Confusion over derivation of the D-60/Shastiamsa

For discussion on divisional charts: navamsha, drekkana, saptamsha, dashamsha, etc.
Forum rules
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
Post Reply
soma9
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:49 pm

Confusion over derivation of the D-60/Shastiamsa

Post by soma9 » Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:01 pm

Hi everyone, I'm wondering if anyone might be able to help me understand why the program Jagannatha Hora derives the D-60/Shastiamsa chart in a way that differs from the method described in the Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra? In Jagannatha Hora, a planet's Shastiamsa sign is determined by finding the part it falls within the 60 parts of the sign and then counting to that part from the sign that the planet is in. In Parasara's method, however, it says to ignore the sign position and use only the part of the 60 divisions it is in (by multiplying the planet's degrees and minutes by 2), then translate that into the Shastiamsa sign by dividing by 12 and using the remainder plus one.

As an example of the difference, take 3:10 Leo.
By the first method, this is in the 7th part of the 60 divisions, so 7 signs are counted inclusively from Leo, giving Aquarius as the shastiamsa sign.
By Parasara's method, this is again the 7th part, i.e. 3:10 x 2= 6:20, divide by 12 = 0, with remainder 6:20, the remainder is rounded down to 6, plus 1 = 7. Only this time it is not added to the sign that the planet is in, so Libra is the shastiamsa sign.

From the BPHS- 'To calculate the Shashtiamsa Lord ignore the Rashi position of a Grah and take the degrees etc. it traversed in that Rashi. Multiply that figure by 2 and divide the degrees by 12. Add 1 to the remainder, which will indicate the Rashi, in which the Shashtiamsa falls. The Lord of that Rashi is the Grah, ruling the said Shashtiamsa.'

I've looked around online for an explanation of this and haven't been able to find anything. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Khoo Hock Leong
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 7088
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:17 pm

Confusion Over D60

Post by Khoo Hock Leong » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:37 am

Hi

Yes I notice that also.

In fact under JP software, all divisional charts we consider sign rulership but the method in BPHS for D60 chart is quite different. There is no concept of a Graha ruling a Bhava in a D60 chart.

I think this point, if I am not mistaken, is related to the question you are asking also.

Regards

Hock Leong

soma9
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:49 pm

Post by soma9 » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:33 am

Hi Hock Leong, thanks for responding. You've actually brought up something else that I find confusing with the D60 chart which is that in Phaladeepika it is described as having only auspicious and inauspicious parts. No bhava rulers, like you mentioned. It's strange, too, since there seems to be agreement about how to construct all of the other divisional charts, yet this one, which is sometimes described as being the most important of all vargas, is unclear. One of the articles I've read points out its importance by noting that in BPHS the following is written for calculating dasha varga-
'Add Dashamsa, Shodashamsa and Shashtiamsa to the said Sapt Varg Divisions to get the scheme of Dasha Varg. The Vimshopak Bal in this context is 3 for Rashi, 5 for Shashtiamsa and for the other 8 divisions 1½ each.' So here it receives 3-1/2 more points than any other varga and even 2 more points than the rashi chart itself.
I just sent an email to the author of the Jagannatha Hora program about this, so I'll see what he says. Hopefully that will clear things up.

soma9
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:49 pm

Post by soma9 » Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:03 pm

Mr. Rao responded and I think has clarified things. He wrote - 'Parasara's verse on shashtyamsa does specifically say "tadraaseh", meaning "from that sign". So the sixty signs are counted started from the sign occupied by the planet and not from Aries.' So it makes sense now but it leads me to think that this verse must be mistranslated in the English translations.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest