Hello
Freinds
As per vedic astrology, for Birth Chart (Date of Birth: 16th Dec. 1976, Birth Time: 03:15 PM, Birth place: New Delhi (India) ) with Asc. - Aries, Moon; being 4th house lord; is in 6th house (Virgo sign). In this case, Is Moon weak or under malefic effect? If there is any other palnet under malefic effect or weak, Kindly suggest yur views.

Asc. - Aries ( 29:00:50 degrees)
Sun - Sagit. (01:02:26)
Moon - Virgo (26:44:45)
Mars - Scorpio (24:52:53)
Mercury - Sagit. (20:33:36)
Jupitor - Aries (29:08:47)
Vunus - Capricon (14:32:07)
Saturn - Cancer ( 23:01:08)
Rahu - Libra ( 08:42:08) &
Ketu - Aries( 08:42:08)


Reagrds,

J K Sharma

Why not have a read of "On Reception" by Masha Allah translated on this site? If I understand correctly the moon receives saturn but by sextile rather than, say opposition so that it not very malefic. It is in a cadent house which weakens it. However, it is also sextile to Mars in the opposite direction and Mars in the sign of the Moon's fall and I think this is a form of beseigement but I am not sure that is considered relevant to a natal chart.Unless anyone has a copy of Al-Biruni to hand I will confirm when I get home to my books.

Anyone else care to check that my working is accurate and add anything?

Matt

Al-Biruni and Masha Allah are Western astrologers. This thread uses Vedic astrology and the sidereal zodiac. Is it safe to mix? If I remember correctly, Al-Biruni didn't think very highly of the Indian astrologers.

A curmudgeonly aside: All this jumping around using and comparing Western and Indian astrology is kind of like studying Spanish and constantly referring to Portuguese to see how they compare. One ends up being mediocre in both. It can be interesting ? but perhaps inhibits progress.

Kirk wrote:Al-Biruni and Masha Allah are Western astrologers.

They were Persians -- hardly 'western' in any maningful sense of the word, except if we take it to mean 'non-Indian'. Masha'allah used demonstrably sidereal positions (pace Rob Hand), and was influenced by some Indian ideas. (Al-Biruni, who is later, did indeed criticize the sidereal zodiac.) The pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic astrologers (and many of the post-Ptolemaic) used the sidereal zodiac with their 'western' concepts and techniques; there is no unwarranted mixing-up involved in continuing to use it.

A curmudgeonly aside: All this jumping around using and comparing Western and Indian astrology is kind of like studying Spanish and constantly referring to Portuguese to see how they compare.

The simile is partly apt, but only partly. Indian and Perso-Arabic ('western') astrology are closely related, like Spanish and Portuguese; but while we would not normally consider one of the languages more accurate in describing reality than the other, different astrological systems sometimes do lead to mutually exclusive conclusions.

They were Persians -- hardly 'western' in any maningful sense of the word, except if we take it to mean 'non-Indian'.

What I had in mind is that they are in the background of the Western tradition. Western astrology can include them in its development.

Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni seems like a decidedly Arabic rather than Persian name. Holden states in his 'History' ? ?a history of the development of Western horoscopic astrology? ? that his works were written in Arabic, so he seems to be directly involved in the Western astrology lineage.

And Lordy! What's the problem with Masha Allah? He's as involved with the development of Western astrology as anyone could hope to be. He was a Jew born in Basra known to us with an Arabic name. Holden writes on page 111 of his 'History': ?Masha'allah was familiar with Persian and Indian astrology ...? . Being simply ?familiar? with Persian astrology indicates that he could hardly be called a Persian astrologer. On page 109 Holden writes: ?Masha'allah was the author of more than two dozen astrological treatises that were considered to be authoritative by both the Arabs and the Western Europeans?. 'Western' in a very meaningful sense of the word!

The pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic astrologers (and many of the post-Ptolemaic) used the sidereal zodiac with their 'western' concepts and techniques; there is no unwarranted mixing-up involved in continuing to use it.

Can we safely treat pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic astrology and post-Lilly/Morin Western astrology equally? We have two very different kinds of astrology: An early developing tradition and a late, recovering, well-developed tradition looking back to many other times and places. The learning, experimentation and forward thrust of early astrology seems to be replaced by an uncertainty, anxiety and search for justification in the current age of Western astrology.


But the problem we have in this thread is that the original post was made using one tradition without stating the fact that the tradition used is not the same as the commonly used 'default' tradition of the forum. Or am I mistaken? Maybe the sidereal zodiac used is the only difference and the person who posted uses the full Western system of planetary symbolism rulerships, reception, aspects, etc. It's hard to tell. Did the person who replied realize that the sidereal zodiac was used and that we were possibly heading into a mush of traditions? Free-floating between traditions on the same web site can lead again, alas, to mediocrity.

... while we would not normally consider one of the languages more accurate in describing reality than the other, different astrological systems sometimes do lead to mutually exclusive conclusions.

Exactly. And that is much more important and relevant here than talk of languages.

Hello Kirk,

Masha'allah and al-Biruni both being Persians is just a historical fact, nothing to argue about. (Many Persians, especially Muslims, had Arabic names.) My point was that the so-called western tradition was largely an eastern tradition up to the 12th century or thereabouts, with much exchange between India and Persia. Those who have not studied both branches of the tradition (Indian and non-Indian) in depth tend to exaggerate the differences.

Can we safely treat pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic astrology and post-Lilly/Morin Western astrology equally?

No, but the latter is derived from the former. My point here was that if anyone has changed the zodiac and zodiac-based techniques around, it's the followers of Ptolemy, not the siderealists.

Where we mainly differ, I think, is in our view of 'the tradition'. In my view, all schools of horoscopic astrology, whether Indian, Arabic, or English Renaissance, derive from the same source and can be fruitfully compared. If Bonatti could include Indian techniques, why shouldn't we? Granted, mediocrity can result if we are not knowledgeable enough; but it is also perfectly possible to be a purist and still mediocre.