Vic's Website: vicdicara.com
2: Aṁśa Nakṣatra
Over the past year or two people have begun talking a lot about nakshatras in their aṁśa charts, especially their navāṁśa.
“I have Venus in Anurādhā in my Navāṁśa.”
As far as I know, this is an extremely new thing, not much older than a few years. If any of you knows of any older sources for this practice, please lmk in the comments.
Some would say this itself is an argument against the practice. While I personally think the lack of its use in classical astrology doesn’t contribute confidence in a practice, it also does not, in itself, discount the practice.
So let’s look at the practice itself and examine if it is theoretically sound.
The Theory
This practice of ascertaining nakshatras within amśas is based on this concept:
0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎ is synonymous with Aśvinī. Aśvinī literally is 0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎.
So, wherever we deal with 0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎ we dealing with Aśvinī, even if we are in an Aries aṁśa within another sign, and thus in another nakṣatra.
Ex: ☽ 2° Aries is in Aśvinī, and d9 Bharanī.
☽ 2° s.♈︎
is in Āśvinī
in d9 ♈︎
It is 2° into that d9 amśa.
2° is 60% through the aṁśa (3°20’)
60% of a 30° sign is 18°
18° of s.♈︎ is in Bharaṇī
1° = 60’ x 2 = 120’
3°20’ = 180’+20’ = 200’
120/200 = 60%
60% of 30° = 18°
Therefore ☽ 2° s.♈︎ is in Aśvinī, but in Bharanī in the navamsha.
The 1st Problem: Nakshatra and Rāśi are not bound
The theory rests on the concept that 0° ~ 13°20’ ♈︎ is synonymous with Aśvinī but this is only true in a sidereal zodiacal framework.
It is not very difficult to work around the math here, but it is the need for the workaround that exposes the second, more significant problem with the theory.
The 2nd Problem: Nakshatra aren’t slices of Rāśi
Even if we ignore or discount the tropical zodiac, there is another big problem demonstrating that Nakshatra are not parts of the Rāśi - and therefore are not contained within the Rāśī’s aṁśa.
All the aṁśas of a raśī (from hora to navamsha all the way to sastyamasa) fit perfectly inside a single rāśi, because they are literally “aṁśa” (integral, inherent parts). The fact that Nakshatra borders line up with Rashi borders only 3 out of 27 times (and that’s only if we go ahead and embrace the sidereal concept of rāśi) shows that Nakshatra are quite unlike aṁśa. They are not integral parts of rāśi.
Therefore when a rāśi is reflected or replicated as an aṁśā, there is not rationale for assuming that the nakshatras reflect or replicate along with it.
The 3rd Problem: Infinite Regress
Sidereal theory proposes that Nakshatra Pada are synonymous with navāṁśa.
☽ at 2° Aries, is 18° into Aries d9
This means it would be in the 2nd pada of navamsha Bharaṇī.
That means it is in Virgo navamsha.
Wait, I thought it was in Aries Navamsha?
Furthermore it would be at 12° Virgo
That means it is in Hasta.
Wait, I thought it was in Bharani, no, Aśvinī
So where does this end???
And why?
Conclusion
Astrology is sophisticated and complicated enough with just the fundamental components.
Inventing new techniques that introduce infinite regression and aren’t based on an accurate understanding of the distinction between Rāśi and Nakshatra just puts more mud into the water of a subject that is already very misunderstood and poorly practiced.
That’s why I list this practice as a “Nakshatra Misconception” and prefer to focus my energy on using the fundamental components of classical astrology more and more effectively, without introducing anything cumbersome and unnecessary.
7 окт 2024
