Da house is what it be, da sign is how it be! I look at signs as layers of expressive style and swag overlying the houses (immovable contexts within which any planets contained are expressed). When I first look at a chart, I naturally see houses first and then add sign qualities to those placements. Maybe that's just where I'm at now as a western astrologer using quadrant houses and wheel charts ;)
Must be nice to have Ernst on speed dial! Ive always wanted to write him about my 6 planet/12th house conjunction/conundrum…jeeze..these lajjitadi avasthas sure get confusing when there’s so many cooks in the kitchen. The fact that I’ve edited this comment twice might signify a starved/bad habit 12th house Mercury? 😂 Am I right.
Thank you for posting this, Ryan. I thoroughly enjoyed your Kriya Yoga program and will be continuing the journey soon with your apprenticeship program - likely on Akshay Tritiya, this Saturday, April 22nd.
It's like comparing apples to oranges. Houses represent the area of life that is being affected. Signs indicate how the planets energies will be expressed (like filters) through the sign.
No offense, I absolutely love your content - and I absolutely love many aspects of the Vedic tradition and the application of certain Vedic concepts to Astrology (at large), in a philosophical sense. *Although if we're being philosophical outside the colloquially accepted Astrological system - we are forced to consider that Astrology, in a metaphysical sense, may very well not be 'real'; and probably isn't, in the capacity that most people who endorse Astrology seem to just accept that it is...* I love the Vedics' concept of Digbala regarding house strength and find it to have superior logic to the Hellenistic system for house strength, the Planetary Joys. I still use the Joys tertiary to Digbala for delineating 'house strength' for planetary placements - but it makes more sense to me that planets would find directional strength in the Kendra (Angular) houses moreso than the others. Having said that, and with the caveat that there's obviously much more to say about it, my appreciation for certain Vedic approaches is offset by contention for certain other Vedic-centric concepts; such as Siderreal calculations and, more presciently, the idea of "natural house rulerships" - where Aries "naturally" rules the 1st house and so forth. This makes no sense philosophically - especially if what you're saying about the Rashis denoting qualities or 'qualia' is true. In such a situation, it would make sense that House conception remains separate from Sign conception - given that the Houses represent areas of human life and the Signs represent certain qualities of experience, or colors as you describe them. Having Aries occupy some sort of a priori position seems as wrong to me as the Hellenistics having Mercury be the only planet that finds its Joy in an Angular house (1st house)...This would imply precedence for these placements (Vedic: Aries Lagna, Hellenistic: Mercury in 1st House) - which is logically fallible given that there is no precedence in 'quality'. Quality is relativistic in this sense, and the only attribution we can attest to for preference of certain qualities lies in human experience, and not necessarily in some metaspectacular experiential perspective writ large. Not to mention that certain preferred 'qualities' vary greatly across human beings, and in each of our individual experiences...the Houses, of course, are meant to pertain to circumstances that are potentially applicable to any human experience. "Quality" has no such objectivity - for humans it is almost entirely somatic in natue, and thus entirely subjective as far as we can tell. Such is the way we experience the Rashis (Signs). I understand that the Vedic tradition has mythologies that attempt to explain why certain things within the Astrological system work the way they do - but the idea of Natural House rulerships, and that the Aries Lagna has the capacity for a more preferential experience than every other Lagna is hogwash. There is simply nothing to measure such a claim against, given that the way any individual experiences their own chart is going to be subjective. The only possible objectivity to be found in the chart is in the Planets and Bhavas, not the Rashis. And if there is an Ascendant which offers the chart the highest output potential - it is undoubtedly the Cancer Lagna, for a variety of reasons...not the least of which being the consideration of the Cancer Ascendant across multiple schools of Astrology such as Vedic, Hellenistic, Esoteric, and even Helio-centric schools. Each of these schools has something profound to say about the Cancer Ascendant. Not trying to make too much of a moo point about Cancer Lagna though...like I said, I think the idea of Natural House rulership by any Rashi is deleterious to chart interpretation... I applaud your commitment to *almost* authentically adhering to the Vedic system, I'm sure it's nice to be able to claim precision based on a dogmatic foundation - but I also find it disappointing that, by being so rigid, you automatically endorse a concept which makes very little sense when removed from the lore around its applicability.
@Nautical Narwhal I appreciate the reply! My question is: why? Why is Aries 'naturally' associated with the first? Because of some numerological impetus? Because of cross-over significations with Aries and the first house? Personally, I would eschew either of those arguments. I don't think it's accurate to say Aries is naturally associated with the first house. Even though they both have "1st" attached to them (1st sign, 1st house), they are still totally separate archetypal concepts - and have to be in order to function they way they do in Astrology. Other than a need to determine an order by which to reference Sign positions against each other, there's really no need to designate any numerical value to each of the Zodiac Signs at all. Bringing numerology into Astrology is a gross attempt at hybridizing 2 completely unrelated methodologies. Ex: Aquarius is not "the master sign" because it's the 11th sign and in numerology 11 is "the master number"...No, the things related to the number 11 in numerology were never meant to have anything to do with the Zodiac Sign of Aquarius. Aquarius is the water-bearer...which the number 11 says nothing about. People who indulge thinking in 'spiritual' or esoteric paradigms do this all the time - conflating methologies and practices that have totally separate inceptions from an anthropological standpoint.
Not sure about this: "The only possible objectivity to be found in the chart is in the Planets and Bhavas, not the Rashis." Actually, if you for instance consider the Atmakaraka, its sign would be much more important than its house placement. House placement is good to see on what areas/relations a certain planet will focus (such as, the 11th house is about elder siblings, etc.), but being the Atmakarak your real self, the sign will be crucial to understand your nature and personality, and to some extent your physique as well. Those who were born with Saturn as atmakaraka in Scorpio, will have prominent Scorpio features, to the extent they can be mistaken for a Scorpio lagna.
@mattb.455 I appreciate the reply and recognize your point regarding Atmakaraka! I think it does depend how heavily one wants to consider the Atmakaraka though, regarding your point about its placement potentially superceding the Lagna placement. The 1st house is really the focal point of the whole D1 chart generally speaking (especially with planets placed in the Lagna) - personally, I don't consider the Atmakaraka to take precedence over that. The concept of Atmakaraka being true-self is more an abstract concept than other chart related concepts. The planet holding the highest degree doesn't make it the most poignant planet necessarily. Often the Atmakaraka will be neutral strength while other exaltations or debilitations, and placements with digbala, dominate the way the chart actually functions overall. That's why I was speaking to more objectivity being seen in the Planets and houses. They are less conceptually abstract, ie: when Mars is placed in the 10th house, you can expect x, y, z results....with exception to aspects, of course. Obviously the entire chart is so nuanced that any single placement, including Atmakaraka, cannot determine full results or speak to total objectivity. Also, in regards to Atmakaraka, it's not just the sign that matters - it's moreso the Nakshatra and pada the Atmakaraka falls in that speaks to its nature. The broad conceptualization of any single sign is nowhere near enough nuance to ever describe the life of an individual. So in your example of Atmakaraka Saturn in Scorpio - nobody IS a Scorpio, whether Atmakara or Lagna lord is there, or major stellium, or anything else. Scorpio is an ASPECT of that individual, and lends certain qualities to the individual based on the poignancy of that person's Scorpio placements. People are so wrong to call themselves by a single sign - and I continue to advocate for people realizing that they are not a single archetype. It is a fallacy of the mind to want to simplify one's nature to that degree - which is part of the reason that signs don't speak to objectivity the way planets and bhavas do. A person can say "I'm a Scorpio" because they have Sun placed there, or Lagna lord, or Atmakara or whatever else - or they can say I have Mars in the 10th and Jupiter in the 1st; without even needing to describe the dignity of Mars and Jupiter, which scenario is going to speak more about the life of that individual? The second one is. Mars in the 10th and Jupiter is the 1st have very specific results in the life (with obvious caveat that rest of the chart and aspects matter) - but somebody saying they're a Scorpio is just a nebulous archetypalization. It could mean a great number of things, without addressing anything specific. A personal example: I have Sun and Mercury both at 18 degrees Jyestha Nakashatra in Scorpio sign with Mars and Pluto in same sign too. However, I would never call myself a Scorpio given that Jupiter, Moon, and Saturn absolutely dominate my chart by the strength and poignancy of their placements...and I see the results in my life revolve far more around those placements than I do any of my placements in Scorpio. When people ask my sign I never say a sign - I just tell them about my chart and max strength Jupiter in 1st and Lagna lord in the 10th with Mars trine Lagna and digbala Saturn opposing Jupiter, because those are the placements that quite tangibly reflect most heavily in my life. My character and circumstances line up WAY more with these few placements than they do with my Atmakaraka and Amatykaraka placements.
@@Westworldjunkie atmakaraka is part of Vedic astrology, and Parashara mentions it often, giving it for granted. Although it may sound a Platonian idealistic concept, in some instances the atmakaraka becomes crucial to ascertain results and timing, i.e. if the atmakaraka is also moon sign lord, then one should follow the Kevali Vimshottari starting from the atmakaraka's nakshatra and not from jamna nakshatra. This will show absolutely precise events and phases of life. Also, it is important to see the Sayana chart for karakas and placements. But I do not want to discuss the tropical/sidereal topic here.
Thank you, Ryan.
As for my direct experience, i haven’t seen Ernst being open to explore the doubts when i reached out to him about some things.
Da house is what it be, da sign is how it be! I look at signs as layers of expressive style and swag overlying the houses (immovable contexts within which any planets contained are expressed). When I first look at a chart, I naturally see houses first and then add sign qualities to those placements. Maybe that's just where I'm at now as a western astrologer using quadrant houses and wheel charts ;)
Must be nice to have Ernst on speed dial! Ive always wanted to write him about my 6 planet/12th house conjunction/conundrum…jeeze..these lajjitadi avasthas sure get confusing when there’s so many cooks in the kitchen. The fact that I’ve edited this comment twice might signify a starved/bad habit 12th house Mercury? 😂 Am I right.
Thank you for posting this, Ryan. I thoroughly enjoyed your Kriya Yoga program and will be continuing the journey soon with your apprenticeship program - likely on Akshay Tritiya, this Saturday, April 22nd.
It's like comparing apples to oranges. Houses represent the area of life that is being affected. Signs indicate how the planets energies will be expressed (like filters) through the sign.
I 💕 love your evenhandedness ✨🙌 blessingsssss
Thank you for another insightful post. Can you do a video on conjunctions in Navamsa? Saturn+Jupiter conjunction and Saturn is Vargottama in Cancer.
No offense, I absolutely love your content - and I absolutely love many aspects of the Vedic tradition and the application of certain Vedic concepts to Astrology (at large), in a philosophical sense. *Although if we're being philosophical outside the colloquially accepted Astrological system - we are forced to consider that Astrology, in a metaphysical sense, may very well not be 'real'; and probably isn't, in the capacity that most people who endorse Astrology seem to just accept that it is...* I love the Vedics' concept of Digbala regarding house strength and find it to have superior logic to the Hellenistic system for house strength, the Planetary Joys. I still use the Joys tertiary to Digbala for delineating 'house strength' for planetary placements - but it makes more sense to me that planets would find directional strength in the Kendra (Angular) houses moreso than the others.
Having said that, and with the caveat that there's obviously much more to say about it, my appreciation for certain Vedic approaches is offset by contention for certain other Vedic-centric concepts; such as Siderreal calculations and, more presciently, the idea of "natural house rulerships" - where Aries "naturally" rules the 1st house and so forth. This makes no sense philosophically - especially if what you're saying about the Rashis denoting qualities or 'qualia' is true. In such a situation, it would make sense that House conception remains separate from Sign conception - given that the Houses represent areas of human life and the Signs represent certain qualities of experience, or colors as you describe them. Having Aries occupy some sort of a priori position seems as wrong to me as the Hellenistics having Mercury be the only planet that finds its Joy in an Angular house (1st house)...This would imply precedence for these placements (Vedic: Aries Lagna, Hellenistic: Mercury in 1st House) - which is logically fallible given that there is no precedence in 'quality'. Quality is relativistic in this sense, and the only attribution we can attest to for preference of certain qualities lies in human experience, and not necessarily in some metaspectacular experiential perspective writ large. Not to mention that certain preferred 'qualities' vary greatly across human beings, and in each of our individual experiences...the Houses, of course, are meant to pertain to circumstances that are potentially applicable to any human experience. "Quality" has no such objectivity - for humans it is almost entirely somatic in natue, and thus entirely subjective as far as we can tell. Such is the way we experience the Rashis (Signs). I understand that the Vedic tradition has mythologies that attempt to explain why certain things within the Astrological system work the way they do - but the idea of Natural House rulerships, and that the Aries Lagna has the capacity for a more preferential experience than every other Lagna is hogwash. There is simply nothing to measure such a claim against, given that the way any individual experiences their own chart is going to be subjective. The only possible objectivity to be found in the chart is in the Planets and Bhavas, not the Rashis. And if there is an Ascendant which offers the chart the highest output potential - it is undoubtedly the Cancer Lagna, for a variety of reasons...not the least of which being the consideration of the Cancer Ascendant across multiple schools of Astrology such as Vedic, Hellenistic, Esoteric, and even Helio-centric schools. Each of these schools has something profound to say about the Cancer Ascendant. Not trying to make too much of a moo point about Cancer Lagna though...like I said, I think the idea of Natural House rulership by any Rashi is deleterious to chart interpretation...
I applaud your commitment to *almost* authentically adhering to the Vedic system, I'm sure it's nice to be able to claim precision based on a dogmatic foundation - but I also find it disappointing that, by being so rigid, you automatically endorse a concept which makes very little sense when removed from the lore around its applicability.
Instead of viewing Aries as the "natural ruler of the first", it may be more accurate to view it as naturally associated with the first.
@Nautical Narwhal I appreciate the reply! My question is: why? Why is Aries 'naturally' associated with the first? Because of some numerological impetus? Because of cross-over significations with Aries and the first house? Personally, I would eschew either of those arguments. I don't think it's accurate to say Aries is naturally associated with the first house. Even though they both have "1st" attached to them (1st sign, 1st house), they are still totally separate archetypal concepts - and have to be in order to function they way they do in Astrology. Other than a need to determine an order by which to reference Sign positions against each other, there's really no need to designate any numerical value to each of the Zodiac Signs at all. Bringing numerology into Astrology is a gross attempt at hybridizing 2 completely unrelated methodologies. Ex: Aquarius is not "the master sign" because it's the 11th sign and in numerology 11 is "the master number"...No, the things related to the number 11 in numerology were never meant to have anything to do with the Zodiac Sign of Aquarius. Aquarius is the water-bearer...which the number 11 says nothing about. People who indulge thinking in 'spiritual' or esoteric paradigms do this all the time - conflating methologies and practices that have totally separate inceptions from an anthropological standpoint.
Not sure about this: "The only possible objectivity to be found in the chart is in the Planets and Bhavas, not the Rashis." Actually, if you for instance consider the Atmakaraka, its sign would be much more important than its house placement. House placement is good to see on what areas/relations a certain planet will focus (such as, the 11th house is about elder siblings, etc.), but being the Atmakarak your real self, the sign will be crucial to understand your nature and personality, and to some extent your physique as well. Those who were born with Saturn as atmakaraka in Scorpio, will have prominent Scorpio features, to the extent they can be mistaken for a Scorpio lagna.
@mattb.455 I appreciate the reply and recognize your point regarding Atmakaraka! I think it does depend how heavily one wants to consider the Atmakaraka though, regarding your point about its placement potentially superceding the Lagna placement. The 1st house is really the focal point of the whole D1 chart generally speaking (especially with planets placed in the Lagna) - personally, I don't consider the Atmakaraka to take precedence over that. The concept of Atmakaraka being true-self is more an abstract concept than other chart related concepts. The planet holding the highest degree doesn't make it the most poignant planet necessarily. Often the Atmakaraka will be neutral strength while other exaltations or debilitations, and placements with digbala, dominate the way the chart actually functions overall. That's why I was speaking to more objectivity being seen in the Planets and houses. They are less conceptually abstract, ie: when Mars is placed in the 10th house, you can expect x, y, z results....with exception to aspects, of course. Obviously the entire chart is so nuanced that any single placement, including Atmakaraka, cannot determine full results or speak to total objectivity. Also, in regards to Atmakaraka, it's not just the sign that matters - it's moreso the Nakshatra and pada the Atmakaraka falls in that speaks to its nature. The broad conceptualization of any single sign is nowhere near enough nuance to ever describe the life of an individual. So in your example of Atmakaraka Saturn in Scorpio - nobody IS a Scorpio, whether Atmakara or Lagna lord is there, or major stellium, or anything else. Scorpio is an ASPECT of that individual, and lends certain qualities to the individual based on the poignancy of that person's Scorpio placements. People are so wrong to call themselves by a single sign - and I continue to advocate for people realizing that they are not a single archetype. It is a fallacy of the mind to want to simplify one's nature to that degree - which is part of the reason that signs don't speak to objectivity the way planets and bhavas do. A person can say "I'm a Scorpio" because they have Sun placed there, or Lagna lord, or Atmakara or whatever else - or they can say I have Mars in the 10th and Jupiter in the 1st; without even needing to describe the dignity of Mars and Jupiter, which scenario is going to speak more about the life of that individual? The second one is. Mars in the 10th and Jupiter is the 1st have very specific results in the life (with obvious caveat that rest of the chart and aspects matter) - but somebody saying they're a Scorpio is just a nebulous archetypalization. It could mean a great number of things, without addressing anything specific. A personal example: I have Sun and Mercury both at 18 degrees Jyestha Nakashatra in Scorpio sign with Mars and Pluto in same sign too. However, I would never call myself a Scorpio given that Jupiter, Moon, and Saturn absolutely dominate my chart by the strength and poignancy of their placements...and I see the results in my life revolve far more around those placements than I do any of my placements in Scorpio. When people ask my sign I never say a sign - I just tell them about my chart and max strength Jupiter in 1st and Lagna lord in the 10th with Mars trine Lagna and digbala Saturn opposing Jupiter, because those are the placements that quite tangibly reflect most heavily in my life. My character and circumstances line up WAY more with these few placements than they do with my Atmakaraka and Amatykaraka placements.
@@Westworldjunkie atmakaraka is part of Vedic astrology, and Parashara mentions it often, giving it for granted. Although it may sound a Platonian idealistic concept, in some instances the atmakaraka becomes crucial to ascertain results and timing, i.e. if the atmakaraka is also moon sign lord, then one should follow the Kevali Vimshottari starting from the atmakaraka's nakshatra and not from jamna nakshatra. This will show absolutely precise events and phases of life. Also, it is important to see the Sayana chart for karakas and placements. But I do not want to discuss the tropical/sidereal topic here.
Could you please do a video on Planets at zero degrees and how they effect a persons chart please? Thank you! ❤️