Jaimini Jyotiṣa:

A Theory and Research Regarding Ketu and Argala

~ July, 2019 ~
 Jaimini Jyotiṣa: A Theory and Research Regarding Ketu and Argala
by Greg Stein

1.1.9. viparītam ketoḥ.


ketoḥ = from Ketu


Within the first 10 “threads” of the Upadeśa Sūtras, Maharṣi Jaimini explains a concept
called “Argala.” This concept is described just following sign aspects, implying that Argala is yet
another way that grahas can influence other places in a chart in the context of Jaimini Jyotiṣa.
However, there are some different opinions as to the proper and complete interpretation of
Jaimini’s Sūtras on the matter of Argala. One Sūtra that has elicited numerous alternative
interpretations is 1.1.9 - regarding Ketu’s role in Argala formation. The author wishes to share
one theory regarding a possible interpretation, which differs from any presently known as far as
he is aware, as an invitation for this matter to be investigated further by any who may wish to do
so.

First off, what is Argala? “Argala” is a Sanskrit word which can be translated to mean a
“bolt” or “latch.” Argala to a point in a chart (thus influencing a specific sign, house and any
planets therein) is considered a favorable factor in the context of Jaimini chart analysis. It is said
it helps make any results indicated by the point (sign/house/planet[s]) receiving Argala more
definite when that point is activated during its Rāśi Daśā.1 2

1Boney, M. (2017). The Essentials of Jaimini: A Practical Guide. Cardiff, CA: Sarasvati
Publications.
2Please note that a basic knowledge of Jaimini is assumed in this article. Readers unfamiliar
with the methods of Jaimini style analysis and the concept of argala are invited to refer to the
above book.

1
 Considering the minimalist approach that Jaimini has taken in his sūtras, with the intent
of conveying the maximum meaning with minimum words, I imagine the term “Argala” was
chosen very carefully and intentionally. “Bolting something down” implies securing a particular
outcome. One can only “bolt down” something which is physical or material in nature. Thus,
after some reflection I have come to think of Argala in terms of the word “materialization.” I feel
it is a factor which aids in the manifestation of tangible, material results.

Now in the last sūtra devoted to Argala, Jaimini “singles out” Ketu:

1.1.9. viparītam ketoḥ.

Viparītam can be translated as “the reverse” or “the opposite,” and ketoḥ means simply
“from Ketu,” or “of Ketu.” Please note that I am not a Sanskrit scholar, although I have studied
the very basics of the language. Logically however, I would like to pose the following question:

“The opposite ? from Ketu?”

I imagine the great sage cleverly presented this to us as a puzzle or kind of riddle. Perhaps he did
not flesh out all of the “nitty gritty” details, because he wanted us to have to think, reflect, and
deeply understand the underlying principles behind Argala. Having understood the intended
meaning, perhaps a very logical “picture” would emerge which could then be verified by
research and testing of the principles. He is counting on us to really “know our stuff” in terms of
the basics of Jyotiṣa.

So, what sets Ketu apart? How is Ketu different from all of the other grahas, such that it
should get “singled” out in this series of sūtras on Argala? The answer which seems most
apparent, in my humble opinion, is that Ketu is the “Mokṣa Kāraka” - the planetary significator
for liberation. Mokṣa or liberation implies a “letting go” or a “release” - indeed the very opposite
of “materialization,” yes? So I would like to offer one possible answer to the above ‘puzzle:’

“The opposite results from Ketu.”

i.e. interpreted as: "Ketu, when in an Argala position to a sign/house/planet will give the opposite
effects of Argala, indicating the results (of that sign/house/planet) will be less likely to
materialize or come to fruition.”3

3 This may also be thought of as possibly indicating dissolution or loss.

2
 Implications of this interpretation of the Sūtra

I believe that the above interpretation has a number of implications. First, having a reason
in mind for why Ketu may be different in this respect with regards to Argala helps us to more
fully understand the very function of Argala itself. Gracefully, in such succinct language, Jaimini
has perhaps painted a complete picture for us in order that we may thoroughly comprehend the
underlying concept. This suggests that Argala is to be used in terms of assessing material or
tangible results such as finances, worldly success, and relationships, but not intangible or subtle
results, such as spirituality.

A second point to consider is that perhaps Rāhu (but not Ketu) can be used in the
formation of Argala. Rāhu after all can be characterized as a materialistic graha by nature. If this
were not the case, it would have been logical for Maharṣi Jaimini to include Rāhu in sūtra 1.1.9.

A third implication of the given interpretation of sūtra 1.1.9 is that the kāraka nature of
any graha(s) forming Argala is significant, and may indicate the manner in which the results
materialize. This is the very idea behind the notion that Ketu will give the opposite results,
because Ketu’s kāraka nature is to “de-materialize” (and/or “spiritualize”).

Thus, the concept that “śubha argala” (argala formed by natural benefics) tends to be
more favorable than “pāpa argala” (argala formed by natural malefics)4. We can thus extend this
principle to make more nuanced interpretations. For example, Venus forming an argala to a point
may indicate results materializing in a beautiful or elegant way, while Jupiter may indicate
something materializing in a very dharmic or virtuous manner. Argala from Saturn may cause
something to materialize slowly, or with delay. Rāhu may indicate something materializing via
odd, unusual, or unconventional means. We can extend this to understand how any of the grahas
(other than Ketu) may give their argala effects.

4 i.e. Note however that argala formed by strong natural malefics may give relatively more
favorable results, while argala formed by weak natural benefics may not prove as favorable as
they would otherwise.