|
|
|
|
Parents by Choice? (2) Parents by Choice? (3) Astrological Living in India Astrology, Ethics, Destiny & God Astrology, Science & Destiny An Amazing Encounter with Destiny Ayurveda, Science of Life The Power of Gems Gemstones of the Zodiac The Hidden Magic of Gems The Human Aura Levels of Consciousness Karma: The Earth's Awareness Chakras & Relationships Astrology Home Astrology Orders Horoscopes Star Guide Relationships Relationship Analysis Soul Connection Health About Astrology Runes More Info The Zodiac About Us |
Parents: by Choice, Chance, or Design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 2 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Number of child-mother pairs considered | Number of instances where one of the entities considered eligible is a 'giver' in the planetary sequence corresponding to the mother's date of birth | Percentage occurrence |
| 796 | 383 | 48.12 |
The inclusion of the additional criteria to identify eligibility does seem to have increased the incidence of the occurrence of an eligible entity as a 'giver'. Yet, a large gap still remains (51.88%) to be accounted for.
By the inclusion of the additional criteria above, another peculiarity is introduced into the exercise -- that of an entity being eligible on a number of counts to make the event happen. For instance, a planet can be the dispositor of the fourth cusp from the ascendant and the Sun, making it eligible on two counts. If the two fourth house dispositors were to be the Moon, the count of eligibility will rise to three. In addition, if this entity were to be resident in any one of the fourth houses, the eligibility count climbs to four. This peculiarity would have existed in the analysis of Table 1 as well, but its effects (if any) will be more pronounced here. It will be interesting to see the correspondence between the count of eligibility (henceforth referred to as E-score) and the incidence of occurrence as a 'giver' for all entities (Table 3).
| Table 3 Correspondence of count of eligibility (E-Score) to incidence of occurrence as 'giver' | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | >2 | Total |
| Number of entities with E-Score | 3810 | 2767 | 565 | 22 | 7164 (9 x 796) |
| Occurrence as 'giver' | 413 | 308 | 72 | 3 | 792/383 |
| Percentage occurrence | 10.84 | 11.13 | 12.74 | 13.63 | 48.12 |
The trend above indicates that the percentage occurrence as a 'giver' increases with the E-score.
Astrological texts also suggest that the position of the significator of a house be considered as yet another reference point (Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra2). This suggestion opens up new possibilities. One of the texts -- Jaataka Paarijata3, mentions that the Moon and Mars, be considered as significators of 'Mother'. Then there is the concept of chart specific significators or Chara Kaaraka4. So we have two further reference points in addition to the ascendant, the Sun and the Moon - namely, Mars and the chart specific significator. (If the chart specific significator were to be the nodes, then there will be three reference points.)
Yet another entity that can be included into the eligible list of entities that represent the fourth-house, is the dispositor of the fourth Dvaadasaamsa5 from the Dvaadasaamsa ascendant.
Table 4 provides an analysis of the incidence of 'givers' from the set of eligible entities by the new criteria and the equivalent 'E-score - Occurrence' correspondence analysis.
| Table 4 Correspondence of count of eligibility (E-Score) to incidence of occurrence as 'giver' | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E-Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | >2 | Total |
| Number of entities with E-Score | 1638 | 2714 | 1742 | 1070 | 7164 (9 x 796) |
| Occurrence as 'giver' | 156 | 281 | 201 | 158 | 796/640 |
| Percentage occurrence | 10.84 | 9.52 | 11.54 | 14.77 | 80.40 |
Here we see the consolidation of the trend that the incidence of occurrence as a giver increases with an increase in the count of eligibility. This in itself does not prove anything. If the same exercise as above is attempted with a different set of eligibility criteria -- for instance the 5th house dispositors from each of the reference points with the replacement of Jupiter for the Moon (as the significator of children) and chart specific significator of children in place of that of the mother, and consider their frequency of occurrence as the 'giver' in the planetary sequence corresponding to the date of the mother, a very similar pattern is observed. The trends shown in the tables here only affirm the idea that an entity with multiple eligibilities has a better probability of being a 'giver'.
The incidence of occurrence of almost 20% of 'givers' that are outside the eligibility set is still to be accounted for. This calls for further expanding the eligibility set to include planets that interact with those in the eligibility set by virtue of their placement in the chart. Also, it is seen that less than 15% of those entities that are eligible within a given E-score category become givers. This necessitates grading of eligible entities within a chart with similar E-scores according to their apparent strengths attributable to their position in the chart and their interaction with other planets, in order to identify the strongest among them that go on to become a 'giver'. It can also be inferred from the table above that mere eligibility on a number of counts alone does not ensure a planet's occurrence as a giver. Between two planets with dissimilar E-scores, the one with a lower score can take precedence over the other with a higher score if the former is stronger by position while the latter is weaker on this count.
Positional Eligibility
The arguments above point to assessing a planet's occurrence as a 'giver' under two heads -- its positional attributes and its functional attributes and consider a blend of the two tendencies. The analysis so far has been made only on the functional attributes. We will consider an example positional attribute -- the proximity of a planet to the Sun, and analyze its bearing on the effectiveness of an eligible planet to be a 'giver'. Texts suggest various sets of angular distances for planets to be considered 'combust' -- a term that is used to describe a planet's close proximity to the Sun in a chart and that suggests that the planet in question is adversely affected. We will consider a standard angular separation of 7º 30' between the Sun and any other planet within which the planet is deemed combust. Table 5 lists the occurrence of planets as givers under two heads -- combust and not combust. A further distinction is made between planets possessing an even or odd number of individual 'blemishes'. The preceding statement needs elaboration.
Parents by Choice, Chance or Design: part 1 | part 2 | part 3 | Ayurveda
Articles | AstroMatch | Search | Books | Contact | Feed  | Forum | Postcards | Glossary | Links | Site Map |
 |
