Strength of signs - Varahora /Udaya lagna

[Guest guest]

Dear Shreenadh, Vinita,

The Varah Hora criterion renders (Vinita's) Moon sign a strength

conteder:

 

" If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects (Drishti) or

posited in the sign then that sign becomes stronger (gets more

importance). "

 

That is, the lord of the sign tenants the sign. Mo being cancer's

lord is in cancer. Moon is malefic in digit terms. But that does not

rob the planet of its power to lend strength to its quarter. The

Hora verse says lord of the sign, be it a malefic or a benefic.

 

Now, strength crierion varies from planet to planet. That reminds

me: Moon's strength is, say primarily, pakshabala while Sa's eg is

dikbala (in seventh from lagna).

 

Now supposing, Sa enters into the picture as either Moon sign lord

or Udaya sign lord and is third from the sign (the sign being

Aquarius). We have quite a situation here, don't we? Sat in Aries in

Upachaya. In fall! Saturn in the sign it rules which is Udaya lagna.

Dikbala gone!

 

We have to resolve whether we stick fast to the twin rules cited (

from V. Hora & Jaatakadeshamaarga). Literally apply them? Or further

qualify them by pakshyabala and dikbala. If the latter, then let's

procure the citations from classics.

 

* * *

 

As for the Malayalam citation for activation of Moon lagna after a

certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's also tend to feel

there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere. But the point is is

that borne out by experience. Sudarshana padhhatti requires all the

three lagnas to be simultaneous reference points.

 

I know of a chart where all the three (Sun lagan, Mo lagna and Udaya

lagna) have their their 9th and 12th fortified) and they are

fortified by benefics (Ju, Ven, Me). But the 'experience' came in

the dashaa of (benefic) planet that is to do with 9th from lagna

(and in its own sub-period). All the three lagnas are strong: with

Moon sits its sign lord, while Mo has good digit strength. Udaya

sign lord in moolatrikona but not upachaya (in kendra), udaya sign

is aspected by Ju. With Sun sits sign lord (in mooltriknona). One

minor qualification: 12th from Mo is not exactly fortified: it is

unaspected and lord is 2nd from Moon.

 

The point I am making here is both the three lagnas play role but

Udaya lagna is udaya lagna. Dasha abides by this reference point.

(Transit is another matter though: we know Mo is the queen in that

department. Or she is not?)

 

I made use of an example where the kind of life experience involved

is pretty rare and thus unmistakable: 9th plus 12th. And using that

experience I daresay it is Udaya lagna that steers the course of

events. Udaya lagna is not just 'thanu bhava' -- the body, early

life and just that.

 

Udaya lagna is predictive fulcrum, sign strength or no sign strength.

 

Happy brainstorming, everyone,

 

RK

 

, " vinita kumar "

<shankar_mamta wrote:

>

> Dear Shreenadh,

>

> Thank you very much for taking the trouble to explain this so

nicely.

> The mistake i was making is to think Moon is in Upachaya even from

> Moon lagna.

>

> I agree with the weakness of moon, though according to D-9 Moon is

in

> Saggi (and not scorpio). It is with Saturn, but then Saturn is in

> Parivartan with Jupiter in Acquarius. I don't know if this can be

> construed to mean that that Moon is with Jupiter in Saggi and

> therefore not that weak.

>

> Anyway, I will leave it at that.

>

> Many thanks once again for explaining this.

>

> Love,

>

> Vinita

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Vinita ji,

> > It is not like that.

> > The second rule says -

> > ==>

> > > The strength of the sign is equal to the strength of the

> > > sign lord. If the sign lord is posited in Upachaya (3-6-10-11)

> sign

> > > from there onwards then the sign becomes stronger (gets more

> > > importance).

> > <==

> > From your Lagna sign Ve is in 3rd house - 1 pt.

> > From the Moon sign Mo is NOT in Upachaya sign - 0 pt

> >

> > Now comes ascertaining the strength of sign based on the

strength

> of

> > planet -

> > The Lagan lord posited in Cn has navamsa in Aq - Normal

strength

> > (The same applies to Lagna sign)

> > The Moon sign lord is posited in its own sign - So normally

should

> > be considered strong. But look at Navamsa of Mo, it is in

> > debilitation. So there is not much Stanabala to Moon. It is said

> that

> > for Mo Pakshabala is more important when ascertaining the

strength

> of

> > the planet than Stanabala (Strength due to placement). You will

see

> > that Mo has neither enough Pakshabala as well. In your chart Mo

is

> so

> > close to Sun (It is only Sukla Triteeya, the 3rd Tithi after

> amavasi)

> > and so Mo is week. The same applies to the Moon sign as well.

> > So here the Lagna sign wins over Moon sign. All these are

based

> on

> > the Second rule.

> > Now considering the 1st rule -

> > ==>

> > > If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects (Drishti) or

> > > posited in the sign then that sign becomes stronger (gets more

> > > importance).

> > <==

> > Neither Lagna lord, Ju or Me aspects Lagna. No good or bad

> Drishti

> > is there on the Lagna. - 0 pts.

> > Now considering the Moon sign, the Moon sign lord (Mo) is

posited

> > in the Moon sign (Cn) itself. Neither Ju or Me aspects Moon

sign. -

> 1

> > pt. So should we consider it as stronger than Lagna sign? I

would

> say

> > no, because from the earlier rule we know that Moon sign is week

> even

> > though Mo is there in it since Mo is weak. So I would prefer not

to

> > allocate any points to Moon sign as well in this case.

> > You can use the following points to substantiate it -

> > Lagna is in a normal state without any good or bad aspects. But

> here

> > Moon sign is aspected by the two biggest malefics, Sa (using its

> 10th

> > special aspect) and Ma (with its 8th special aspect). It is

> > agnimaruta yoga a destructive combination for the Moon sign. Of

> > course these are not mentioned in the above rule but I am using

> them

> > as substantiate evidence for not assigning points to Moon sign.

> >

> > So the conclusion -

> > Legna stands out winner with single point gained, and so the

> reading

> > should be based on Lagna.

> > Your life experiences itself will substantiate it, and will

speak

> to

> > you that Lagna sign is more important than Moon sign in your

> chart

> >

> > P.S: Of course the Moon sign gains strength with life, as you

can

> see

> > in your own life and you turned to astrology at the later stage

of

> > life. Cn is known as the Daivanjcha Rasi (Astrologer sign), that

> > gives more importance to emotions and intuition. This

> competition

> > between your Lagna sign and Moon sign is also necessary to

explain

> > the conflicts between your worldly and spiritual aspirations. So

we

> > have no right to out rightly reject Moon sign as well. But

the

> > point is that COMPARATIVELY Lagna sign is stronger than Moon

sign

> in

> > your chart and to correctly predict/decipher the events that

took

> > place in your life from your chart it is important to understand

> the

> > importance of Lagna, and the need to primarily read the chart

from

> > there on, in your horoscope.

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " vinita kumar "

> > <shankar_mamta@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shreenadh,All

> > >

> > > I can imagine your impatience....here u are trying to move

> forward

> > > and people like me are raising doubts because they cannot

> > understand

> > > the basic things....not because of your English....its very,

very

> > > clear and understandable,if not beautiful at times, ....but

> because

> > > of their (read my)capacity to understand.

> > >

> > > THE QUESTION

> > >

> > > Now the question is how to determine whether Lagna sign or

Moon

> > > sign is stronger. Traditionally we depend on two slokas.

> > > (i) " Hora swami guru nja veekshita yuta nanyascha

veeryotkata " -

> > > Varaha hora

> > > Meaning, If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects (Drishti)

or

> > > posited in the sign then that sign becomes stronger (gets more

> > > importance).

> > > (ii) " Lagnam lagna patou balena sahite tatulya veeryam vidu

> > > Tatraivopachaya stite sati tato veeryolkadam jayate " -

> > > Jatakadesam

> > >

> > > Meaning the strength of the sign is equal to the strenght of

the

> > > sign lord. If the sign lord is posited in Upachaya (3-6-10-11)

> sign

> > > from there onwards then the sign becomes stronger (gets more

> > > importance).

> > >

> > > This is perfectly clear. But by applying the above principle

in

> my

> > > case why lagna and not moon sign should be stronger is where

my

> > > confusion lay.

> > >

> > > For the benefit of others my lagna is Taurus which is not

> aspected

> > > by any planet.

> > >

> > > Both moon and venus are in the third house.

> > >

> > > According to (ii) of the above principle there is a tie, but

> > > according to (i) since the lord of the sign is posited in its

own

> > > sign I thought Moon should win.

> > >

> > > Now, using deductive methods, I may also say that lagna is

> > stronger,

> > > but going strictly by the above principles and the " fact " that

> as

> > > age advances Moon becomes stronger, should not Moon be the

winner

> > of

> > > the two signs???

> > >

> > > I am trying to be " systematic " , by just sticking to the

> principles

> > > mentioned above :)

> > >

> > > Or am i missing something????

> > >

> > > What says everyone?

> > >

> > > Love,

> > > Vinita

> > >

> > > , sree nadh

> > > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Vinita ji,

> > > > I was not speaking about the strength of the planets, but

of

> > > the sign/house. There are specific rules to ascertain whether

> Lagna

> > > sign or Moon sign is stronger. I have already mentioned it

> > > elaborately in one of my mails to panditji before some days.

> Search

> > > that mail and learn it from there.

> > > > P.S. : Better not to say " approaching the subject

> > > scientifically " , but to say " approaching the subject

> > > systematically " .

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vinita kumar <shankar_mamta@> wrote:

> > > > Dear Shreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > Would like to know more about strength of signs that u

> mentioned

> > > in

> > > > one of your mails. This is absolutely crucial when u talk of

> > > whether

> > > > the reference point should be lagna or the moon.

> > > >

> > > > In the feedback that i got from u about my chart, you had

used

> > > > deductive methods to say lagna should be the reference

point. I

> > > > agree with that. But supposing u did not have any

information

> > > about

> > > > me and it was a blind chart or the chart of an infant whose

> life

> > > is

> > > > yet to unfold, what then?

> > > >

> > > > My limited knowledge of the subject says that a house with

> grahas

> > > is

> > > > more powerful than a house without grahas. Cancer has 2

grahas

> > > while

> > > > Taurus has none. Further, moon is Swakshetra. Taurus has no

> > > aspects

> > > > whereas Cancer is aspected by other planets. (Please clarify

if

> > > > aspects should also be taken into account while deciding the

> > > > strength of the house). So what is there to count towards

the

> > > > strength of Taurus vis-a-vis Cancer? You mentioned Venus is

in

> > > > Upachaya - but i am not sure whether Venus being Lagnesh

should

> > be

> > > > considered a malefic even though it rules 6th. (I know there

> are

> > > > conflicting views this).If it is not a malefic it cannot be

> > strong

> > > > in upachaya.

> > > >

> > > > Could there be another explanation for this? (I am only

trying

> to

> > > > justify why my Lagna should be the reference point and not

the

> > > > Moon). The only reason i can think of is the aspect of

Saturn

> on

> > > > Lagnesh which is giving it a malefic character and therefore

> > > making

> > > > the Upachaya principle work. Besides, isolated and pure

Saturn

> > > being

> > > > exalted though retro and therefore debilitated is

> > still " powerful "

> > > > in 6th and so is its aspect on 3rd.(I dont know if aspects

> should

> > > > have relative strengths or not...remember we discussed this

in

> > > > quality of drishti). So Venus in 3rd may not be a necessary

and

> > > > sufficient condition for assuming that it is stronger than

> Moon.

> > > >

> > > > The only reason i want to point this out is that the

yardstick

> > > that

> > > > is adopted should be the same. Though astrologers often rely

on

> > > > deductive methods for arriving at conclusions by asking for

> > > > feedback, if u want to make astrology more scientific, it

> should

> > > > only rely on infallible principles which should hold true

even

> > > > without feedback.

> > > >

> > > > When u told me the reason why i should consider my Lagna and

> not

> > > > moon as the reference point in my chart, i was not fully

> > satisfied

> > > > by your explanation even though i knew what u said was

> correct.So

> > > i

> > > > thought i'll offer my explanation of this - though i may be

> wrong.

> > > >

> > > > Astrology is so much a subject of qualifications that one

> really

> > > has

> > > > to be qualified for pronouncing any opinion in a sure

manner.

> > > > Sometimes opinions are taken to be the truth without really

> > > > understanding the underlying explanations.The real danger is

> when

> > > > these " truths " are then applied blindly to other charts.

> > > >

> > > > I am thankful that on this forum u are giving us leads on

how

> to

> > > > approach the subject scientifically.

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > > Vinita

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection

around

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear RK ji,

Probably you have the wrong chart in mind. I give

chart of Vinita ji below -

+--------------+

| | |As |Su MeR |

| | | |Ju Ke |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|-----------+-----------------------+-----------|

| | |Mo Ve |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|-----------| Rasi |-----------|

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|-----------+-----------------------+-----------|

|MaR Ra | |SaR | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

+--------------+

 

==>

> As for the Malayalam citation for activation of Moon

> lagna after a

> certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's also

> tend to feel

> there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere.

<==

Yap, you are right.

 

==>

> I know of a chart where all the three (Sun lagan, Mo

> lagna and Udaya

> lagna) have their their 9th and 12th fortified) and

> they are

> fortified by benefics (Ju, Ven, Me). But the

> 'experience' came in

> the dashaa of (benefic) planet that is to do with

> 9th from lagna

> (and in its own sub-period). All the three lagnas

> are strong: with

> Moon sits its sign lord, while Mo has good digit

> strength. Udaya

> sign lord in moolatrikona but not upachaya (in

> kendra), udaya sign

> is aspected by Ju. With Sun sits sign lord (in

> mooltriknona). One

> minor qualification: 12th from Mo is not exactly

> fortified: it is

> unaspected and lord is 2nd from Moon.

>

> The point I am making here is both the three lagnas

> play role but

> Udaya lagna is udaya lagna. Dasha abides by this

> reference point.

> (Transit is another matter though: we know Mo is the

> queen in that

> department. Or she is not?)

>

> I made use of an example where the kind of life

> experience involved

> is pretty rare and thus unmistakable: 9th plus 12th.

> And using that

> experience I daresay it is Udaya lagna that steers

> the course of

> events. Udaya lagna is not just 'thanu bhava' -- the

> body, early

> life and just that.

>

> Udaya lagna is predictive fulcrum, sign strength or

> no sign strength.

<==

I value those statements very much, even though I

agree or disagree with many of them.

Love,

Sreenadh

--- arkaydash <arkaydash wrote:

 

> Dear Shreenadh, Vinita,

> The Varah Hora criterion renders (Vinita's) Moon

> sign a strength

> conteder:

>

> " If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects (Drishti) or

> posited in the sign then that sign becomes stronger

> (gets more

> importance). "

>

> That is, the lord of the sign tenants the sign. Mo

> being cancer's

> lord is in cancer. Moon is malefic in digit terms.

> But that does not

> rob the planet of its power to lend strength to its

> quarter. The

> Hora verse says lord of the sign, be it a malefic or

> a benefic.

>

> Now, strength crierion varies from planet to planet.

> That reminds

> me: Moon's strength is, say primarily, pakshabala

> while Sa's eg is

> dikbala (in seventh from lagna).

>

> Now supposing, Sa enters into the picture as either

> Moon sign lord

> or Udaya sign lord and is third from the sign (the

> sign being

> Aquarius). We have quite a situation here, don't we?

> Sat in Aries in

> Upachaya. In fall! Saturn in the sign it rules which

> is Udaya lagna.

> Dikbala gone!

>

> We have to resolve whether we stick fast to the twin

> rules cited (

> from V. Hora & Jaatakadeshamaarga). Literally apply

> them? Or further

> qualify them by pakshyabala and dikbala. If the

> latter, then let's

> procure the citations from classics.

>

> * * *

>

> As for the Malayalam citation for activation of Moon

> lagna after a

> certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's also

> tend to feel

> there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere. But the

> point is is

> that borne out by experience. Sudarshana padhhatti

> requires all the

> three lagnas to be simultaneous reference points.

>

> I know of a chart where all the three (Sun lagan, Mo

> lagna and Udaya

> lagna) have their their 9th and 12th fortified) and

> they are

> fortified by benefics (Ju, Ven, Me). But the

> 'experience' came in

> the dashaa of (benefic) planet that is to do with

> 9th from lagna

> (and in its own sub-period). All the three lagnas

> are strong: with

> Moon sits its sign lord, while Mo has good digit

> strength. Udaya

> sign lord in moolatrikona but not upachaya (in

> kendra), udaya sign

> is aspected by Ju. With Sun sits sign lord (in

> mooltriknona). One

> minor qualification: 12th from Mo is not exactly

> fortified: it is

> unaspected and lord is 2nd from Moon.

>

> The point I am making here is both the three lagnas

> play role but

> Udaya lagna is udaya lagna. Dasha abides by this

> reference point.

> (Transit is another matter though: we know Mo is the

> queen in that

> department. Or she is not?)

>

> I made use of an example where the kind of life

> experience involved

> is pretty rare and thus unmistakable: 9th plus 12th.

> And using that

> experience I daresay it is Udaya lagna that steers

> the course of

> events. Udaya lagna is not just 'thanu bhava' -- the

> body, early

> life and just that.

>

> Udaya lagna is predictive fulcrum, sign strength or

> no sign strength.

>

> Happy brainstorming, everyone,

>

> RK

>

> ,

> " vinita kumar "

> <shankar_mamta wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shreenadh,

> >

> > Thank you very much for taking the trouble to

> explain this so

> nicely.

> > The mistake i was making is to think Moon is in

> Upachaya even from

> > Moon lagna.

> >

> > I agree with the weakness of moon, though

> according to D-9 Moon is

> in

> > Saggi (and not scorpio). It is with Saturn, but

> then Saturn is in

> > Parivartan with Jupiter in Acquarius. I don't know

> if this can be

> > construed to mean that that Moon is with Jupiter

> in Saggi and

> > therefore not that weak.

> >

> > Anyway, I will leave it at that.

> >

> > Many thanks once again for explaining this.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Vinita

> >

> > ,

> " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vinita ji,

> > > It is not like that.

> > > The second rule says -

> > > ==>

> > > > The strength of the sign is equal to the

> strength of the

> > > > sign lord. If the sign lord is posited in

> Upachaya (3-6-10-11)

> > sign

> > > > from there onwards then the sign becomes

> stronger (gets more

> > > > importance).

> > > <==

> > > From your Lagna sign Ve is in 3rd house - 1 pt.

> > > From the Moon sign Mo is NOT in Upachaya sign -

> 0 pt

> > >

> > > Now comes ascertaining the strength of sign

> based on the

> strength

> > of

> > > planet -

> > > The Lagan lord posited in Cn has navamsa in Aq

> - Normal

> strength

> > > (The same applies to Lagna sign)

> > > The Moon sign lord is posited in its own sign -

> So normally

> should

> > > be considered strong. But look at Navamsa of Mo,

> it is in

> > > debilitation. So there is not much Stanabala to

> Moon. It is said

> > that

> > > for Mo Pakshabala is more important when

> ascertaining the

> strength

> > of

> > > the planet than Stanabala (Strength due to

> placement). You will

> see

> > > that Mo has neither enough Pakshabala as well.

> In your chart Mo

> is

> > so

> > > close to Sun (It is only Sukla Triteeya, the 3rd

> Tithi after

> > amavasi)

> > > and so Mo is week. The same applies to the Moon

> sign as well.

> > > So here the Lagna sign wins over Moon sign.

> All these are

> based

> > on

> > > the Second rule.

> > > Now considering the 1st rule -

> > > ==>

> > > > If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects

> (Drishti) or

> > > > posited in the sign then that sign becomes

> stronger (gets more

> > > > importance).

> > > <==

> > > Neither Lagna lord, Ju or Me aspects Lagna. No

> good or bad

>

=== message truncated ===