10

In Vedic astrology, the sidereal zodaic, the band of stars surrounding the Sun's apparent path in the sky, is divided into 12 equal Rashis or zodiac signs. A person's Janma Rashi is the zodiac sign that the Moon appears in at the time of their birth. And a person's Janma Lagna is the zodiac sign that appears at the Eastern horizon at the time of their birth. For example, my Janma Rashi is Rishabha or Taurus, and my Janma Lagna is Simha or Leo; see my birthchart here. (I actually have the same Nakshatra and Rashi as Krishna!)

Now in my case, my Janma Rashi is different from my Janma Lagna, but based on scriptural descriptions of their births, I found out that in the case of Rama and Krishna they're the same. Rama had Karkata Rashi and Karkata Lagna, and Krishna had Ribhasa Rashi and Rishabha Lagna; see this answer. And I just found out that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, whom Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider to be an incarnation, had Simha Rashi and Simha Lagna. And Ramanujacharya, whom Sri Vaishnavas (like myself) consider to be an incarnation, had Karkata Rashi and Karkata Lagna, just like Rama!

So my question is, is there some kind of rule that all incarnations of Vishnu have their Janma Rashi and Janma Lagna as the same? Now if someone's Janma Rashi is the same as their Janma Lagna, that would mean that at time of their birth, the moon was aligned with a certain zodiac sign, and the Eastern horizon was aligned with the same zodiac sign, so the moon and the Eastern horizon were aligned with each other. That means that all the figures mentioned above were born at moonrise, i.e. the time when the moon first emerges in the sky (which is not necessarily at night).

So are there any scriptures which say that incarnations of Vishnu are always born at moonrise? By the way, if I'm not mistaken the orbit of the moon relative to the Earth and the rotation of the Earth relative to the fixed stars (in the sidereal zodiac) are completely uncorrelated, so the probability that Rama, Krishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and Ramanujacharya would all have this property by chance is less than 1 in 20,000. So clearly something is going on here. Do any works on Vedic astrology say that there's something special about people born at moonrise, and do all incarnations of Vishnu belong to this category? What about at least the Purna Avataras?

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • So are you saying that for Ramavatara the moon rose at noon? – Surya Jun 18 '16 at 11:45
  • 1
    @Surya Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The moon can rise at any time in day or night. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 18 '16 at 16:39
  • 1
    If you consider Buddha to be incarnation of Vishnu then his popular birthchart shows moon in 4th position from ascendant... but there is great debate on exact birthyear of Buddha itself... – Tezz Jun 18 '16 at 19:08
  • @Tezz I do consider Buddha to be an incarnation, albeit a delusive one. In any case, perhaps this only applies to Purna Avataras. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 18 '16 at 20:21
  • @Keshav But both Chaitanya and Ramanuja were not Purna Avataras owing to their being Sanyasis and therefore bereft of material opulence. – Surya Jun 22 '16 at 11:51
  • @Surya What do you mean by material opulence, do you mean wealth or do you mean facial appearance and the like? Because even Rama spent 14 years of his life living like a hermit in the forest. By the way, for the record I don't think Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was a Purna Avatara or any kind of incarnation. In any case, perhaps the relevant distinction is Avesha avatara vs. non-Avesha, rather than Purna vs. Amsha. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 22 '16 at 21:54
  • @Keshav I mentioned the Purna avatara aspect because you speculated about it. In any case by material opulence I mean wealth. Rama's exile is a short period; even Krsna was a cowherd for his first decade. What I mean is Purna avataras have both wealth and renunciation, while the other two have only renunciation (not considering their spiritual wealth). – Surya Jun 23 '16 at 03:43
  • @Surya Is it a necessary rule that a Purna avatara has both wealth and renunciation? I'm not sure how a criterion like that would apply to Narasimha then. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 23 '16 at 04:06
  • @Keshav I didn't know Narasimha is a Purna Avatara. Anyway I am going by the standard that the Purnavatara will possess all six Bhagas that constitute the definition of Bhagavan. – Surya Jun 23 '16 at 04:11
  • 2
    @Surya - Narasimha is Poorna avatara. In fact, it is best avatara better than Raama and Krishna because the avatara was to prove the word of a little boy devotee and it was instantaneous unlike Raama and Krishna. Narasimha was the only avatara which proves to us that Lord will follow his devotee to the tee. All other avataraa were after lot prayers by many devathas etc. and took lot time to accomplish their respective purposes. In case of Narasimha it is instantaneous. –  Aug 22 '16 at 17:13
  • 2
    @Surya - That is why When Lord Srinivasa during his marriage to padmavathi had to offer prayers to some one superior to himself offered it to Ahobila Narasimha when all the gods like Brahma, Siva etc were present in the assembly. This is sufficient to prove that Narasimha avatara is Poorna avatara –  Aug 22 '16 at 17:14

0 Answers0