Therese Hamilton wrote:

Mark, reading through all you wrote here, I don?t think we?ll ever have an answer as to who used the Raman-Vehlow house system first.

You may be right Therese but that will not stop me digging away to find more out on this. I guess its my Moon in Scorpio (tropical and sidereal!)

Therese Hamilton wrote:

It?s more interesting that it appeared in print around the same time from different sources. Astrology and invention are like that. A particular idea suddenly attracts our notice as brought to the surface by different people who may even live in different parts of the world. I suspect many inventions have followed this pattern.

Very true Therese. In seems ideas are often out there in the ether and seem to emerge simultaneously in the material world. In some cases one can argue for a possible direct influence but in others its much less clear. E.H. Bailey does seem to have been influenced by an Indian approach to mid-house cusps. However, to date the evidence seems to be that Vehlow stumbled on the idea quite independently due to his own unique rationale.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

In India this house system may have evolved over time in the personal practice of individual astrologers. Prior to B.V. Raman and his grandfather?s published books, much astrological knowledge was kept within families and transmitted orally. There are probably many thousands of useful astrological tidbits that are lost to us due to these practices. And terminology changes as well. We?ve just now changed ?Indian Equal House? to Raman-Vehlow or Vehlow-Raman!

I am sure you are right on all that. But for the historical researcher this can be frustrating as information on techniques is not preserved for posterity in writing. This seems to be a particular problem for students of Indian astrology.

Regarding the term ''Indian Equal House'' have you seen it described by that term by older Indian astrologers?

This house system is really a map of aspects to the angles. Every cadent or succedent house forms a trine aspect to an angular cusp or cardine. This is why houses that are trine to one another reflect some similar ideas as Morin and others have pointed out. So planets close to cusps in every house have the opportunity to be expressed externally due to this relationship to cardines. (Also the 27 lunar mansions tie into the cuspal trine idea.)

Not quite with you on the last point on the Nakshatras. Could you elaborate please?

Therese Hamilton wrote:

In India a modern system has been developed by V.K. Choudhry, Systems Approach. In this system the greatest importance is placed on planets in the ascendant degree in all 12 houses. Choudhry writes: ?The rising degree in the ascendant is known as the most effective point (MEP) in all the houses...Any planet conjunct within 5 degrees in that house would be influencing the significations of the house in question in a pronounced manner depending on the functional nature of that planet...? (Systems Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes, p. 14)

Thanks for that reference.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

In my own work I?ve always considered that any planet close to an equal cusp (on either side of the cusp) will in some way play a prominent role in a person?s life. This places the M.C. in another perspective as it often doesn?t appear near the zenith or 10th house cusp in an equal house system measured from the ascendant.

I am always extremely interested to hear how astrologers using Whole sign, Equal, or Vehlow-Raman houses delineate the MC-IC compared to the Equal 10th/4th. What is your approach?

Mark wrote:

However, I think your point Therese is not that B.V. Raman first used the system but was rather that he is the most famous representative of a much older Indian astrological house system? Is that a fair synopsis of why you propose to call the system Raman-Vehlow rather than the other way around?

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Yes, that?s the reason, plus as Rohiniranjan was quoted on the other thread as saying: from the time she first studied astrology in India 40 years ago, she can never remember when that house system wasn?t used. So at least among some Indian astrologers, it?s in common use today. I don?t think Raman invented the system, as he said it was only one of the house systems he tested.

How old is Rohiniranjan? She is referring to what the 1970s? I must admit despite Raman's popularity it seems unlikely this house system could have spread across India so quickly from just the early 20th century. Especially, considering the conservative nature of Indian astrology compared to the west.

Mark

Mark wrote:

You may be right Therese but that will not stop me digging away to find more out on this. I guess its my Moon in Scorpio (tropical and sidereal!)

Then your Moon is near the end of tropical Scorpio where my Mercury is. This is definitely an astrological area of the zodiac. Many astrologers will have key planets in that area. I think I remember that Liz Green?s ascendant is there. You?ll be interested in these quotes from Liber Hermetis (sidereal since these LH notes often include reference to stars):

"Of the Fixed Stars and Degrees in Scorpio
"From the fifth to the seventh degree is the Uranoscopus, i.e. the one looking at the sky

"From the first degree to the fifth the degrees are lucid. They make astrologers [and] astronomers, always having hope in God."

Liber Hermetis 25 (in Liber Hermetis, Part II, translated by Robert Zoller, Golden Hind Press, 1993.

E.H. Bailey does seem to have been influenced by an Indian approach to mid-house cusps. However, to date the evidence seems to be that Vehlow stumbled on the idea quite independently due to his own unique rationale.

When more than one person comes up with the same observation or idea, that adds validity to the concept. I do think that ideas appear ?in the ether? so to speak, and as occult sources would say, they are actually placed there from astral sources because their time has come.

Regarding the term ''Indian Equal House'' have you seen it described by that term by older Indian astrologers?

I learned that term from Raman?s books. Rohiniranjan said that is the term used in India for that house system. I?ll quote here from Raman?s Manual of Hindu Astrology (revised 1972) for those who might be interested in what he said:

?In India there are two schools of thought bearing on the question of house-division. According to one view, shared by a majority of people not only in Indian but also in Europe and America [not true, but this might indicate that Raman had seen Bailey?s articles], the length of each Bhava [house] will be 30 degrees?the influence extending 15 degrees on either side of the ascendant degree (equal house system).

"According to the other view, this system is unscientific because it ignores the relationship between the ecliptic and equator which should be considered for determining the dimensions of the Bhavas...In our own humble experience extending for nearly 35 years, the equal house system appears to be yielding more satisfactory results.?(p. 96)

I do have several of Raman?s grandfather?s books. I?ve never carefully read them, so don?t know if house systems are mentioned in those books.

Not quite with you on the last point on the Nakshatras. Could you elaborate please?

I meant that equal house cusps in trine to each other will have nakshatras on the cusp with the same ruling planet. Some Indian astrologers are now giving emphasis to nakshatras in trine to each other, rather like they?re a unit. (I might post something on this later as their view increases the importance of the trine aspect over squares and oppositions.)

I am always extremely interested to hear how astrologers using Whole sign, Equal, or Vehlow-Raman houses delineate the MC-IC compared to the Equal 10th/4th. What is your approach?

That?s a good question, actually. I discount whole sign houses except for special yogas. With equal house, of course, the 90 degree point from the ascendant marks the cusps of the 10th and 4th houses. I?ve noted that the MC-IC axis responds to transits for events. This axis might show up in quadrant division for certain professions or other factual information. (I have some research on this, but can?t look it up at the moment.)

I haven?t been able to find any particular external patterns for planets near the MC/IC axis as such. That means they would only be visible if we're familiar with a person's psychology. So for the moment, I?ll say these points respond to transits. (The Gauquelin statistical research is quite valid in my opinion, but for individual cases the patterns often are not obvious.)

I can give an example in my own chart. I have Neptune-Venus at the zenith. I have a degree in art, and taught art in the schools. I was a painter. I have two psychology degrees, but my real career is astrology. Both of these topics come under Neptune. I have Mars in the Gauquelin plus zone (diurnal 9th house). I can?t stand violence, rough sports, loud sounds or today?s popular music beat, am totally un-athletic, can?t drive a car or ride a bike.

My Mars is in sidereal Virgo in mutual reception with Mercury in Scorpio. I can lay floor tile and design kitchens and room layouts and use carpentry measuring tools. Mars seems to operate when I write. I?m very direct and don?t like fuzzy thinking. Because of that I seem to attract more than my share of argument from others. But this happens mainly in writing as here on this forum. I think others (especially men) don't like the way I sound sure of my views. I don't sound traditionally feminine when I write.

So the sign of Virgo (Mercury's domicile and exaltation) seems to describe Mars talents and thinking. (Mars is in tropical Libra.) Re transits: One transit I remember to my MC brought dental surgery. So Venus-Neptune describes what I've actually done in life. Mars at the MC (influenced by Mercury) seems to describe my direct approach to life, always wanting to dig deeper for answers to questions and explore new ideas.

In summary I?d say that the MC/IC may be important in research for dividing quadrants and as a transit marker. But for marking the 10th house and what it is supposed to represent: not in my experience.

How old is Rohiniranjan? She is referring to what the 1970s? I must admit despite Raman's popularity it seems unlikely this house system could have spread across India so quickly from just the early 20th century. Especially, considering the conservative nature of Indian astrology compared to the west.

I don?t know Rohini?s age, only that she?s a mature Indian woman. I think she simply meant that it was one of the commonly used Indian house systems. If we know when the Sripati system was first used in India, that may date the time when equal cusps were also placed at the centers of houses by some astrologers. But I can?t say for sure, as all we have at present is mention of the equal house system in Raman?s books. Perhaps it is mentioned in older books in my library. I might look into that sometime. I collect books to use for reference in writing and research, but don't read through all of them.

Therese

Michael Sternbach wrote:

If we want to think of house cusps as aspects to the ASC, then the Vehlow concept is the most intuitive one.

Yes. And the relationship of houses to the ASC seems to have been a major factor in assigning meaning to the houses. Hence those houses in aversion (semi-sextile or quincunx) to the ASC sign (2nd, 6th, 8th, and 12th) were seen as difficult in ancient astrology.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

For a long time, many astrologers took for granted that Equal Houses was the one and only system used by ancient astrologers. Of course we now know this to be incorrect. Now WHS is in vogue in traditional astrology. It will be interesting to see the next turn of the wheel (no pun intended).

This is a very true. I agree Astrology goes through its intellectual fashions. At one time the astrological community was all heavily focused on using astrology as a psychological tool. Then from the mid-1980s interest began to shift to more traditional techniques. I was commonly accepted for years that ancient astrology only used whole sign aspects and these were only within sign. We now know ancient astrologers also looked at the aspects by degrees too and would consider conjunctions across sign. Deborah Houlding was I think one of the first to challenge the the intellectual consensus by pointing out sources like Manilius and actual charts by Valens that contradicted the common view.

Many traditional astrologers also confidently argue today whole sign houses was without doubt the original system used in ancient astrology. Again though Deborah Houlding has questioned the certainty of this by actually citing textual references that question this. I think her more careful, cautious approach based on actually studying the sources rather than accepting the view of the astrological 'herd' is commendable.

Nevertheless there is no doubt that whole sign houses have become fashionable due to the large number of prominent traditional astrologers who advocate them today (Robert Hand, Robert Schmidt, Ben Dykes, Chris Brennan, Demetra George, Joseph Crane, Dorian Greenbaum etc)

I remember a joke by Meira Epstein at the UK Astrological conference a couple of years ago where she ''apologised'' for using the unfashionable Placidus house system and not Whole sign houses!

Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Then your Moon is near the end of tropical Scorpio where my Mercury is. This is definitely an astrological area of the zodiac. Many astrologers will have key planets in that area. I think I remember that Liz Green?s ascendant is there. You?ll be interested in these quotes from Liber Hermetis (sidereal since these LH notes often include reference to stars):

"Of the Fixed Stars and Degrees in Scorpio
"From the fifth to the seventh degree is the Uranoscopus, i.e. the one looking at the sky

"From the first degree to the fifth the degrees are lucid. They make astrologers [and] astronomers, always having hope in God."

Liber Hermetis 25 (in Liber Hermetis, Part II, translated by Robert Zoller, Golden Hind Press, 1993.

Thanks Therese. Very interesting. The reference is certainly sidereal if by that you mean fixed stars. However, the reference system these stars are related to i.e. zodiac could have been tropical if you consider the effects of procession. Robert Zoller was certainly thinking along those lines in his introduction to his translation. Problem is we dont really know how old this text is. In any case I would prefer not to get into that discussion on this thread if you dont mind.

There certainly seems to be something astrological going on around 28 Scorpio tropical. I have literally lost count of the number of astrologers I have met with connections there. I remember chatting to two prominent members of this forum a few years ago and we discovered we all had the Moon on the same degree!

Therese Hamilton:

I meant that equal house cusps in trine to each other will have nakshatras on the cusp with the same ruling planet. Some Indian astrologers are now giving emphasis to nakshatras in trine to each other, rather like they?re a unit. (I might post something on this later as their view increases the importance of the trine aspect over squares and oppositions.)

Ok. I would look forward to seeing more on that if you have the time. I am still finding it hard to visualise this.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I discount whole sign houses except for special yogas. With equal house, of course, the 90 degree point from the ascendant marks the cusps of the 10th and 4th houses. I?ve noted that the MC-IC axis responds to transits for events. This axis might show up in quadrant division for certain professions or other factual information. (I have some research on this, but can?t look it up at the moment.)

I haven?t been able to find any particular external patterns for planets near the MC/IC axis as such. That means they would only be visible if we're familiar with a person's psychology. So for the moment, I?ll say these points respond to transits. (The Gauquelin statistical research is quite valid in my opinion, but for individual cases the patterns often are not obvious.)

This issue interests me a lot at present. On the one hand I feel Whole sign, Indian Equal or Sripati are more accurate by allowing the 1st house to begin well above the ASC.

Thanks for the example from your nativity. As a hard wired tropicalist I cant help reflecting that your MC is probably in tropical Libra and therefore Venus is your MC dispositor. That does seem to fit your artistic background very well!

But what I am really interested in is the Lords of the Equal/WSH 10th vs the MC. I must state in contrast to your chart I have found numerous charts where a planet on the MC is highly descriptive of a person's fate.

Of course a planet on the zenith is aspecting the ASC so is sure to be powerfully expressed.

But my experience with charts is that the MC ruler is more often reflective of career/honours things than the ruler of the Equal/WSH 10th. I haven't really got to the bottom of differentiating what the difference is between the two. Pity we work with different zodiacs as I cant directly utilise findings in sidereal charts. But I do want to open a practically focused thread that examines charts for both rulers in tropical charts.

Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote: I meant that equal house cusps in trine to each other will have nakshatras on the cusp with the same ruling planet. Some Indian astrologers are now giving emphasis to nakshatras in trine to each other, rather like they?re a unit. (I might post something on this later as their view increases the importance of the trine aspect over squares and oppositions.)

What I find particularly intriguing is that there are three nakshatras starting at 0? Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, as the Fire Trigon has special significance for organizing the zodiak (as elka and I both concluded in different ways).

What is the ruler of these three nakshatras?

Michael Sternbach wrote: What I find particularly intriguing is that there are three nakshatras starting at 0? Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, as the Fire Trigon has special significance for organizing the zodiak (as elka and I both concluded in different ways).

What is the ruler of these three nakshatras?

Ketu, Moon's South Node.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote: What I find particularly intriguing is that there are three nakshatras starting at 0? Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, as the Fire Trigon has special significance for organizing the zodiak (as elka and I both concluded in different ways).

What is the ruler of these three nakshatras?

Ketu, Moon's South Node.

Thanks. On which signs and degrees do the nakshatras begin which are ruled by Rahu?

Michael Sternbach wrote:
On which signs and degrees do the nakshatras begin which are ruled by Rahu?

Here on my web site is a table of lunar mansions with tropical and sidereal longitudes and the stars or asterisms in each mansion. These will differ somewhat from books on the Indian mansions because some of the stars are not aligned correctly in those books. This is because the ancient nakshatra stars aren't spaced evenly as the 27 mansions are.

http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amansions.htm

With any equal house system such as Vehlow, the cusps of houses trine to each other will always have the same mansion ruling planet. I plan on looking up references on how these are used, but haven't had time yet.

Mark wrote:

Therese wrote:
"Of the Fixed Stars and Degrees in Scorpio:
"From the fifth to the seventh degree is the Uranoscopus, i.e. the one looking at the sky

"From the first degree to the fifth the degrees are lucid. They make astrologers [and] astronomers, always having hope in God."

Liber Hermetis 25 (in Liber Hermetis, Part II, translated by Robert Zoller, Golden Hind Press, 1993.

Mark replied:
Thanks Therese. Very interesting. The reference is certainly sidereal if by that you mean fixed stars. However, the reference system these stars are related to i.e. zodiac could have been tropical if you consider the effects of procession.

This is just one of many zodiac tests that could tell us if various influences are somehow linked to the stars or come from another source. Astrologers could be kept busy for centuries with possible research projects.

This issue [MC/IC planets] interests me a lot at present. On the one hand I feel Whole sign, Indian Equal or Sripati are more accurate by allowing the 1st house to begin well above the ASC...But what I am really interested in is the Lords of the Equal/WSH 10th vs the MC. I must state in contrast to your chart I have found numerous charts where a planet on the MC is highly descriptive of a person's fate.

It would be helpful to see some examples. I?m not sure what you mean by ?fate.?

But my experience with charts is that the MC ruler is more often reflective of career/honours things than the ruler of the Equal/WSH 10th. I haven't really got to the bottom of differentiating what the difference is between the two. Pity we work with different zodiacs as I can?t directly utilise findings in sidereal charts. But I do want to open a practically focused thread that examines charts for both rulers in tropical charts.

I don?t see why a comparison study can?t be done of house lords in both zodiacs. Since Jyotish has borrowed in some ways from tropical astrology (not saying that I completely agree with that....), I think the time for a sharp separation between tropical and sidereal is long past. It?s just old, a false segregation. It keeps both sides in the dark. And of course I have borrowed from tropical observations myself. Same traits, different sign name.

But the topic here is Vehlow houses, and it might be interesting to look at a few charts to see if there is evidence if planets on either side of a cusp relate to matters of the house in question.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

But the topic here is Vehlow houses, and it might be interesting to look at a few charts to see if there is evidence if planets on either side of a cusp relate to matters of the house in question.

Yes. Probably best if we all get back to examining Vehlow houses before we wonder off topic too much.

Thanks

Mark

Indian Equal Houses
------------------------
I've just found printed evidence that Indian Equal Houses are alive and well in India. There is an Indian astrologer, S. K. Mehta, whom Sunil John, the editor of Saptarishis On-line Astrology Magazine, says makes amazingly accurate predictions. Sunil John has given some examples of these predictions in past magazines.

Mehta has a series of three books on his teachings and techniques. In New Dimensions in Hindu Astrology (Prakash Books, 2004) in a discussion of houses he says "to the best of experience and knowledge of the writer, each house should be taken exactly as 30 degrees." (p. 80)

Then on page 82 following the illustrated circular chart he says "[The] ascendant is the center of house 1." Perhaps to counteract the use of whole sign houses by his students, Mehta goes to great lengths (half a page) to meticulously explain how to calculate houses that place the cusps at the centers.

Mehta also says that if the cusps fall near the centers of zodiac signs, one can use the traditional Indian square chart, but if the ascendant falls close to sign boundaries, especially within five degrees, then the circular chart must be used. I see this as a beneficial transfer of a western idea to India. It's rather strange that western Jyotish practitioners don't suggest the use of the circular chart, and also that the majority of them seem to advocate whole sign houses.

Mark wrote earlier:

Vehlow does quote an English astrologer called EH Bailey who had written two articles in the ''British Journal of Astrology" from 1928 who advocated equal houses with central cusps. Bailey himself does attribute the idea to 'Hindu astrology' and quotes the astrological text of Sripati. At present he appears to be the first astrologer to propose this system in writing.

At present my vote goes to India as the birth place of this house system. My conclusion is that the most accurate name for this system is simply "Indian Equal House." (As Raman and Rohiniranjan termed it.) The system doesn't really belong either to B. V. Raman or Vehlow, both now departed from the earth. It's simply a system that has been kept alive in common use by India's astrologers.

therese 8:38pm post... that reminds me of what i was using before i forgot why i was using it, lol... you tell someone equal house system and they still can't get their head around the idea of the ascendant being like the crest of a wave.. breaking astrologers of the idea that houses are boxes to put stuff in is hard to do.. everyone seems to like the houses as boxes idea.. thanks for sharing this and reminding me of how i used to look at houses prior to finding out about whole sign houses...

i do like the connection with planets in the same sign as the ascendant as being in the ascendant. it gets tricky with late or early degrees of a sign rising as then one is thrown back into ignoring the aspects completely and going with a complete emphasis on the sign..

this is ot, but how does sidereal adopt 30 degree segments when the signs are not 30 degrees using sidereal signs? maybe someone can answer it privately to me or in a separate thread.. i can't figure that out.. if one goes with 360 degree circles and 12 signs - i don't get it sidereally..