Skyscript Astrology Forum

I have a delineation question about how Indian astrologers deal with these houses in terms of house rulers?

I currently use whole sign houses where this is a complete non-issue.

I am also familiar with quadrant house systems used in western astrology where there are intercepted rulers. The ruler on the initial cusp of the house tends to be seen as the primary house lord.

However, how is this is dealt with in Sripati or B.V. Raman house systems? The house cusp is seen the strongest point so if the ruler of this cusp is different from the house boundary ruler is it given priority? In delineation terms exactly how?

For example, lets say we have an ASC degree at say 5 Scorpio. The ASC ruler is obviously Mars. However, the house begins in Libra by sign division. So the house boundary ruler is Venus. How does one work with these joint rulers in delineation terms?

Thanks

Mark

Mark wrote:

I am also familiar with quadrant house systems used in western astrology where there are intercepted rulers. The ruler on the initial cusp of the house tends to be seen as the primary house lord.

However, how is this is dealt with in Sripati or B.V. Raman house systems? The house cusp is seen the strongest point so if the ruler of this cusp is different from the house boundary ruler is it given priority? In delineation terms exactly how?

In Indian astrology the cusp is the power point of the house, so the lord of the cusp determines the state of the house. Cusp means "peaking point," so is the strongest point of the house. House boundaries are weak. They would be considered a low point of influence, so planets near these points would have little influence in the chart. That would mean that the houses ruled by those planets would be weak or problematic without considering other factors.

In the Raman house system the house lords are the same as if whole-sign houses were used. Twelve equally spaced cusps: twelve signs, twelve lords. It doesn't matter if signs on the boundary points are different than signs on the 12 cusps. Picture an undulating wave with the high points at the crests (cusps) and the low points at the base of the wave (house boundaries).

The advantage of Raman's system over whole-sign houses is that there is a way to judge planetary strength in individual charts since the ascendant degree shifts roughly every four minutes. The closer a planet is to a cusp, the more influence that planet has in a person's life. With whole-sign houses there is no way to judge planetary strength as everyone with the same rising sign (over approximately a two hour period) has the same planets in a house.

Mark wrote:I have a delineation question about how Indian astrologers deal with these houses in terms of house rulers?

I currently use whole sign houses where this is a complete non-issue.

I am also familiar with quadrant house systems used in western astrology where there are intercepted rulers. The ruler on the initial cusp of the house tends to be seen as the primary house lord.

However, how is this is dealt with in Sripati or B.V. Raman house systems? The house cusp is seen the strongest point so if the ruler of this cusp is different from the house boundary ruler is it given priority? In delineation terms exactly how?

For example, lets say we have an ASC degree at say 5 Scorpio. The ASC ruler is obviously Mars. However, the house begins in Libra by sign division. So the house boundary ruler is Venus. How does one work with these joint rulers in delineation terms?

Thanks

Mark

The Bhava madhya is 5 degree scorpio - this is the strongest point and only this lordship is taken.15 degrees or so back will be the junction point of two houses and the weakest.

suppose the mars is then at 20 degree scorpio where it would be at the sandhi(junction) of 1st and 2nd- so mars will be a bit stuck.

Now, suppose lagna is 20 degree Libra and venus is 2 degree libra then it is probably in 12th house and bhava madhya 0f 1st and 12th and so while generating a good yoga(Malavya- by Venus in own sign) its effect will be limited.

As far as I understand, the going backwards thing is to find out if the planet is in another house and/or ineffective because of being at the junction point.

PD

Therese Hamilton wrote:

In Indian astrology the cusp is the power point of the house, so the lord of the cusp determines the state of the house. Cusp means "peaking point," so is the strongest point of the house. House boundaries are weak. They would be considered a low point of influence, so planets near these points would have little influence in the chart. That would mean that the houses ruled by those planets would be weak or problematic without considering other factors.

Actually, I think many western astrologers do appreciate the importance of cusps as the power points too. In medieval astrology there is the so called 5 degree rule which means houses are judged to start 5 degrees before the start of the cusp. For example, Tom Callanan the moderator of the traditional forum has written very eloquently on this:

Tom Callanan wrote:

The word "cusp" comes from a Latin word "cuspis" which is the tip of a sword or the point where the energy is concentrated. The point (no pun intended) is that the word "cusp" does not mean "beginning." The cusp is the most sensitive or important point in the house, just as the the front door is not the most important point in your home, you have to get inside a little bit to get there.

Of course that statement is even more logical if you adopt the attitude of Indian astrology towards cusps.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

In the Raman house system the house lords are the same as if whole-sign houses were used. Twelve equally spaced cusps: twelve signs, twelve lords. It doesn't matter if signs on the boundary points are different than signs on the 12 cusps. Picture an undulating wave with the high points at the crests (cusps) and the low points at the base of the wave (house boundaries).

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering if there was some idea of a cusp lord and lesser lord for the junction point.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

The advantage of Raman's system over whole-sign houses is that there is a way to judge planetary strength in individual charts since the ascendant degree shifts roughly every four minutes. The closer a planet is to a cusp, the more influence that planet has in a person's life. With whole-sign houses there is no way to judge planetary strength as everyone with the same rising sign (over approximately a two hour period) has the same planets in a house.

If whole sign houses necessarily excluded the use of house cusps you would be correct. However, research from Robert Hand suggests that ancient astrologers like Firmicus Maternus used whole sign houses in combination with equal house degrees as 'cusps' within the whole sign houses. Personally, I have preferred Porphyry or Alcabitius cusps within WSH. I have often found the MC/IC ruler often more descriptive of career or family background than the WSH or equal house rulers. Nevertheless, one could certainly still work very comfortably with Equal/Raman cusps and still use whole sign houses.

The Gauquelin research also seems to support the power of the actual MC/IC points over the symbolic Raman/Equal cusps of the 10th/4th. In that respect I think Sripati has the edge over the Equal/Raman cusps.

Mark

Pankajdubey wrote:

The Bhava madhya is 5 degree scorpio - this is the strongest point and only this lordship is taken.15 degrees or so back will be the junction point of two houses and the weakest.

suppose the mars is then at 20 degree scorpio where it would be at the sandhi(junction) of 1st and 2nd- so mars will be a bit stuck.

Now, suppose lagna is 20 degree Libra and venus is 2 degree libra then it is probably in 12th house and bhava madhya 0f 1st and 12th and so while generating a good yoga(Malavya- by Venus in own sign) its effect will be limited.

Yes this confirmed what I was thinking. It was just the issue of whether the different sandhi sign ruler operated as a sort of lesser ruler I was confused by. However, Therese has answered that point very clearly.

I have a question for anyone out there:

What if we have the Bhava ruler placed strongly near the cusp of an unfortunate dusthana house (12th, 6th, 8th etc)? Is this especially unfortunate? Or is it worse for the planet to be in a junction point of a difficult house and thereby rendered weak and ineffective by being at the sandhi of the house? In other words do you really want a planet in a malefic house to be strong?

Also what if the planet concerned is Lagna ruler too?

Mark