invention by modern twentyfirst century men that has nothing to do with the tradition nor real inovation.
Agreed, agreed, agreed!!! 😌 proud of you and Vic!
Do KRS truly advocate nakshastras in the D9? I have just started to look into this and I have not seen this as of yet. Thanks.
@ron webber I do not think you realize how ignorant that sounds.
Hi Vic, I commented about this few days back asking about my ketu in rohini😁, but thank you so much for this video for making us realise how important the fundamentals are,,, although the reason why I was looking at it that way was to really understand the avastha of the plants but now I understand how complexe I was making it at the same time therefore thank you really 🙏🏻
i just couldnt stop laughing that was the best edit 😆😆😂 6:47 I noticed the same issue. because how can you have a constellation inside a constellation... its like Inception. Fitting name dear Vic, 'infinite regress' :)
Now I'm in moon dasha, I feel more like my D9 moon nakshatra - I can relate to it (Mula) more than my D1 moon (Jyeshta). Don't we become our D9 chart in middle age? Don't we grow into it?
Great video nugget, Vicji!! Loved the ‘Infinite regress’ part. Was thinking - Would there be Yogataras also in the Navamsha? The idea seemed so incredulous.
Love u vic! Thank you for enlightening us , can't agree anymore❤🌹
When some person is traveling on wrong path and he realize it then he keep exploring new ways to find the right path .. that is what happening with sidereal people... great 👍 work Vic .
I have venus in Anuradha in my Navamsa 😅
These details maybe found in texts from Muhurat Darpan, Vidyamadhaviyam, Kalamritam and Kalavidhanam that talk about Pushkara Navamsha and Pushkara bhaga.
I am sorry, I failed to understand how Pushkara Navamsha and Bhaga has anyting at all to do with the concept of nakshatras being a part of the amsha. As far as I can see no text you referenced says anything about nakshatras in amshas - but only talks about pushkara navamsha and bhaga. Am I wrong?
@@VicDiCaraAstrology You are correct. If possible, do get in touch with creators of Jagannath hora software. They have made this for free and it contains calculations for nakshatra in Navmansh also.
Very trippy
LOL You r quite funny And as always a very interesting presentation
Super interesting. Most people say the D9 Navamsa chart is a "breaking apart of the 9th house into divisions". But from what you're saying it's not like that at all.
Thank you 🙏🏻 your videos are so valuable to us all!
I get it. Thank you 😊
Beautiful video 🙏🎉love the graphics and video quality..grt editing... will take many more revisits to comprehend the concepts you have explored 🔥🎉🙏👍well explained 🔥👍
Thank you so much Vanaja
Great video. Yeah the introduction of Nakshatra into the Navamsa is a total soup sandwich. The infinite regress argument, exactly. Navamsa is not a true snapshot of the sky like the Birthchart. Bringing nakshatras into the D9 is a folly.
So what’s the point of nakshatras? I remember at one point Eve Mendoza used to read from the nakshatras rather than the zodiac, don’t know were she gone now? Plus I was thinking this tropical, sidereal debate would sort of end if the chart was read from the nakshatras. What is the point of taking nakshatras into account then. I love tropical but the system Ernst uses for the mahadashas seems sooo out, then you have to jump back to sidereal mahadashas to get the accurate timing. That’s what I’ve seen, also with transits I’ve seen tropical doesn’t work as well as sidereal but tropical gives an accurate view on the personality. I always thought nakshatras could solve this divide. But this interesting video confuses me again lol thanks Vic lol
This makes perfect sense to me.
I strongly disagree that the sidereal zodiac is wrong for Vedic astrology. So many astrologers use the sidereal zodiac and make incredibly accurate predictions.
I'm on fire
I have read that it is mathematically impossible to even have houses in the D9.
It is not, use whole sign houses. Whichever navamsha the ascendant is in becomes the 1st house of the navamsha. The rest of the houses follow in zodiacal order as per whole sign house protocol.
Thank You for this video, very interesting! I have moon in aries at 00°16'30", i guess is in ashwini in navamsa also... 🤔
Sorry for my poor english! 🙏
Very cool video! So there's essentially not really Nakshatras in the Navamsa chart... I had an inquiry that digresses from the point of the video but just for clarification.... If I'm looking at a Navamsa chart... in your opinion (in relation to the sidereal-tropical misconceptions surrounding stars and rashi) should I be looking at the Navamsa as calculated through the tropical system then?
One could meditate upon a single drop of dew,
And find a different path to God
Than that described by you.
Recall that the point is not the destination, but the journey.
With every mistake we must surely be learning.
do the Nakshatras move with the precession of the equinoxes like the rashi sighs ?
@@vellerophon4191 interesting.. but isn't it the rashi that moved not the nakshatra?
Everything moves, how it moves depends on perspective. Although Nakshatras are fixed stars I have found it easier to imagine the nakshatra moving forward thru the zodiac instead of imagining the rashi slipping back thru the stars. Hope this helps.
Movement is relative.
If you focus on the equinoxes which are the root of the rāśi, then the precession describes the movement of the nakshatras. Actually the vedas and siddhantas consistently describe it THIS way. Saying that the nakshatras move away from the rāśi.
If you want, you can focus on a star, which is the anchor of a nakshatra - and then it will appear that the precession describes the movement of the rāśi/equinoxes.
It is like if a car pulls away from a traffic light. If you focus on the car, the traffic light seem to be getting further and further away. If you focus on the traffic light, it is just the opposite - the car moves away.
How can one have clarity of thought, decision making,speech and action??
1st problem Nakshatra are not bound to the zodiac.Zodiac signs aren’t they are made of constellations(group of Nakshatras)and the Nakshatras are also part of the zodiac constellations like Rohini the red star in the constellation of taurus? Please enlighten Vic 🙏😄
See vicdicara.com/tropical
Interesting
Thank you sir for this beautiful video , you've explained very logically , but I saw a website where astrologer giving consultation named as D9 navamsha nakshatra reading at $299 , D10 nakshatra reading at $170 . I was decided to take consultation from him bcs he is very famous but if I think logically then it's very illogical to charge money for D9 nakshatra reading because it's meaningless , Sir please guide what should I do, your guidance is important for me.
Why do you need more guidance about this than what is already in the video? ;)
Sir , you've clearly explained that we can only apply nakshatra pada concept in birth chart , not any divisional chart, & due to that particular nakshatra pada planet gets placed in particular sign in navamsha but how can one differentiate between moon in Chitra, mercury in Chitra , venus in Chitra , Jupiter in Chitra.
@@abhiramkundu2299 Vic Di Cara has given you a logical explanation in this video about why Nakshastras do not apply in a divisional chart.
I will tell You what I know from My gut.
A divisional chart is drilling into a section of Your birthchart. In vedic astrology a birthchart is a snapshot of Your life in the sky from planet earth in both horizontal (tropical) and vertical (sidereal) perspectives.
Now... when you look at a divisional chart, there is no need tap into nakshastras because its not the system of division for drilling into this house. You already should have that information from Your birthchart. What You are doing in a divisional chart is cutting up time in fragments of nine based on tropical arrangements so You can better decode a pattern in Your planet and zodiac connections based on numeroLOGICAL science and essence. That's it.
In this way I would say that spending time to contemplate numerology and it's rhythms and rhymes are far more useful meditations in studying a D9 chart than trying to figure out what Nakshastrs are there.
Why did the ancient scholars divide by nine? What is it about nine which resonates with dharm?
The guy who speaks about temples in India.... Mohan.... He has a very interesting YT video about the significance of 108. I recommend watching it.
Hey can you mention the site..I would to have a look ?
Well. I guess theoretically, it can be applied by simple arithmetics, and can be assessed to find out the theme behind the planet's functioning.
Amshas means charts can be divided because each planet is in some amsha if the zodiac sign so we xab breakdown amshas but nakshatras when we were born were present only at that time in our chart and time which was captured. So nakshatras can't be divided in amsas. Should wonder why rishis in texts didn't mentioned nakshatras degrees in Amsha charts. If it be so them they would have already wrote it. It's our own misconception and ignorance tuat we keep finding which nakshatra is occupied by a planet in AMSHA charts. It's foolish and ignorant. Because nakshatra degrees and only upto what was captured when we was born. Then only things to be divided is the planets and their respective amshas in signs noy the degrees. I'm not able yo explain it properly because I'm and Indian and my English is bad though I'm trying hard to explain it. If you could understand hindi surely j would have explained it in very detail and neatly and u would have agreed
:)))))))))))
Encore! You know there’s plenty more weeds to pull up! 😉
So why amsas exist in the first place? What is their purpose? Why people give so much stress in reading a divisional chart if they are just mathematical calculations? Aren’t they are dimensions complete by their own? 🧐😁sorry Vic for asking you the basics. Time to buy your books :) 🙏🤷🏻♀️
all of astrology is a mathematical calculation. why say "just"? Amshas exist because a sign is not uniform all the way through. It has different qualities at different degrees.
@@VicDiCaraAstrologyThank you for taking time to answer Vic 🙏🙂 but why a sign has different qualities at different degrees? Why it is not uniform? Please enlighten Vic . It helps a lot 🙏🙏
Because the sign is no the basic unit of space, the second is. A sign is a segment (lit "Rashi") of seconds, minutes and degrees.
@@VicDiCaraAstrology Thank you 🙏🙂
The fact that you won't reply to comments that question your line of thinking is interesting. Also the fact that you are trying to argue absolute's on spiritual concepts suggest traditional Saturn non revolutionary energy. At the end of the day vedic astrology is a a spiritual concept and spiritual growth requires rahu thinking, which is innovation and abstract thinking. We aren't getting anywhere by arguing ancient mathematics. Lastly, you're trying to connect the d1 and d9 charts without fully recognizing that a divisional chart needs to be read like it is its own chart. You're using the degrees of d1 for the d9 creating the regression yourself, instead of looking at it like it's its own chart.
I do reply to comments, but it is impossible to keep up with them all. I apologize if I have missed comments you considered important. I encourage you to bring me into a better discussion platform than a youtube comment. Invite me to a video discussion on your channel, for example, or encourage others to do so. I will happily. In fact I have published two debates on my own channel. PS- The divisionals need to be read both as their own charts and as refined aspects of the main chart.
@@VicDiCaraAstrology Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. I don't feel comfortable video recording a discussion with you on a media platform. If I knew you in person or had a way to reach you through telephone, we could discuss then. I'm not willing to be a public figure, although I respect your line of work. It seems with your last sentence that this will simply be an agree to disagree situation, because although I do recognize the importance of the d1 chart, I see the d9 as an evolution, and therefore the d9 chart would be read with a conscious for what the person had evolved from in the d1. I don't believe d1 degrees should be involved in considering the evolution of a person given that those degrees are irrelevant in the evolution process. D1 degrees are imprinted at birth, versus the degrees we can observe in the divisional charts themselves, which are numbers that represent the evolution and not the birth. Using the degrees from d1 chart for d9 feels like using division to solve a multiplication equation. The maths are separate.
@@VicDiCaraAstrologyPlease tell me. I have mercury in virgo in d3 in hasta nakshatra also showing 21degree. Is it exalted or own sign . please
in a recent livestream i explained the 3 ways the divisionals are typically used. all three should be employed. (1) as a chart unto itself, but focused on a particular theme. (2) as an accumulation of signs to determine the true dignity of planets, (3) as a locator for another point in the zodiac that the planet influences.
@@VicDiCaraAstrology thanks for following up with me, I will be checking this video out
😂