A Philosophy of Astrology
6. Cosmic Influences on Man
The most fundamental postulate underlying astrology is that planets and other bodies
in the space influence human life. Indian thinkers saw a one-to-one correspondence
between the human body and the cosmos. Yatha Pinday Tatha Brahmanday (As in
body, same in cosmos) and Aham Brahmasmi (I am the cosmos) – both sum up the key
philosophy that underlies Indian astrology.
The concept of cosmos (or brahm) is integral and fundamental to almost all streams of
Indian thought. Every single being (every entity that exists) is a manifestation of the
brahm. Hinduism appears to have many gods but the term used is “dev” or “devta”.
Anyone who gives is a “dev”. Fire, water, air – all elements of nature are dev. Even
one’s parents and teachers get the status of dev. All planets are dev. Each dev is a facet
of God, which is just another name for the cosmos or brahm.
God, to a Christian (and even Jewish and Muslim) mind, is the creator who is distinct
from his creation. In Christianity and Judaism, creation is a one-time activity. The
duality of creator and creation is fundamental to many religions. In contrast, Indian
thought is based on monism, which sees no schism between creator and creation. As
per Indian thought, the cosmos has no beginning and no end. It only changes forms.
The cosmos, viewed as a whole, is called brahm and our comprehension of cosmos, if
it is true to the cosmic reality, is called sat. Each of us is a part of the totality of the
cosmos. In that respect, each of us can claim to be God or brahm.
A modern example will illustrate the point better. A car has many parts such as wheels,
bonnet, seats, doors, door-handle, engine, carburettor, petrol tank, steering, suspension
springs etc. Each part of the car is car. One can put one’s hand on the seat of the car
and say that it is car. That is true only partially. The seat, by itself removed from the
rest of the parts, is not car. Similarly each part is car when seen in conjunction with the
rest, but is not car when removed from the whole. The word car is used for all the parts
together. But if one were to collect all the parts and put them into a big box, one would
not get a car. One needs to assemble the car using a set of rules and procedures.
Without such an assembly, the parts do not become qualified to be called a car. Even
after the assembly is complete, a modern car has to go through a process of image
building through advertisements in print and electronic media. Image of the car is as
much a part of the car as the seat or steering is. Viewed in this manner, it may appear
to some that “car” is an abstract complex concept. Though, in reality car is not an
abstract concept but is a real thing that we can see, feel and operate.
A car is a finite entity, whose totality can be comprehended easily by human mind. In
contrast, universe or cosmos is infinite in space as well as in time. It has no beginning
and has no end either spatially or temporally. If comprehending holistically a finite
thing like a car poses problems, the comprehension of the infinite cosmos is indeed
But just because something is difficult, one cannot deny it. Modern man, in spite of all
the space travel, has a tendency to imagine as if planet earth is duly packed in a
polythene bag, well insulated from the rest of cosmos. Modern man does not see
himself as an integral part of the universe. In the past few decades, humanity has been
learning that it is part of the natural environment of earth, but comprehending oneself
as a part of a bigger cosmic whole is still far away. Anyone who believes in astrology
must see one’s own life in light of the holistic cosmic reality.
Are you the one who sees all this talk of cosmic holistic reality as unscientific humbug
and as superstition? In the twenty first century, man has already landed on the moon
and is on the way to Mars and, may be even Jupiter. We know that most of these
planets are barren with good amount of minerals, but nothing else. How can rocks and
craters influence human mind and life?
The above question is apparently scientific, but just about apparently so. Science rarely
answers the question “HOW” with regard to fundamental phenomenon. More often
than not, the question “HOW” is answered in science either by describing the
phenomenon in complex technical jargon or by camouflaging in smart words, given
the name of scientific laws. Let us look at the phenomenon of gravitation. Every school
student memorizes Law of Gravitation, which states that two bodies attract each other
with a force, which is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance. The law, in effect, states that a teacup in my
hand has more intelligence than I have (by “I”, I mean my mental capabilities and not
my inanimate body). My teacup is able to calculate the mass of that coffee mug in your
kitchen and also the distance, even if you are on the other side of the globe. How does
that happen? The answer is simple – by law of gravitation. Isn’t that smart? Well, it is
No study of atomic physics or quantum mechanics can explain the process by which
inanimate objects, even at the sub-atomic level, calculate masses and distances of all
objects across the world. The only explanation for gravitation is empirical. We know
that it does happen. We do not know, how it happens. Most of science is like that.
Many scientific theories – whether it be quantum physics or Einstein’s theory of
relativity – appear as ridiculous as theory of gravitation, when viewed from a
hypercritical perspective. We accept these theories just because it is practical to do so.
The same logic applies in case of astrology.
If one can accept Law of Gravitation as scientific, one should have no problems in
accepting that planets and other cosmic bodies influence human life. Even though, we
do not know how cosmic influence happens, (just as we do not how force of gravity
travels through space), we have prima facie sufficient evidence to show that the
cosmos influences human beings. For thousands of years, in almost every part of the
world, there have been astrologers who have been able to prove that astrology deserves
to be taken seriously. It is no astrologer’s contention that more data should not be
gathered about cosmic influences. In fact, the opposition to public funding of gathering
data in a scientific manner about influence of cosmos on mankind comes from pseudoscientists
who claim to have a ‘rational scientific outlook’.
One must add here that astrology needs to develop further in a scientific manner. The
language and presentation of astrology has significant historical baggage. There is a
need to reformulate theories of astrology in line with modern scientific temperament
and methods. Just because, astrology, as a science, is not very well developed, should
not be any reason for us to either discard astrology as unscientific or to deny the
existence of cosmic influences.
The purpose of mapping and understanding cosmic influences on human beings is akin
to study of climate in meteorology. We know very well that meteorology is an underdeveloped
science. Meteorologists are often unable to accurately forecast next week’s
weather. Yet, one does not dismiss meteorology as unscientific. Meteorology provides
advice, and people know how to use the advice and how not to use it. For example,
storm warnings are useful and are heeded by even governments, though thunderstorms
have a tendency to change course midway. But, even when weather forecast says
sunny weather, one still carries an umbrella to office.
Astrological forecasts of cosmic influences are more complex than meteorological
forecasts. Meteorology deals with a very small number of variables – temperature,
humidity, rainfall, snowfall, and wind velocity. Compare this to the complexity of
parameters in twelve houses of a horoscope.
When weather department forecasts light rain, we know that it is advisable to carry an
umbrella. In case of astrological forecasts, the response is rarely so simple. Faced with
different circumstances, human reactions vary enormously. In the face of adversity,
one man collapses, while another one steels up. Astrology cannot predict responses.
More about this in the next chapter!
Not everyone carries an umbrella, when it rains!
And everyone’s umbrella is not the same, even though the rain is no different.
7. Fatalism, Determinism, Free Will And Astrology
Issues of fatalism, determinism and free will have occupied western philosophers since
Aristotle. Let us take a quick look at some extracts from The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other that what we
actually do. It may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and
metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal
to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called
"Logical fatalism" (or, in some cases, "Metaphysical fatalism"); when argued for
in the second way, it is commonly called "Theological fatalism". When argued for
in the third way it is not now commonly referred to as "fatalism" at all.
Aristotle is in no doubt that not everything that happens, happens of necessity. He
accepts indeed (19a23-5) that "What is, necessarily is, when it is; and what is not,
necessarily is not, when it is not." But he goes on to say, "But not everything that
is, necessarily is; and not everything that is not, necessarily is not."
A problem which has been much discussed by philosophers, at least since the
time of Augustine (354-430), is whether divine omniscience is compatible with
free will, and in particular with our having the power to do other than we do.
One way of arguing for this incompatibility is due to Pike. (Pike 1965)
Let us suppose that being omniscient involves being infallible, and
believing that p if and only if it is true that p.
Let us also suppose that God existed in 1900, and that omniscience is part
of his essence.
Now, suppose that Jones mowed his lawn on 1/1/2000.
Then God believed in 1900 that Jones would mow his lawn on 1/1/2000.
Did Jones have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn?
No. Because that would mean either (1) that he had the power to do
something which would have brought it about that God had a false belief
in 1900, or (2) that he had the power to do something which would have
brought it about that God did not believe in 1900 that Jones would mow
his lawn on 1/1/2000, or (3) that he had the power to do something which
would have brought it about that God did not exist in 1900. And each of
these alternatives is impossible.
Aristotle mentions, as a corollary of the conclusion that everything that happens,
happens of necessity, that "there would be no need to deliberate or to take trouble
(thinking that if we do this, this will happen, but if we do not, if will not)."
(Aristotle, De Interpretatione, 18b31-3)
This thought was spelt out in what was known as "the Idle Argument" (Bobzien
1998, Section 5). It went like this:
If it is fated that you will recover from this illness, then, regardless of
whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult a doctor you will
But also, if it is fated that you will not recover from this illness, then,
regardless of whether you consult a doctor or you do not consult a doctor
you will not recover.
But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness or you will not
Therefore it is futile to consult a doctor.
Source for above extracts:
Rice, Hugh, "Fatalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2002 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated
by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.
In order to get started we can begin with a loose and (nearly) all-encompassing
definition as follows:
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of)
determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t,
the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
The italicized phrases are elements that require further explanation and
investigation, in order for us to gain a clear understanding of the concept of
The roots of the notion of determinism surely lie in a very common philosophical
idea: the idea that everything can, in principle, be explained, or that everything
that is, has a sufficient reason for being and being as it is, and not otherwise. In
other words, the roots of determinism lie in what Leibniz named the Principle of
Fatalism is easily disentangled from determinism, to the extent that one can
disentangle mystical forces and gods' wills and foreknowledge (about specific
matters) from the notion of natural/causal law.
In a looser sense, however, it is true that under the assumption of determinism,
one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events
that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.
There have even been studies of paradigmatically “chancy” phenomena such as
coin-flipping, which show that if starting conditions can be precisely controlled
and outside interferences excluded, identical behavior results. Most of these bits
of evidence for determinism no longer seem to cut much ice, however, because of
faith in quantum mechanics and its indeterminism. Indeterminist physicists and
philosophers are ready to acknowledge that macroscopic repeatability is usually
obtainable, where phenomena are so large-scale that quantum stochasticity gets
washed out. But they would maintain that this repeatability is not to be found in
experiments at the microscopic level, and also that at least some failures of
repeatability (in your hard drive, or coin-flipping experiments) are genuinely due
to quantum indeterminism, not just failures to isolate properly or establish
identical initial conditions.
There is a long tradition of compatibilists arguing that freedom is fully compatible
with physical determinism. Hume went so far as to argue that determinism is a
necessary condition for freedom -- or at least, he argued that some causality
principle along the lines of “same cause, same effect” is required.
Source for above extracts:
Hoefer, Carl, "Causal Determinism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
"Free Will" is largely a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity
of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected
to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just
to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action.
(Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as
being aware -- or failing that, being culpably unaware -- of relevant alternatives to
one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of
free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also
appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained
effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of
persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane, 1996,
The minimalist account of free will is as the ability to select a course of action as
a means of fulfilling some desire. David Hume, for example, defines liberty as "a
power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will."
Philosophers since Plato have commonly distinguished the ‘animal’ and ‘rational’
parts of our nature, with the latter implying a great deal more psychological
complexity. Our rational nature includes our ability to judge some ends as ‘good’
or worth pursuing and value them even though satisfying them may result in
considerable unpleasantness for ourselves.
A large portion of Western philosophical writing on free will was and is written
within an overarching theological framework, according to which God is the
ultimate source and sustainer of all else. Some of these thinkers draw the
conclusion that God must be a sufficient, wholly determining cause for everything
that happens; all suppose that every creaturely act necessarily depends on the
explanatorily prior, cooperative activity of God. It is also presumed that human
beings are free and responsible (on pain of attributing evil in the world to God
alone, and so impugning His perfect goodness). Hence, those who believe that
God is omni-determining typically are compatibilists with respect to freedom and
(in this case) theological determinism.
Source for above extracts:
O'Connor, Timothy, "Free Will", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2002
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
Fatalism seems to be entailed by infallible foreknowledge by the following
informal line of reasoning:
For any future act you will perform, if some being infallibly believed in
the past that the act would occur, there is nothing you can do now about
the fact that he believed what he believed since nobody has any control
over past events; nor can you make him mistaken in his belief, given that
he is infallible. Therefore, there is nothing you can do now about the fact
that he believed in a way that cannot be mistaken that you would do what
you will do. But if so, you cannot do otherwise than what he believed you
would do. And if you cannot do otherwise, you will not perform the act
The theological fatalist argument just given creates a dilemma because many
people have thought it important to maintain both (1) there is a deity who
infallibly knows the entire future, and (2) human beings have free will in the
strong sense usually called libertarian. But the theological fatalist argument seems
to show that (1) and (2) are incompatible; the only way consistently to accept (2)
is to deny (1). Those philosophers who think there is a way to consistently
maintain both (1) and (2) are called compatibilists about infallible foreknowledge
and human free will.
Source for above extracts:
Zagzebski, Linda, "Foreknowledge and Free Will", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
All arguments on fatalism, determinism, and free will in western philosophy have one
or more of the following three key epicentres:
a) Abstract metaphysical logic
b) Existence of God as an omniscient Supreme Being
c) Physical sciences where laws of nature determine cause-effect relations
In addition, almost every philosopher wants to create a system whereby human beings
remain committed to moral life. So, more pages have been written on “the question of
how the conclusion (of fatalism) may be avoided as in the question of whether it is
true” (Rice 2002).
It is obvious that astrology has no relation to the development of philosophies of
fatalism and determinism in Western world. Roots of fatalism and determinism lie on
one hand, in Greek thinkers who were probably just working out some dazzling
arguments to justify the common beliefs at that time; on the other hand in Christian
concept of omniscient Supreme Being; and lastly in Newtonian image of physical
In today’s world metaphysics stands discredited; thinkers need not bother about
Church breathing down their neck; and scientists have become more humble than their
counterparts of early twentieth century – probability and unpredictability were the
buzzwords of second half of twentieth century. As we move into the twenty first
century, biology takes the centre stage and physics gives way. It is interesting to read
what a physicist, Erwin Schrodinger said six decades ago about life:
To the physicist I wish to emphasize that in my opinion, and contrary to the
opinion upheld in some quarters, quantum indeterminacy plays no biologically
relevant role in them, except perhaps by enhancing their purely accidental
character in such events as meiosis, natural and X-ray-induced mutation and so on
– and this is in any case obvious and well recognized.
For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased
biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about
'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free
Will as is warranted by direct introspection. But immediate experiences in
themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of
contradicting each other.
So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion
from the following two premises: (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism
according to the Laws of Nature. (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct
experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may
be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for
them. The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I – I in the
widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has
ever said or felt 'I' – am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the
atoms' according to the Laws of Nature.
Within a cultural milieu (Kulturkreis) where certain conceptions (which once had
or still have a wider meaning amongst other peoples) have been limited and
specialized, it is daring to give to this conclusion the simple wording that it
requires. In Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both
blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment
and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to
proving also their God and immortality at one stroke.
In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back
some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition
ATHMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, allcomprehending
eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being
blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings
of the world.
The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce
with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.
Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with
each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of
them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in
the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God). To Western ideology the
thought has remained a stranger, in spite of Schopenhauer and others who stood
for it and in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes,
become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one – not merely
similar or identical; but they, as a rule, are emotionally too busy to indulge in
clear thinking, which respect they very much resemble the mystic.
Schrodinger, Erwin, “WHAT IS LIFE? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell, Based on
lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at
Trinity College, Dublin, in February 1943” First published 1944. Emphasis added.
Schrodinger talks of an “I” as distinct from the atoms that make up the cells of human
body. It is this “I” that controls the atoms within the limits imposed by laws of nature.
Is this “I” free? Yes and no! “I” is bound by the limits imposed by laws of nature, but
within the said limits, “I” is free.
Indian astrology is based on the above truth. Laws of nature determine the influence of
cosmos (or planets and stars) on a man’s life. But, this influence is not deterministic.
Gravity pulls everything down and yet man has learnt to fly. The ability and wish to fly
does not mean a denial of gravity. One cannot build an aeroplane that flies till one
takes the force of gravity into account.
Purpose of astrology is to help one understand the influence of cosmos, as it applies to
the person concerned. The cosmic influences on a person are a function of (a) one’s
horoscope, which is a cumulative summary of decisions and responses of the person in
past lives and (b) planetary positions at any particular time. One’s response to the
influences is one’s individual decision. The responses have a cumulative effect. At any
particular point of time, a person is subject to the limits imposed by cumulative effect
of the decisions that one took in the past (this life as well as past lives). Let me explain
this with an example.
Many years ago, my friend Surjit (name changed), a Sikh, came to me with a strange
problem. He was married and had a business, which was not doing badly. He was not
giving sufficient time to either his family or his business. He was on the point of
becoming an alcoholic. On some days, he would get sick of drinking. But even on such
days, instead of spending time at his shop or home, he would go to the gurudwara
(Sikh temple) and spend hours there. He was getting sick of his own life, but did not
know how and where to begin. He wanted to run away from it all. When he was in
early teens, he had run away from home just because his parents stopped him from
seeing a movie. He had spent more than ten years on streets across the country. He
returned home and had settled down in life. But, now he was afraid that he was going
back to the life of a tramp. He loved his wife and had no problems with her. She
wanted him to be a normal person.
After listening to his problem, I took him to another friend, an astrologer, who
fortunately, understood his problem. Surjit was told that there was no way that he
could lead a normal life and remain sane. A normal routine life will be just too
disturbing for him and will either drive him mad or make him run away from
everything. Surjit was advised that the best option for him was to realize his own
nature and to turn his life towards a positive direction. He could either become an
alcoholic or drug addict or sex maniac or a deeply religious person. The position was
also explained to Surjit’s wife. Surjit decided to turn towards religion. He started
spending more and more time at the gurudwara. It has been more than ten years since
then. Now, Surjit gets up in the morning at 2 a.m. and goes for early morning prayers.
He spends about ten hours a day in religious duties. For about fifteen days a month, he
travels to other cities to perform services at various religious functions. He has given
up alcohol as well as non-vegetarian food. He avoids even tea and coffee. It is rare to
find him at any of his shops. Surprisingly, in the last ten years, his business has grown
enormously. He still ignores his wife and family, but they understand.
Astrology explained the disturbing influences that Surjit was subject to. Astrology did
not predict any particular course, but helped him understand the limits that nature had
imposed upon him. It was in Surjit’s interest to understand the limits and make
modifications in his life.
Indian and Chinese attitude to nature is simple – Do not try to bang your head against
the wall, look around and you will find at least one door. Astrology can help one see
the wall and can also make it easier for one to search for a door, may be many doors.
Beyond that astrology does not, or rather should not, have any role.
While the standard advice is to not bang one’s head against a wall, there have been
men and women who did not bang their head against steel walls, but developed tools to
break the walls and broke them. That is human ingenuity – creating doors and paths
where none existed some time ago. Given an option of doors, the choice to walk
through a particular door is of the individual concerned. Once a person walks through a
door, he foregoes some others. All his subsequent options are determined by this
Understanding options available today, tomorrow and day-after-tomorrow – that sums
up the essence of astrology. Is that determinism or fatalism or free will? Who bothers?
Metaphysicists, who indulged in long abstract arguments without ever touching reality,
have been buried long ago. Let them lie in peace, while we act as per advice and
guidance based on astrological knowledge to the extent that it helps us live, grow and
prosper as individuals and as social beings.
What The Houses Represent
By Bangalore Venkata Raman
1st House Beginning of life, childhood, health, environment, personality,
physical body, and character.
2nd house Family, face, right eye, food, wealth, literary gift, manner and source
of death, self-acquisition, and optimism.
3rd house Brothers and sisters, intelligence, cousins and other immediate
4th house Peace of Mind, home life, mother, conveyances, house property,
landed and ancestral properties.
5th house Children, grandfather, intelligence, emotions, and fame.
6th house Debts, diseases, enemies, miseries, sorrows, illness and
7th house Wife, husband, marriage, urinary organs, marital happiness, sexual
diseases, business partner, diplomacy, talent, energies, and general
8th house Longevity, legacies and gifts and unearned wealth, cause of death,
disgrace, degradation, and details pertaining to death.
9th house Father, righteousness, preceptor, grandchildren, intuition, religion,
sympathy, fame, charities, leadership, journeys, and communications
10th house Occupation, profession, temporal honours, foreign travels, selfrespect,
knowledge and dignity, and means of livelihood.
11th house Means of gains, elder brother, and freedom from misery
12th house Losses, expenditure, waste, extravagance, sympathy, divine
knowledge, Moksha, and the state after death.
Source: Bangalore Venkata Raman, How to Judge a Horoscope, Volume One, Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, 1992, p.4
What The Houses Represent
By Prof. K.S. Krishnamurti
1st House Lagnam: Adya (first); Kalpa, Udhayam (ascending); Janma (birth); Seersea
(head); Dhanus (physical body); Anga (limb); Deham (physical features);
Varthamana (living or livelihood)
2nd house Artha (wealth); Bukthi (food); Dhakshakshi (right eye); Annapana (whether one
eats or drinks); Asya (face); Nayana (eye); Pathrika (document); vak (speech);
kutumbha (family); mangalam (auspicious, happy end); sva (property)
3rd house Dhairya (courage, firmness); Duschikya (bad thoughts); Uras (breast); Karna
(ear), especially right ear; Vikrama Prakrama (prowess); Bhratru Sahodhara
(brother or sister); Virya (heroism); Pourusham (mental strength)
4th house Graha (house); Vesma (home); Kshiti (land); Bandhu (relation); Matri (mother);
Vahana (vehicle); Sukha (happiness); Ambu (water); Vidya (learning)
5th house Rajanka (Sovereign’s mark); Kara (tax or toll); Buddhi (intellect); Tanaya
(children); Putra (son); Jatara (belly); Sruti (vedic knowledge); Smriti (traditional
law); poorvapunya (virtuous acts previously done)
6th house Rina (debt); Asthra (arms); Kshata (wounds); Roga (disease); Sathru (enemy);
Dwesha, Vairi; Agha (sin); Dushkritya (a wicked act); Beethi (fear); Avajna
(humiliation); Bhaya (danger)
7th house Saptama; Jamitra; Chittottha (desire); Kama; Dvuna (love); Madha (passion);
Gamana (cohabitation); Astha (setting); Advan (a way or road); Marga (way);
Loka (public); Kalathra (wife or husband); Pathni; Pathi; Kalathrasampat
8th house Mangayasthana; Ashta (eight); Ayus (life, longevity); Adhi (mental pain);
Parabahava (defeat or insult); Klesha (sorrow); Apavadha (scandal, ill-repute);
Marana (death); Asuchi (impurity); Vinga (obstacle, impediment)
9th house Nava (ninth); Acharya (guru or preceptor); Pithru (father); Subham (auspicious);
Poorva Bhagyam (previous luck); Pooja (worship); Tapas (penance); Dharma
(virtue); Pauthra (grandson); Japa (prayer); Daiva Upasana (spiritual initiation);
Arya vamsa (noble family); Bhagya (fortune)
10th house Madhya; Meshurana; Jeevana (livelihood); Rajaspadada (kingdom); Sat (good);
Kriya (work); Vyapara (commerce, trade, business); Jaya (success); Aspada (rank
or position); Achara (good conduct); Mana (honour); Krilyam (sacrifice); Agya;
Ajna (command); Guna (quality); Artha (wealth); Gamana (gait); Gnana
(wisdom); Pravrithi (inclination); Karma (inclination)
11th house Labha (profit or gain); Aya (income or all kinds of receipts); Agamana
(acquisition); Apti (gain); Prapthi (what is unto one); Kama (desire, passion);
Siddhi (fulfilment of one’s desire); Vaibhava (wealth or riches); Slaghyata
(veneration, commendation); Sarasa (anything juicy or succulent)
12th house Anthyabha (last house); Rippha; lopasthana (house of disappearance); Bandha
(bondage); Vigama Vyaya (loss, negation); Sayana (bed); Papa (sin); Daridrya
(poverty, penury); Suchaha (tale bearer, backbiter); Kshaya (loss, decline);
Dukkha (misery); Vam Nayana (left eye); Anghri (leg)
Source: Prof. K.S. Krishnamurti, Fundamental Principles of Astrology, Krishnamurti Publications,
Madras, 1987, p. 186-227
Fall- Saturn/ Uranus
Fall- Mars/ Pluto
Musician, Silent One
Fall- Jupiter/ Neptune
Ruler- Mercury; Fall-
Lover, Artist, Peacemaker
Uranus; Fall- Sun
Ruler- Mars/ Pluto;
Author – Anil Chawla Page No. 31
A PHILOSOPHY OF ASTROLOGY
Author – Anil Chawla Page No. 32
A PHILOSOPHY OF ASTROLOGY
About The Author
Anil Chawla by name
Engineer by qualification
Philosopher by vocation
Teacher by aptitude
Entrepreneur by profession
Consultant by occupation
Businessman by accident
Accountant by necessity
Marketing man by experience
Lawyer by studies
Translator by demand
Author by will
Born in 1959 at Delhi, India.
Joined IIT Bombay in 1975
Active in politics since 1977
Worked with Janata Party and later with Bharatiya Janata Party
Too humble to push himself; too outspoken for sycophancy
Hence, unfit for politics in India of today
Hence, never joined any party
He is an independent thinker who is like a loving child
Om Tat Sat
(My humble salutations to Sri Anil Chawla ji and hindu samskrit dot com for the collection)