A book that was popular in the 1960s among western students of India's astrology was Robert De Luce's Constellational Astrology published in 1963. This book gives a perspective of India's astrology at that time, at least among the more educated. The book is highly mathematical, detailing the complex calculations of shad bala, ashtakavarga, dasas, etc. This was prior to the days of computers when astrologers had to have a working knowledge of mathematics.

De Luce had been studying astrology since the turn of the century (18th to 19th), and had later taken up the study of Sanskrit. But it was only in 1936-1938 that he traveled to India to converse with astrologers. De Luce became friends with V. Subrahmanya Sastri who had translated many of India' classical astrological texts, and who became a mentor to De Luce. (Since Constellational Astrology wasn't published until 1963, this may be the more accurate date for the astrology in the book.)

De Luce writes that the commonly used chart was the rasi (sign) chakra, but that classical Hindu works on astrology such as Sripati Paddhati advocated the use of the bhava (house) chakra which would give more accurate results in delineation. This was the chart used for the analysis of love, health, physical appearance, etc...and related to events which would deeply affect the personality and lead to key changes in the life.

This is the familiar Sripati chart which trisects the space between the Midheaven and Ascendant. De Luce illustrates this chart, drawing the cusps at the centers of the houses, and points out that that a planet near the cusps allowed for the full expression of a planet. Near the mid-point between cusps (illustrated by dotted lines) a planet's power was minimal.

So at least in De Luce's book (with Sastri as his mentor), there is no mention of the equal house chart with cusps at the center of houses that was favored by B.V. Raman and his daughter. We don't know which chart style was preferred by Raman's grandfather, B. Suryanarain Rao, who was Raman's teacher and mentor.

I have been reading the book ?Predictive Astrology of The Hindus? by Pandit Gopesh Kumar Ojha. The copy I possess is a reprint of the 1972 first edition. One thing thing I like about this author is that he frequently cites a traditional text for where he derives a technique. Something you don?t see in most of the popular ?Vedic astrology? books today!

In chapter 7 Ojha discusses the astrological houses. He spends a few pages discussing house systems. He mentions the well known whole sign or rasi system. He also discusses the Porphyry house system but states this is not authentically Indian in origin. Although one could argue the same for whole sign houses! He does though acknowledge a variation of the Porphyry system with centralised cusps which is mentioned in the paddhati by Sripati.

Intriguingly though Ojha comes out in support of the Vehlow-Raman system on the grounds of both its efficacy and its antiquity within India.

Oijha states:

'But as we consider the equal house division more scientific and the older Hindu method we are using it in this book.?

Could Ojha have been influenced by B.V.Raman? If he was he certainly doesn?t acknowledge him. Instead he claims this house system is actually well established in India and mentioned in several older Indian astrological texts. So was B.V. Raman really proposing a new house system or simply advocating an old one with some additional research?

Oijha states

? the original Hindu method is what is known as the equal house division. Parashar, Jaimini, Mantreshwar , all followed this method.?

Is Ojha correct? He certainly translated texts like the Phaldeepika of Mantreshwar so I assume he had researched this topic before stating this.

I was trying to read the Google books translation of the Phaldeepika by Mantreshwar translated by Ojha but the most relevant section is not for public view (it seems to be section 15.Bhava Chinta (House Analysis) p261-281)

Plus the poor electronic copy of the older translation by P.V.S. Sastri (1950) I possess is a total nightmare to read.

Would someone who has this text be kind enough to check this bit of the text to see if Mantreshwar mentions an equal house system anywhere?

Alternatively, if you have any of the other traditional texts mentioned by Ojha please take a look.

Thanks

Mark

Bhava chinta is not about house systems but results of houselordship and planets in houses.

Use the DLI downloader mentioned in another thread and you can download

The Siddhanta Sekhara Of Sripati (1947)

It is in English.

PD

Pankajdubey wrote:

Bhava chinta is not about house systems but results of houselordship and planets in houses.

Yes I saw it was about that but it seemed to discuss sign division of houses in that context so I thought it might be relevant. However, clearly the whole text needs investigation.

Pankajdubey wrote:

Use the DLI downloader mentioned in another thread and you can download

Thanks I will take a look. Its just a lot of these free online copies come from quite poor photocopies of the originals. Plus the lay out and the English style in some of these older translations are not that easy to follow. Especially, when they the decide to leave all the Sanskrit terms untranslated! Thats why I favoured looking at Ojha's translation of the Phaldeepika as it seems well set out and fairly straightforward in presentation.

The Siddhanta Sekhara Of Sripati (1947) It is in English.

Thanks again. It will be interesting to see Sripati's discussion of his house system. Does this text include the Paddhati by Sripati?

Beside the Phaldeepika Ojha also suggests evidence of this equal house sytem can be found in the work of Parashara. I assume Ojha is referring to the Brihat Parasara Horashastra? and the Jaimini Sutram. Again if anyone has the time to check this topic out it would be much appreciated.

Mark

@Mark

A search for Sripati will give you Sripati Paddati as well(Sanskrit -English) by Subramanya Sastri.

There is Siddhanta Shekhar and Pingree's Jyotihsastra as well.

PD

Mark wrote:I have been reading the book ?Predictive Astrology of The Hindus? by Pandit Gopesh Kumar Ojha. The copy I possess is a reprint of the 1972 first edition. One thing thing I like about this author is that he frequently cites a traditional text for where he derives a technique. Something you don?t see in most of the popular ?Vedic astrology? books today!
(...)
Intriguingly though Ojha comes out in support of the Vehlow-Raman system on the grounds of both its efficacy and its antiquity within India.
(...)
Oijha states

? the original Hindu method is what is known as the equal house division. Parashar, Jaimini, Mantreshwar , all followed this method.?

Is Ojha correct? He certainly translated texts like the Phaldeepika of Mantreshwar so I assume he had researched this topic before stating this.
(...)
Would someone who has this text be kind enough to check this bit of the text to see if Mantreshwar mentions an equal house system anywhere?

Alternatively, if you have any of the other traditional texts mentioned by Ojha please take a look.

Your post is fascinating, Mark. I found Ojha's book in my bookcase, apparently purchased in India in 1986 since 'Vedanta Book House, Bangalore' is stamped on the title page. It must have been Ojha as well as Raman which led me to believe that the Vehlow-Raman house system had been in standard use in India for a long time.

I do have a copy of G.S. Kapoor's translation of Phaladeepika (Ranjan Publications, 1991), and a quick look found the statement below. I have limited time this morning, but will try to check more thoroughly later today. (I happened to have underlined these sentences....sad that my deficient memory had forgotten this text.)

"Amongst Mercury and Jupiter, whoever is in the Bhava madhya [house center] of the 1st Bhava (Lagna) (East) gets 1 Rupa of strength. Their strength is nil if located in the 7th Bhava madhya (West)." (p. 39, Chapter 4, "The various kinds of strengths of planets and houses")

There are many references to 'bhava madhya' in the text. I'll have to do more reading later today, but obviously the reference here isn't to whole sign houses. I also have the translations of the other authors you mentioned.

Pankajdubey wrote:

@Mark

A search for Sripati will give you Sripati Paddati as well(Sanskrit -English) by Subramanya Sastri.

There is Siddhanta Shekhar and Pingree's Jyotihsastra as well.

PD

I'm in your debt. Thank you

Mark

Therese Hamilton wrote:

There are many references to 'bhava madhya' in the text. I'll have to do more reading later today, but obviously the reference here isn't to whole sign houses. I also have the translations of the other authors you mentioned.

Thanks for the quote above. Unfortunately, all we can tell from this is that a house system involving sign division and centralised cusps is being used. So on that basis it could still be the Sripati system.

However, if you find any subsequent 'killer quotes' that nail this subject down clearly either in this text or elsewhere that would be fantastic!

I had assumed up to now Sripati was the default house system by sign division used in traditional Jyotish prior to the 20th century. I am fairly positive I recall Martin stating on a few occasions on Skyscript that historically Sripati was the core Jyotish house system along with whole sign houses. As a Sanskrit scholar I know Martin has made a deep study of many of these texts so I would really value his perspective on Ojha's claim regarding the 'bhava madya' equal house system.

As I stated earlier in the thread I have seen it suggested that in the Brihat Parasara Horashastra there is no specific method outlined for deriving the cusps. However, the text does apparently contain passages which mention that the distance between two cusps is a variable factor, as with unequal Sripati house cusps.

Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly learned from similar discussions in western traditional astrology you cant assume anything from the second hand opinions of others. There is really nothing better than 'returning to the source' and checking out the original texts themselves.

Mark

I just saw the recent flurry of posts on this thread. To the best of my knowledge, there is no textual evidence to back Ojha's claims regarding equal houses. I have yet to see a Sanskrit text describing that system.

Mark wrote:Therese Hamilton wrote:

There are many references to 'bhava madhya' in the text. I'll have to do more reading later today, but obviously the reference here isn't to whole sign houses. I also have the translations of the other authors you mentioned.

Thanks for the quote above. Unfortunately, all we can tell from this is that a house system involving sign division and centralised cusps is being used. So on that basis it could still be the Sripati system.

Indeed -- and in fact, the passages Therese is referring to are not even part of the Phalad?pik?; they belong to Kapoor's initial comments to the chapter in question. He begins by saying:

In this connection before mentioning the views of Shri Mantreswara, it will be useful to know the views of other ancients.

The point system that he then goes on to describe is probably taken from the ?r?patipaddhati.

Mark: if there is any specific chapter or verse you want me to look at, I'll be happy to do so. I did find two verses of Mantre?vara's (Phalad?pik? 15.13-14) that use the words 'house cusp' (bh?vasphu?a) and 'junction' (sandhi), but again, they tell us nothing explicitly about the system used.

As I stated earlier in the thread I have seen it suggested that in the Brihat Parasara Horashastra there is no specific method outlined for deriving the cusps. However, the text does apparently contain passages which mention that the distance between two cusps is a variable factor, as with unequal Sripati house cusps.

That is true at least of some versions of the text (including, I believe, both of the versions published with English translation since the 1980s); the problem is that there is no standard text, and versions differ a great deal.

Martin wrote:

Indeed -- and in fact, the passages Therese is referring to are not even part of the Phalad?pik?; they belong to Kapoor's initial comments to the chapter in question.

This is true. In my years of reading translations of Indian classics, I can't recall the specifics of equal house division ever being mentioned. The notes in the Kapoor translation refer to shad bala strength, of which one calculation is directional strength. This calculation has to do with planets in the four horoscope angles.

However, a possible hint as to whether these are equal angles is in the following discussion of Kala Bala, the distance of planets from midnight or noon. The noon point is the M.C., the Sun's most southern point in its daily cycle (high noon). If the M.C. is the 10th angle, this calculation would in part duplicate directional strength.

Jaimini: I have two translations of Jaimini sutras, but I think Raman says it best in his Studies in Jaimini Astrology. (Raman Publications, third edition, 1966) In the preface Raman describes the various Jaimini texts at his disposal in various Indian language scripts, and concludes that it isn't possible to say how effective Jaimini's principles are when applied to practical horoscopes.

On page 19 Raman says that "Rasis in Jaimini are synonymous with Bhavas or Houses, while in Parasari the distinction between signs (Rasis) and Houses (Bhavas) is well marked." It seems to be doubtful that Ojha actually saw a reference to equal house cusps in Jaimini.

I have two translations of BPHS. Santhanam (Ranjan Publications, 1984) translates the section on Digbala or Directional Strength like this:

"Deduct the 4th house (i.e. nadir) from the longitudes of the Sun and Mars; the 7th house (i.e. descendant) from that of Jupiter and Mercury; the 10th house (i.e. meridian) from that of Venus and the Moon..."

Here Santhanam has switched reference points as the nadir is the point opposite the zenith point (nonagesimal), but the meridian is the M.C. In his notes Santhanam also says that planetary strengths are full on the cusp of a house.

In the notes in his translation (Sagar Publications, 1994, p. 390) Girish Chand Sharma references the mid spashta and bhava sandhi spashta in the calculation of directional strength, but doesn't indicate the house system he is using.

There also seem to be differences in how Kala Bala (time of day) is calculated.

If the translations are reasonably accurate, then a cuspal degree is necessary in order to calculate directional strength. But BPHS doesn't note a house system in this regard. The translators don't enlighten us as to which system of house division they are using. We do know, however, that taking the cusp as a house midpoint was common practice in India. But how old is that tradition? Does it date from Sripati?

Martin Gansten wrote:

Mark: if there is any specific chapter or verse you want me to look at, I'll be happy to do so. I did find two verses of Mantre?vara's (Phalad?pik? 15.13-14) that use the words 'house cusp' (bh?vasphu?a) and 'junction' (sandhi), but again, they tell us nothing explicitly about the system used.

A bit of a chicken and egg problem here as if I knew what texts or sections to focus on I would a lot better off! I dont really have a translation of the text I am happy with at present. If nothing else this topic has highlighted the need to get more up to date translations of a lot more of the classical texts.

Mark

Therese wrote:

The translators don't enlighten us as to which system of house division they are using.

Thanks for all your hard work checking out the Phaladeepika, Jamini Sutras and BPS. It seems we have nothing to support Ojha's view of an equal bhava madya set out in the source texts to date.

Therese wrote:

Raman describes the various Jaimini texts at his disposal in various Indian language scripts, and concludes that it isn't possible to say how effective Jaimini's principles are when applied to practical horoscopes.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Jaimini approach is it?

Therese wrote:

We do know, however, that taking the cusp as a house midpoint was common practice in India. But how old is that tradition? Does it date from Sripathi?

If we take ?r?pati (1019?1066) as our source we can date back the tradition nearly 1000 years. There seems to be a general consensus that his Jatakapaddhati aka ?r?patipaddhati? had an enormous impact on the tradition of Jyotish and its use of houses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Ar%C4%ABpati

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 2/Shripati

Mark