Click to Find It Quick! Astro Blog Feature Articles Mercury Retrograde Prashnavali Oracle Glossary Rising Sign Wizard Birth Chart Wizard Astrology Orders Daily Horoscope Weekly Horoscope Weekly LoveScope Monthly Horoscope Monthly Tarotscope Your Year Ahead AstroMatch Compatibility Sexuality by the Stars Relationships Relationship Analysis Soul Connection Your StarGuide Aries (March/April) Taurus (April/May) Gemini (May/June) Cancer (June/July) Leo (July/Aug) Virgo (Aug/Sept) Libra (Sept/Oct) Scorpio (Oct/Nov) Sagittarius (Nov/Dec) Capricorn (Dec/Jan) Aquarius (Jan/Feb) Pisces (Feb/Mar) The Horoscope Your Birthsign Astrological Signs The Elements The Houses Planets & Aspects The Zodiac Order Readings Feature Articles Science of Cosmic Oneness Mercury Retrograde Mars Retrograde Venus Retrograde Moon's Nodes Moon Wobble Zodiac Zodiac Symbols Zodiac Symbol Key Zodiac Gemstones Planets Fixed Stars Eclipse Your Rising Sign About Astrology What is Astrology? Is Astrology Scientific? Astrology & Astronomy How Astrology Works Astrology: the Sacred Art Astrology & Relationships Astrology & Health The Energy Doctor Environmental Stress The Energy Egg The Love Egg The Wealth Egg Creative Mandalas Protective Symbols Ayurveda Gemstones of the Zodiac Healing Power of Gems Hidden Magic of Gems Celtic Fire Festivals The Solstice The Equinox Easter Christmas Imbolc April Fool May Day Beltane Mothers Day Chinese New Year Valentine's Day Lady Day Midsummer St John's Day Candlemas Lammas Harvest Home Michaelmas Halloween Diwali Yule Gospel of Grandpa Old Greek Stories Numerology Numerology Cards Runes Rune Magic Feng Shui Chinese Zodiac Naadi-Shastra Yoga Human Aura Glossary Orders Site Map About Us Home Page

Parents: by Choice, Chance, or Design?
Models of Trends and Tendencies

This is the third part of this important article by Ram Ramakrishnan, who has been calculating probabilities and a model for the prediction of family relationships. Ram invites participation; you can contact him by clicking the link at the end of the article.

Planets are attributed with a number of positions of decadence like -- debilitation or fall, positions in the zodiac that are considered weak when viewed collectively based on its position in a number of divisional charts, certain other sign specific degrees that are considered 'fatal', positioned between malefic planets in the preceding and following signs, etc. Some consider a planet in apparent retrograde motion also to be in a situation of depravity. Analysis of a number of charts seems to suggest that a planet sporting an even number of such blemishes point towards a particular result while those sporting an odd number point to the contrary. This is only an observation that needs to be validated. Including this observation into our earlier list of assumptions, we can incorporate this additional category in our analysis of planetary behavior. This is what has been attempted in Table 5.

Analysis of the table above brings into focus many interesting features. Firstly it points to the strong possibility of some of the planets being less susceptible to be a 'giver' when combust and some being more susceptible when subject to this assumed debility. Mars, Saturn and Ketu show a higher inclination of being a 'giver' when combust. This feature is particularly evident very strongly in the case of Saturn.

The figures in the table above do not distinguish a planet's occurrence as a 'giver' on the basis of their functional eligibilities (E-scores). Considerations of E-Scores at this level of analysis will require the sample size to be in the range of about 10,000 charts at least to give meaningful insights.

Several other positional combinations have been analyzed in this manner to ascertain the preferred demeanor of a planet under a given condition. Some of these are planet specific, while some are sign specific. It should be emphasized here that the pointers gleamed from such analysis are merely what the word literally means - pointers. Anything definite about a particular mode of behavior can be conclusively accepted only after they have been seen to be exhibited without exception across a fairly large sample consisting of several thousands of charts. The conditions under which planetary demeanor have been analyzed are those that are astrologically deemed to be of significance, as given in astrological texts. For the sake of brevity, only one such analysis -- that for a planet being combust, has been described in this paper.

The Model

However, on the basis of the pointers obtained from the two types of analysis of planetary behaviour -- positional and functional, a model can be attempted to be evolved that considers these pointers and attempts to grade planets in terms of their eligibility to appear in the various position of a planetary sequence. The model can be assumed to be evolving in the correct direction if the incidence of planetary sequences indicated by the model to correspond to the birth date of the mother, form a fairly close match to the planetary sequence that actually corresponds to the birth date of the mother on the Vimsottari dasa calendar for the chart.

From the analysis of functional and positional attributes in the preceding discussion, it is seen that a planet can possess a high degree of eligibility and yet will not find a place in the higher echelons of the date defining planetary sequence. On the other hand, a planet with little or no direct eligibility can don the role of an initiator or giver by virtue of its interaction with other eligible planets. This situation calls for defining a planet's ability to participate in the event bestowing exercise under two heads -- one parameter that defines its effectiveness in participating at a particular position in the sequence and the other parameter being its potential strength that reflects its ability to do so within the defined sequence level. I have termed these parameters as 'Degree of Effectiveness' or DoE and 'Functional Potential' or FP. The latter term encompasses the combined effects of both positional attributes and functional attributes.

If we were to summarize the arguments formulated so far for evolving a possible model, it can be represented diagrammatically as follows:

It will now be required to link the two sets of parameters in the diagram above. While the set on the left has so far only be expressed as trends, the one on the right has a definite numerical form. The need therefore will be to express the trends themselves in numerical form. Before embarking on this exercise, it will be appropriate to list the possible positional features and the manner of interactions that a planet is subject to, as generally mentioned in all astrological texts.

It may be argued that there is some measure of overlapping in the above list of parameters considered. For instance, the Shadbala⁶ computation includes components that account for influence of the sign of residence, occupation of planet specific directions (directional strength) and 'Planetary war'. The reason that I have listed them separately can be explained by the following analogy. Consider a student taking an examination in a subject that has 10 sections, with a question from each section appearing in the question paper. It is required that the student answer any six questions correctly of the ten, to pass. There are two possible outcomes of the examination -- the student may pass or fail. If the student were to pass correctly attempting six questions, it could be that he knows answers to all the questions or he does not know the answers to one or more of the four questions that he did not attempt. If the latter were to be the case, the stigma that he is not good in one or more sections of the subject remains with him, although he has passed the examination. This is precisely how I see the question of shadbala and some of its components. A planet may have a shadbala that is greater than the deemed minimum level. The stigma that it is blemished in certain respects however remains and is reflected in its demeanor. If it were to have a shadbala below the minimum level, this only becomes an additional blemish that the planet sports.

This argument is extendable to interactive modes of influences as well. Planetary aspect for instance, is included in the computation of shadbala. Yet the full aspect of an inimical planet needs to be considered separately when assessing a planet's influence with regard to an event and this cannot be evaluated based on the shadbala alone.

Another argument could be that why only some of the components of shadbala have been separately listed and why not all the others. The response to this will be that only such components, about which there has been some emphatic mention in the texts, have been considered separately. This will certainly not mean that certain other components that have not been included may not have a decisive influence in the making or marring of an event. It has been possible to account for all planetary behavior on the basis of the possible effects of the listed parameters. If a situation were to arise when this were not to be possible, then some of the other components depending on the degree of importance credited to them in the texts, will be included into the model.

Having crossed the hurdle of defining the parametric set for allocating numerical equivalents for the tendencies exhibited by planets under defined conditions, we will see how the allocation itself has been designed.

Converting trends, tendencies and pointers to numerical equivalents

Deliberating first on the domain of positional tendencies, it should be reasonable to assume that each planet can be assigned a certain score on a standard numerical scale that reflects its strength in a sign/lunar mansion. Such a score will consider a planet's disposition vis-à-vis the sign and lunar mansion dispositors. The term 'disposition' here echoes the concept expressed in astrological texts about the friendly, inimical or neutral relationships between planets. The standard numerical scale chosen for the model is one that has a range 0 to 4 where 0 represents an entirely inimical position, 2 - a neutral position and 4 an extremely friendly position. Assignment of scores on this scale to planets in each given position of the zodiac is universally applicable to all charts and is not chart specific. For ease of identification, we will call this the P-Score.

Such scores only reflect the state of a planet when the planet and the sign/lunar mansion dispositors are themselves in an unblemished state and there are no other influences on them by way of conjunction, aspects and the like. This represents an ideal situation. A measure of the actual state can be had after taking into account all such disturbances. This exercise will require quantifying the disturbances as well.

Looking at a specific example -- that of Jupiter in Cancer in the lunar mansion of Saturn, Table 7 analyses various ways that the score for Jupiter gets modified depending on the state of Jupiter itself, state of sign dispositor Moon, lunar mansion dispositor Saturn and other influences. The analysis is based on the actual exercise of computing scores for the 796 charts in the sample set being considered for this application.

As explained earlier, all planets involved in the process of modification of the score of the planet in question (Jupiter) including Jupiter itself, are first subject to the analysis to find out whether they sport an even number or an odd number of blemishes. If they sport an even number, they are deemed unblemished and if odd then blemished.

Table 7 lists the number of times that Jupiter obtains a score between the ranges specified under each of the four possible planet/dispositor combinations. The figures would indicate that when both Jupiter and Moon are unblemished, Jupiter tends to have a higher score than when either one is blemished. There are exceptions though, brought about by other influences on Jupiter.

In a way, the results above can be looked upon as being forced as they have been assigned according to rules framed that mimic my thoughts on how planets may interact and the possible incremental scores that can be assigned for such interactions. The point however is, that if such rules that force certain patterns of results are consistently applicable giving the desired results, then they may be deemed to be workable and acceptable rules.

Converting interactions to numerical equivalents

It stands to reason that arguments about the weakness or strength of the sign dispositor affecting the strength of the planet posited in the sign, can be extended to assess the result of interaction between any two planets. Under this premise, it can be argued that two friendly planets will interact positively when both have a P-Score greater than or equal to two. Similarly, two planets that are mutually inimical will react positively when either one has a P-Score less than 2 while the other has a P-Score greater than or equal to two.

There would be many variations possible here due to the fact that planets need not be mutually inimical or mutually friendly. For instance, considering the interaction between Jupiter and Saturn, the latter is inimical to the former but the converse is not true.

As the status of a planet has been expressed in numerical terms in the preceding step, their interaction too can be expressed so. This however, will only refer to the interaction due to positional considerations. This base value of interaction is enhanced by a factor commensurate with the E-scores of both planets. This enhanced score considering functional eligibility, can be called the F-Score which can be stated in terms of DoE and FP. The sum of all the F-Scores for a planet due to its interaction with every other planet in the chart will then reflect the total potential of the planet (in terms of DoE and FP) to participate in the event giving sequence.

Table 8 lists the F-Scores for all occurrences of the combination Jupiter in Cancer, in the sample set of 796 charts.

It can be seen from the figures in the Table 8 that the status of the planet alone does not ensure it a good F-Score. The acquisition of a good F-Score also depends upon the E-Scores and P-Scores of the planet and sign dispositor. Any of the four planet/sign dispositor combination can result in a positive F-Score that in turn enhances the claim of the planet to participate in the planetary sequence that point to the birth date of the mother.

The numbers in the table add up to 41 which is half of the total number of occurrences of Jupiter in Cancer. This reflects the consequence of the assumption that a fruitful interaction is possible only if, in addition to the two planets interacting planets having the proper P-Scores, the interacting planet (Moon in this case) should also possess the functional qualification of being a fourth cusp dispositor. In all instances where this qualification is not met, the F-Score will be zero. This feature differentiates those cases that have been listed in Table 8 to have an F-Score of 0 despite the Moon being qualified as per the above mentioned norm.

Table 9, lists the DoE and FP values so obtained for an example chart and the derived planetary sequence from these values.

Any eligible planet with a DoE value of 0 and above, can don the role of an initiator. The backward extrapolation of the Vimsottari dasa calendar will indicate which of the nine entities will qualify for this role. The DoE/FP combination will then determine the remaining positions in the sequence.

The model as it has evolved up to now, has been coded as a computer program. The computations based on this model seem to be giving reasonably consistent results for birth data clusters for specific periods. It is believed that a definite indication as to whether the assumption that 'parents are by design' is provable, can be had only when the sample size increases to about 20,000 charts.

R. Ramakrishnan.
The author welcomes suggestions from and interaction with readers. Click here to write to Ram.

ENDNOTES:
1. The Vimsottari dasa scheme considers a definite span of time in years as the period of operation for each of the nine entities -- the Sun through Saturn and the nodes of the Moon. The total number years for all planets adds up to 120 years -- hence the name Vimsottari. The planet ruling at birth and the point of reference within its span of operation corresponding to the moment of birth is determined by the natal position of the Moon.
2. Brihat Paraasara Hora Saastra, chapter 7, verse 39 to 43
3. Jaataka Paarijaata, chapter 18, verse 38
4. Planets are listed in the descending order of the lengths of the angular distance traversed in their respective signs of residence. The first in this list becomes the Aatma Kaaraka or 'Soul significator' for the chart. The fourth in this list is deemed to be the significator of mother.
5. Dvaadasaamsa chart - The chart marking the position of planets in segments corresponding to 1/12 of each sign (2º 30'). This chart is suggested to be looked into for events and matters concerning parents.
6. Shadbala -- or sixfold strength, determines the strength of a planet in a chart under the following six heads: Positional strength, Directional strength, Temporal strength, Motional strength, Natural strength and Aspectual strength.

|