Is Nakshtra Lordship Misconceived !

Is Nakshatra Lordship Misconceived!
(Reproduced from Modern Astrology Dec 2017)

What is the meaning of "lordship" in predictive astrology? We understand that every zodiacal sign is ruled by a certain planet, yet each sign also possesses its own distinct traits. For instance, the signs Aries and Scorpio are both ruled by Mars, but their properties are not identical. Though both signs exhibit a somewhat aggressive nature akin to Mars, they also possess significant individual characteristics that do not necessarily align completely with each other or with their ruler, Mars. Therefore, one should not be overly rigid with the meaning of "lord" or "ruler." I would suggest the term "representative" as a more fitting alternative, though there is no harm in using "lord" or "ruler" in a general sense.

1-    It has been observed that Western cultural perspectives and modes of thinking have, for a considerable time, influenced and, in some views, encroached upon India's treasure of knowledge. For example, the foundational theory of divisional charts has arguably been affected by Yavana (Greco-Roman or foreign) influences. In the modern era, there appears to be an ongoing effort by some to diminish the role and presence of the lunar nodes (Rahu and Ketu) in predictive astrology.

This article aims to address questions and counter-arguments being raised against the concept of Nakshatra lordship, particularly its distribution to the nodes.

1. Nodes and Zodiacal Allotment

Indeed, the lunar nodes are often overlooked in zodiacal allotments in various classical contexts. In this regard, I wish to discuss two main points:

a) The Fundamental Theme of Zodiacal Allotment:

Firstly, we must understand the basic principle governing zodiacal allotment. This principle involves the availability of "space" or segments according to the nature of the "divisive concept" (e.g., signs, Nakshatras, other divisions) and the intrinsic nature of the planet, all while maintaining a logical order within a given time frame or cyclical sequence. Authorities have attributed space to the nodes wherever the division of the zodiac or an astrological time frame results in more than seven parts.

There are instances where even other primary planets are ignored due to the unavailability of "space" within a specific classificatory scheme. For example, in Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra (BPHS, Chapter 3, Sloka 21, as per some editions), the Sun and Moon are not assigned rulership over the five senses (Indriyas) and the five elements (Tatwas); these are attributed to the remaining five planets. 

Why are the luminaries, the most important planets, seemingly ignored here? Conversely, the lordship of ‘Ayana’ (solstitial movements/periods) is attributed exclusively to the Sun and Moon. This selective assignment is due to the underlying theme of the division, the availability of segments, and the compatibility between the nature of the divisive concept and the planet.

Maharishi Jaimini, in his ancient treatise "Jaimini Sutram," attempted to attribute zodiacal sign rulership to the nodes for specific purposes like Dasa calculation. The "Briddha Karika" contains a related verse, which is also supported by Parashara in the context of ‘Chara Dasa’. The relevant Sloka is:

Meaning (Paraphrased): For the signs of Cancer, Leo, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces, the Dasa years are counted based on their lords. For Scorpios, Rahu is considered, and for Aquarians, Ketu is also mentioned for Dasa calculation in some contexts. (This is a general paraphrase; the precise meaning depends on the exact Sloka.)

One might argue that the nodes are considered here only for calculating Dasa years and that this does not indicate actual lordship over the concerned zodiacal signs. To this, I offer some counterarguments:

(i) This association demonstrates a strong connection between the nodes and the concerned signs, compelling the seers to consider them.

(ii) When calculating Dasa years for other signs, Maharishi Jaimini used the sign lords; therefore, it is admissible to consider the nodes analogously as "representatives" or functional lords for the related signs in this specific context.

(iii) In the related Sloka, the author uses the word "Swami" (lord/owner).

Maharishi Parashara (BPHS, Chapter 49, Slokas 33-34, in some versions) supports Jaimini's view with some additional remarks.Here you can raise a question that nodes are taken only to calculate Dasa year and it does not indicate any lordship over concerned zodiacal signs. At this point, I have some counterarguments. (a) It shows a strong connection of nodes with concerning signs for which seers took them into account. (b) When calculating Dasa year for other signs Maharishi used sign lords so it is admissible nodes as a sign lord for related signs. (c) In this related Sloka author clearly mentioned the word lord (swami).

Maharishi Parashar supported the view of Jaimini with some extra remarks.

 The uncertainty in assigning fixed sign rulership to nodes in some classical texts is perhaps due to their shadowy (Chhaya Graha) nature. As shadowy planets, they readily adopt the influence of other associated factors. However, this characteristic is not limited to the nodes; every planet, sign, and star receives and reflects the influence of others, and the result always depends upon the relative strength of these interacting factors. We know well that the nodes possess their own intrinsic nature beyond the planets they are influenced by, a nature that varies from sign to sign and house to house, much like other planets.

The lordship of a direction (South-West) is provided to Rahu, arguably due to the availability of an eighth directional point when assigning the seven primary planets to the other directions, while Ketu is often ignored in this specific eight-fold directional scheme due to the limited number of primary directions. The famous concept of ‘Rahu Kalam’ is derived from the ‘Ashtamsha’ division (one-eighth part) of the day, where ownership of one part is attributed to Rahu. This concept is mentioned in Prashna Marg (Vol-1, Chapter 16, Sloka-25).

b) Other Significations of Nodes in Parashari Hora:

There are several other instances in Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra where the nodes are assigned significations. For example, they signify aspects of an army (BPHS, Ch. 3, Sloka 16), places like holes or caves, multi-colored or torn cloth, and materials like lead (‘Seesa’) and Blue Sapphire/Lapis Lazuli (‘Neelamani’) (BPHS, Ch. 3, Slokas 42-43). If a planet can gain significance over numerous worldly things, why can it not rule or represent some of the astrological divisions of the zodiac?

It has been suggested by some those planets gained ownership of time through concepts like Dasa/Antar Dasa lordship in the Vimshottari scheme, and that this does not imply ownership of space. However, this overlooks the profound insight from modern physics (e.g., Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time") that space and time are not disparate entities but rather two aspects of the same continuum (space-time). Vedic astrology appears to have inherently understood this; the entire theme of distributing or partitioning space (represented by the body, signs, houses) and time (represented by Dasa systems) is arranged cohesively. A celestial body that represents a segment of space can also represent a corresponding time frame. Thus, we have Dasas for zodiacal signs and planets (as representatives of Nakshatras), but not for sub-planets like Parivesh, Upaketu, Kaala, etc., which lack the same kind of spatial correspondence in the zodiac.

2. Vimshottari Dasa and other Nakshatra-based Dasa Systems

a) Parashara Hora as a Compilation of Research:

"Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra" was not composed in a single day. It is a monumental research work conducted by Maharishi Parashara, which also incorporates the views of other savants. [For instance, Parashara uses the term “केचिदष्टौ” (kechidashtau – "some opine eight") when discussing the Chara Karaka scheme, indicating an alternative view to his seven Karaka scheme (BPHS, Ch. 30, Slokas 1-2). Elsewhere (BPHS, Ch. 49, Slokas 33-34, regarding Dasa calculations for nodes), he quotes the word ‘केनचित्’ (kenachit – "by some") to refer to the views of others.]

Therefore, I propose that Nakshatra-based Dasa systems other than Vimshottari found in texts might represent the views of other scholars or schools of thought, and some of these may have failed to gain widespread practical validation due to adopting an incorrect assignment of ownership or representativeness of the Nakshatras by planets._

b) Critique of Region-Specific Dasa Effectiveness:

I strongly condemn the illogical view that a particular Dasa system is effective only in certain geographical regions. An anti-malaria pill kills the malaria parasite in all places, and a poisonous snake bite is life-threatening worldwide. Universal principles should have universal applicability.

All Nakshatra-based Dasa systems cannot be equally true or applicable to a single horoscope simultaneously, as this would mean different planetary periods operating at the same time for a native, leading to contradictory interpretations. How could it be justified that the period of a certain planet operates at different stages of life for the same native, depending on which Dasa system is arbitrarily chosen? The invention of Vimshottari Dasa is one of the greatest achievements in predictive astrology, proving itself most suitable on practical grounds. This success is attributable to its correct conceptualization of planetary ownership or representativeness over the Nakshatras, including the assignment of Nakshatras to Rahu and Ketu.

3. Fruitful Zodiacal Signs and Stars of "Hermaphrodite" Planets

a) Apparent Contradiction:

What is the supposed contradiction in a "fruitful" sign containing Nakshatras ruled by planets traditionally termed "hermaphrodite" (i.e., Mercury and Saturn)?

Consider this: The earthy sign Capricorn is ruled by the airy planet Saturn. The watery sign Scorpio is ruled by the fiery planet Mars. Therefore, we cannot superimpose all the qualities of the representative planet onto the signs and stars they govern. As I stated at the beginning of this article, every sign and star has its own nature, which is predominant, although influenced by its lord/representative. Thus, stars ruled by Saturn and Mercury will not necessarily and solely reflect the hermaphrodite nature of their representatives; they possess their own distinct qualities. The Nakshatras have their own classification of nature and qualities, just like zodiacal signs and planets.

b) No Perfect or Absolute Zones; The Role of Subdivisions:

There is no perfect or absolute "zone" in astrological symbolism; every astrological division or factor also partakes of the qualities of others. Every sign is further subdivided and carries the qualities of other signs, too. The Navamsa (D-9) division is paramount, and according to its scheme, every zodiacal sign is also effectively "co-ruled" or influenced by nine other zodiacal signs through its Navamsas. Thus, the sign Aries can reflect the qualities of Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius through its Navamsa segments. If a fiery sign can reflect the nature of watery signs via its subdivisions, what is the contradiction for a sign having Nakshatras of an opposite or different nature within it? This is not an anomaly or contradiction of any kind. The relative strength of a Nakshatra, its ruling sign, or its representative planet ultimately decides the manifested outcome.

c) Nakshatra Subdivision Representing Space and Time:

The subdivision of a Nakshatra, which corresponds to a sub-period (Antar Dasa, Pratyantar Dasa, etc.), is not merely a subdivision of time; it also represents a segment of "space" or influence. The Krishnamurthy Paddhati (KP system) heavily relies on this concept of Nakshatra sub-lords. While I do not fully subscribe to the KP system due to what I perceive as an extreme use of Nakshatra subdivisions that may not always be fully verifiable on practical grounds, I do recognize that the birth Nakshatra and its sub-divisions (particularly related to the Moon, and the sub-period lords) can indicate many life events decisively.

d) How Planetary Strength Works – A Disputed Matter:

How the strength of a planet truly manifests is a complex and sometimes disputed matter. For example, an exalted Sun in the 10th house can sometimes adversely affect the life significance of the father, while simultaneously being favorable for attaining high status or reputation. The combustion of Venus can harm married life, but may produce a keen interest in art and music. Many such contradictory planetary positions can be observed. A planet undoubtedly gains some strength when posited in its own Nakshatra, but this does not always work in precisely the same manner as a planet in its own sign. A rule that is to be implemented on practical ground is often as complicated as navigating a crowded general compartment of a passenger train – it requires skill and nuanced understanding.

4. Phal Deepika's Support

"Phala Deepika" by Mantreshwara is a reliable and respected treatise on astrology, providing many noble and dependable clues. Mantreshwara clearly and decisively accepted the concept of Nakshatra lordship. Observe the related verse where he suggests adding the longitudes of certain Tara (Nakshatra) lords for specific calculations:

5-5. The Vedic System's Use of Nakshatra Lordship

The traditional system of Vedic astrology did not always explicitly use the Nakshatra lordship concept for detailed natal delineation to the extent some modern systems do, primarily because the vast framework of zodiacal signs and their divisional charts (Vargas) was considered comprehensive enough for prediction – and indeed, enough to keep an astrologer thoroughly engaged. Ultimately, any "stellar system" of prediction cannot stand entirely alone; it requires the framework of zodiacal signs, as it typically has no alternative for determining the "house lord" (Bhavesha). Even in the KP system, the sub-lord of the house cusps is critical for identifying the "Karak" (significator) planets for a house.

To say that older Vedic authorities were unaware of the use of Nakshatras for Vedic astrology is incorrect. Vedic authorities have been using Nakshatras for Muhurta (electional astrology) purposes since the Vedic era itself. However, it is also true that Maharishi Jaimini and Maharishi Parashara did not emphasize Nakshatra lordship largely for general natal chart interpretation. Jaimini's system was predominantly based on zodiacal signs and Karakas. Maharishi Parashara, while not extensively using Nakshatra lords for general sign/house interpretation, crucially accepted and utilized the concept of Nakshatra lordship for structuring the Vimshottari Dasa system. The Dasa lord is the Nakshatra lord itself. Otherwise, there is no answer to the fundamental question: ‘Why does a particular Nakshatra indicate the Dasa of a particular planet?’ The consistent assignment of Nakshatras to planets, including the nodes, is the secret behind the practical success and enduring applicability of the Vimshottari Dasa. The work of sage Satyacharya, which was based upon stellar theory and is often quoted by Varaha Mihira, is also renowned and stands as a testament to the ancient roots of stellar-based astrology.

--------------------------------------------------------------Raghvendra Khare