Yogakarka becoming Badhkesh (Technical - different viewpoint)

[Guest guest]

Prafulla,

 

A few points from memory, so do check to see if my calcified old

neurons are playing tricks!

 

My bias is to go to BPHS generally because I consider it the most

transparent, comprehensive and well-organized treatise. Although

badhakasthana is mentioned in other texts too, Parashara specifically

discusses it in the context of rashi dashas, particularly chara.

Badhakesha is not specifically mentioned. Maybe I read too much in

that but maybe research-minded can see if in a nativity's experience,

the planets in badhaksthana are more vicious or the otherwise

unafflicted badhasthana adhipati. Again, a few charts would need to

be tested before making up the mind.

 

I know given the general jyotish framework this may sound

counterintuitive (after all isn't the king the same as the nation he

rules over? But, is he? Always??).

 

Two thoughts I would like to inject here: Give the 'karako

bhavnashaya' theory a look with charak karakas (I prefer 7) and also

the kujavata ketu, sanivad rahu's applicability more in the rashi

dasha context.

 

I will now go sit like a good boy at the back of the class, before

the headmaster spots me and comes at me with his cane!

 

RR

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Prafulla Gang <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Members

>

> I request members to share their experiences of yogakarka becoming

badhkesh. Parashar does not suggest that badhaka theory overrules

yogakarka theory. For example - for kumbha lagna venus is badhkesh,

now will it cease to work as yogakarka? If yes, and Parashar could

have stated while, defining yogakarka fundamentals. Badhaka theory is

primarily defined by Prasna Marg and that too has additional

conditions required for badhaka. OR badhaka house can exist with

yogakarka planet, where badhakesh has no role!!!

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

>

> Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days,

it will be.

>

[Guest guest]

Prafulla,

 

Let me restate. What I was trying to say was that perhaps ruler of

badhakasthana (badhakesha) does not turn into a malefic just by

owning the badhaksthana! Badhaksthana on the other hand could be a

malefic zone.

 

Another way to test this would be cases where otherwise untainted

yogakarakas or other yoga-giving planets end up in an otherwise good

place, like the 9th or 7th in fixed or dwiswabhava lagna charts.

Would the presence of such beneficial planets in the badhaka zone

take away some of their beneficience?

 

Happy researching!

 

RR

 

, Prafulla Gang <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Ranjan ji

>

> I agree, it must be observed in charts, and based upon experience

only - we must draw conclusions. Yes, Badhaka rashi / house concept

is fine..but will it override yoga graha..In my limited experience, I

found yogagraha sukra quite delivering well for kumbha lagna -

instead of creating badha for the natives. I look forward to hear

from experience of other astrologers.

>

> Prashan Marg has linked badhaka to additional condition of kharesh

and to the curses of the chart. Parashari is silent on it. So Badhaka

rashi can have its role in its dasha etc; but Badhkesh need not be

damaging planet, if it is yogakarka for specific lagna.

>

> Coming to the interesting points you raised on karako bhava nasho

read with modified definition per chara karaka ( I infact, do not

consider it for chart reading unless there are afflictions to such

planet and bhava. For me - It is less preferred positioning for a

karaka - as if afflicted in transit / natal - the entire karaka gets

spoiled, as bahava and karaka both will be afflicted at the same

time, without saving grace. Else - it does not damage the house, on

its own).

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

>

> Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days,

it will be.

>

>

> >

> > jyotish_vani

> > Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:46:18 -0000

> >

> > Re: Yogakarka becoming Badhkesh (Technical -

different

> > viewpoint)

> >

> > Prafulla,

> >

> > A few points from memory, so do check to see if my calcified old

> > neurons are playing tricks!

> >

> > My bias is to go to BPHS generally because I consider it the most

> > transparent, comprehensive and well-organized treatise. Although

> > badhakasthana is mentioned in other texts too, Parashara

specifically

> > discusses it in the context of rashi dashas, particularly chara.

> > Badhakesha is not specifically mentioned. Maybe I read too much in

> > that but maybe research-minded can see if in a nativity's

experience,

> > the planets in badhaksthana are more vicious or the otherwise

> > unafflicted badhasthana adhipati. Again, a few charts would need

to

> > be tested before making up the mind.

> >

> > I know given the general jyotish framework this may sound

> > counterintuitive (after all isn't the king the same as the nation

he

> > rules over? But, is he? Always??).

> >

> > Two thoughts I would like to inject here: Give the 'karako

> > bhavnashaya' theory a look with charak karakas (I prefer 7) and

also

> > the kujavata ketu, sanivad rahu's applicability more in the rashi

> > dasha context.

> >

> > I will now go sit like a good boy at the back of the class, before

> > the headmaster spots me and comes at me with his cane!

> >

> > RR

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Prafulla Gang <jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> >>

> >> Dear Members

> >>

> >> I request members to share their experiences of yogakarka

becoming

> > badhkesh. Parashar does not suggest that badhaka theory overrules

> > yogakarka theory. For example - for kumbha lagna venus is

badhkesh,

> > now will it cease to work as yogakarka? If yes, and Parashar could

> > have stated while, defining yogakarka fundamentals. Badhaka

theory is

> > primarily defined by Prasna Marg and that too has additional

> > conditions required for badhaka. OR badhaka house can exist with

> > yogakarka planet, where badhakesh has no role!!!

> >>

> >> regards / Prafulla Gang

> >>

> >> Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these

days,

> > it will be.

> >>

>