Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 It would indeed be amavasya birth. But Moon and Sun wont be called conjunct. Conjuction have different meanings and birth on an amavasya day have different meaning. Kindly go through the relevant chapters in Jataka Bharanam and Maansaagri respectively. regards, Mouji --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:54 PM All interested members may please check this out - Date of birth, 16th December 2009 TOB 15.40 Place of Birth, jaipur. The child is yet to be born on above date. In the chart of this yet to be born Child. The Moon is in 29 degrees Scorpio The Sun is in 0.41 degrees Sagittarius Would we in our right senses deny the above Conjunction thereby denying amavasya Birth to the Child ? Would one not write Birth on Amavasya in his janma Kundli ? In my earlier mail I had mentioned about Yogas not working. Here too common sense has to be used, and I will not go in details. For ex. Budhi aditya may not work, but Guru Chandal Yoga may work. regards, Bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@ ....> wrote: > > > They are considered to be conjunct because there are no cement or Steel > partitions in the sky between the 12 Raashis. Except that Yogas may not > work in conjunctions of two planets in two Raashis- for ex. Budhi aditya > Yoga. > > regards/Bhaskar. > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Vandna Misra > vandana_mishra_ 91@ wrote: > > > > Respected maujiji, > > technically you cannot say conjunt,agree but dont they influence the > prospetive house where they are suppose to enter in little while.don't > they exert any impact over the next house..Isuppose that is what > manojji,keen to know. > > Regards. > > VANDNA MISHRA > > > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Manoj Kumar mouji99@ wrote: > > > > > > Manoj Kumar mouji99@ > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:13 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it will not be. A planet would technically be called conjunct when > they are within one " bhava " irrespective of the distance between them. > If they are in different bhavas and close degree wise, then they cannot > be called 'conjunct'. > > > > regards, > > > > Mouji > > > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Anita R ash.rsh55 > wrote: > > > > Anita R ash.rsh55 > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding > saadhe-saati > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:38 AM > > > > Hi, > > In this case, would it would be safe to consider any planets which are > within 30* of each other to be conjunct? > > Regs, Anita > > > > --- On Mon, 28/9/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> wrote: > > > > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > Monday, 28 September, 2009, 4:45 AM > > > > > > > > Dear Manoj ji, > > > > I agree with Vandana ji's dispersal of 45degrees orb to the Moons > natal > > degrees wrt Shani sadesathi. > > > > I also agree when you say two planets close to each other in adjacent > > signs are conjunct. > > > > regards/bhaskar. > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran > > <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Vandana Ji, > > > > > > Then in the same manner, why cannot we consider planets in adjacent > > signs, close to each other, as conjunct? For example, Planet A at 29 > deg > > Aries. Planet B at 1 degree Taurus. As per Rashi chart, they are not > > considered conjunct. But if we are going to use that theory in transit > > (that is if we are going to consider 180 degree Orb instead of 3 > signs), > > why cant we use the same in Natal astrology? > > > > > > Regards, > > > -Manoj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > Vandna Misra vandana_mishra_ 91@ > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:35:53 PM > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding > > saadhe-saati > > > > > > > > > An astute astrologer,Shri Katwe suggested the longitude of the moon > be > > taken as the midpoint of the SADESAATI,and that the sadesaati should > > deem to have commenced when saturn, in transit arrives at a longitude > > that is 45 degree less than the longitude of the moon.it would then > end > > when saturn in transit would cross the longitude that is 45 degree > more > > than the longitude of the moon.Shri K.N. Rao SIR has mentioned this > > theory many times in his writings. > > > Vandana Mishra > > > > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com> > > > >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding > saadhe-saati > > > >ancient_indian_ astrology > > > >Sunday, September 27, 2009, 5:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Very simply it is the transit of Saturn over natal moon and it is > > said to > > > >start when Saturn is in 12th from moon and ends when Saturn crosses > > the 2nd > > > >house from moon, the 7 and a half years in 3 signs for a nativity. > > > >Hope this helps. > > > > > > > >2009/9/27 cvs_45 cvs_45 (AT) (DOT) co.in> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> is the 7 1/2 period of saturn to be reckoned from the birth-sign > or > > > >> moon-sign or from both? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Dear Sirs, In which Chapters and shlokas of these texts is it mentioned, that they have to be in same sign mandatorily, to be called as conjuct, and cannot be called as conjunct though degree wise near, but in adjacent signs ? regards/Bhaskar. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote:>> It would indeed be amavasya birth. But Moon and Sun wont be called conjunct. Conjuction have different meanings and birth on an amavasya day have different meaning. Kindly go through the relevant chapters in Jataka Bharanam and Maansaagri respectively.> > regards,> > Mouji> > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote:> > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:54 PM> > > > > > > > All interested members may please check this out -> > Date of birth, 16th December 2009 TOB 15.40> Place of Birth, jaipur.> > The child is yet to be born on above date.> > In the chart of this yet to be born Child.> > The Moon is in 29 degrees Scorpio> The Sun is in 0.41 degrees Sagittarius> > Would we in our right senses deny the above Conjunction> thereby denying amavasya Birth to the Child ? Would one> not write Birth on Amavasya in his janma Kundli ?> > In my earlier mail I had mentioned about Yogas not working.> Here too common sense has to be used, and I will not go> in details. For ex. Budhi aditya may not work, but Guru> Chandal Yoga may work.> > regards,> Bhaskar. > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote:> >> >> > They are considered to be conjunct because there are no cement or Steel> > partitions in the sky between the 12 Raashis. Except that Yogas may not> > work in conjunctions of two planets in two Raashis- for ex. Budhi aditya> > Yoga.> >> > regards/Bhaskar.> >> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Vandna Misra> > vandana_mishra_ 91@ wrote:> > >> > > Respected maujiji,> > > technically you cannot say conjunt,agree but dont they influence the> > prospetive house where they are suppose to enter in little while.don't> > they exert any impact over the next house..Isuppose that is what> > manojji,keen to know.> > > Regards.> > > VANDNA MISHRA> > >> > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Manoj Kumar mouji99@ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Manoj Kumar mouji99@> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:13 AM> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > No it will not be. A planet would technically be called conjunct when> > they are within one "bhava" irrespective of the distance between them.> > If they are in different bhavas and close degree wise, then they cannot> > be called 'conjunct'.> > >> > > regards,> > >> > > Mouji> > >> > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Anita R ash.rsh55 > wrote:> > >> > > Anita R ash.rsh55 >> > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > saadhe-saati> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:38 AM> > >> > > Hi,> > > In this case, would it would be safe to consider any planets which are> > within 30* of each other to be conjunct?> > > Regs, Anita> > >> > > --- On Mon, 28/9/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> wrote:> > >> > > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in>> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Monday, 28 September, 2009, 4:45 AM> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Manoj ji,> > >> > > I agree with Vandana ji's dispersal of 45degrees orb to the Moons> > natal> > > degrees wrt Shani sadesathi.> > >> > > I also agree when you say two planets close to each other in adjacent> > > signs are conjunct.> > >> > > regards/bhaskar.> > >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran> > > <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Vandana Ji,> > > >> > > > Then in the same manner, why cannot we consider planets in adjacent> > > signs, close to each other, as conjunct? For example, Planet A at 29> > deg> > > Aries. Planet B at 1 degree Taurus. As per Rashi chart, they are not> > > considered conjunct. But if we are going to use that theory in transit> > > (that is if we are going to consider 180 degree Orb instead of 3> > signs),> > > why cant we use the same in Natal astrology?> > > >> > > > Regards,> > > > -Manoj> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __> > > > Vandna Misra vandana_mishra_ 91@> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:35:53 PM> > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > > saadhe-saati> > > >> > > >> > > > An astute astrologer,Shri Katwe suggested the longitude of the moon> > be> > > taken as the midpoint of the SADESAATI,and that the sadesaati should> > > deem to have commenced when saturn, in transit arrives at a longitude> > > that is 45 degree less than the longitude of the moon.it would then> > end> > > when saturn in transit would cross the longitude that is 45 degree> > more> > > than the longitude of the moon.Shri K.N. Rao SIR has mentioned this> > > theory many times in his writings.> > > > Vandana Mishra> > > >> > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com> wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > >neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com>> > > > >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > saadhe-saati> > > > >ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > >Sunday, September 27, 2009, 5:25 PM> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >Very simply it is the transit of Saturn over natal moon and it is> > > said to> > > > >start when Saturn is in 12th from moon and ends when Saturn crosses> > > the 2nd> > > > >house from moon, the 7 and a half years in 3 signs for a nativity.> > > > >Hope this helps.> > > > >> > > > >2009/9/27 cvs_45 cvs_45 (AT) (DOT) co.in>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> is the 7 1/2 period of saturn to be reckoned from the birth-sign> > or> > > > >> moon-sign or from both?> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now!> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 What is the definition of Amavasya ? Is it translated in degrees or just Sun and Moon in one sign is known as Amavasya ? If it is translated in degrees and the distance of degrees between these two planets are near, then is it not known as conjunct ? THEREFORE IS CONJUNCTION OF SUN AND MOON AMAVASYA, OR NOT ? AND IS OPPOSITION OF SUN AND MOON POORNIMA OR NOT ? regards/Bhaskar. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > It would indeed be amavasya birth. But Moon and Sun wont be called conjunct. Conjuction have different meanings and birth on an amavasya day have different meaning. Kindly go through the relevant chapters in Jataka Bharanam and Maansaagri respectively. > > regards, > > Mouji > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:54 PM > All interested members may please check this out - > > Date of birth, 16th December 2009 TOB 15.40 > Place of Birth, jaipur. > > The child is yet to be born on above date. > > In the chart of this yet to be born Child. > > The Moon is in 29 degrees Scorpio > The Sun is in 0.41 degrees Sagittarius > > Would we in our right senses deny the above Conjunction > thereby denying amavasya Birth to the Child ? Would one > not write Birth on Amavasya in his janma Kundli ? > > In my earlier mail I had mentioned about Yogas not working. > Here too common sense has to be used, and I will not go > in details. For ex. Budhi aditya may not work, but Guru > Chandal Yoga may work. > > regards, > Bhaskar. > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > They are considered to be conjunct because there are no cement or Steel > > partitions in the sky between the 12 Raashis. Except that Yogas may not > > work in conjunctions of two planets in two Raashis- for ex. Budhi aditya > > Yoga. > > > > regards/Bhaskar. > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Vandna Misra > > vandana_mishra_ 91@ wrote: > > > > > > Respected maujiji, > > > technically you cannot say conjunt,agree but dont they influence the > > prospetive house where they are suppose to enter in little while.don't > > they exert any impact over the next house..Isuppose that is what > > manojji,keen to know. > > > Regards. > > > VANDNA MISHRA > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Manoj Kumar mouji99@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Manoj Kumar mouji99@ > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:13 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it will not be. A planet would technically be called conjunct when > > they are within one " bhava " irrespective of the distance between them. > > If they are in different bhavas and close degree wise, then they cannot > > be called 'conjunct'. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Mouji > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Anita R ash.rsh55 > wrote: > > > > > > Anita R ash.rsh55 > > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding > > saadhe-saati > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:38 AM > > > > > > Hi, > > > In this case, would it would be safe to consider any planets which are > > within 30* of each other to be conjunct? > > > Regs, Anita > > > > > > --- On Mon, 28/9/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> wrote: > > > > > > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > Monday, 28 September, 2009, 4:45 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Manoj ji, > > > > > > I agree with Vandana ji's dispersal of 45degrees orb to the Moons > > natal > > > degrees wrt Shani sadesathi. > > > > > > I also agree when you say two planets close to each other in adjacent > > > signs are conjunct. > > > > > > regards/bhaskar. > > > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran > > > <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Vandana Ji, > > > > > > > > Then in the same manner, why cannot we consider planets in adjacent > > > signs, close to each other, as conjunct? For example, Planet A at 29 > > deg > > > Aries. Planet B at 1 degree Taurus. As per Rashi chart, they are not > > > considered conjunct. But if we are going to use that theory in transit > > > (that is if we are going to consider 180 degree Orb instead of 3 > > signs), > > > why cant we use the same in Natal astrology? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -Manoj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > Vandna Misra vandana_mishra_ 91@ > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:35:53 PM > > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding > > > saadhe-saati > > > > > > > > > > > > An astute astrologer,Shri Katwe suggested the longitude of the moon > > be > > > taken as the midpoint of the SADESAATI,and that the sadesaati should > > > deem to have commenced when saturn, in transit arrives at a longitude > > > that is 45 degree less than the longitude of the moon.it would then > > end > > > when saturn in transit would cross the longitude that is 45 degree > > more > > > than the longitude of the moon.Shri K.N. Rao SIR has mentioned this > > > theory many times in his writings. > > > > Vandana Mishra > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com> > > > > >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding > > saadhe-saati > > > > >ancient_indian_ astrology > > > > >Sunday, September 27, 2009, 5:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Very simply it is the transit of Saturn over natal moon and it is > > > said to > > > > >start when Saturn is in 12th from moon and ends when Saturn crosses > > > the 2nd > > > > >house from moon, the 7 and a half years in 3 signs for a nativity. > > > > >Hope this helps. > > > > > > > > > >2009/9/27 cvs_45 cvs_45 (AT) (DOT) co.in> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> is the 7 1/2 period of saturn to be reckoned from the birth-sign > > or > > > > >> moon-sign or from both? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now! > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Let me clear some points before this thread creates factions. In Vedic astrology, conjunction is known to be in a house, is what I agree in. It is to be understood as conjunct even if two planets are at difference of any degrees but should be in same house. In Bhava chalit, chart such positions may change. In KP Astrology, again if a Planet is in a particular Bhava (Cusp) it is understood to be under influence of Lord of that Cusp even if at the last degree of the ending of the Cusp. This is like India and pakistan boundary.A man within boundary of India is an Indian, though standing at edge of indian boundary. Vice versa on other side of Pakistan boundary. But dont you think some sort of magnetism is always there within the boundaries which calls for attention when two army men (Planets) are standing very near to the boundaries. Within countries there is als a No mans land. But within the sky there is no such area. Thus if one army man fires a shot on this side of the country, immediately the other side army man will also retaliate, due to influence on either sides being close to each other. I agree that if we are talking about Vedic astrology then conjunctions carries a meaning without degrees. Yet please wait for a 10 days time. I will still produce relevant shlokas from these texts to explain that Orbs are certainly given for each planet. Being stationed at jaipur i do not have my Books with me now. When i reach Bombay i will cite these. In the meanwhile let me mention again, that we are not here to argue upon the exact definition of "Conjunctions', but my aim was to delve upon the influence of one planet over another if within close degree of orbs. best wishes, Bhaskar. , "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:>> > What is the definition of Amavasya ? Is it translated in degrees or just> Sun and Moon in one sign is known as Amavasya ? If it is translated in> degrees and the distance of degrees between these two planets are near,> then is it not known as conjunct ? THEREFORE IS CONJUNCTION OF SUN AND> MOON AMAVASYA, OR NOT ? AND IS OPPOSITION OF SUN AND MOON POORNIMA OR> NOT ?> > regards/Bhaskar.> > > , Manoj Kumar> mouji99@ wrote:> >> > It would indeed be amavasya birth. But Moon and Sun wont be called> conjunct. Conjuction have different meanings and birth on an amavasya> day have different meaning. Kindly go through the relevant chapters in> Jataka Bharanam and Maansaagri respectively.> >> > regards,> >> > Mouji> >> > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> >> >> > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@> > Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:54 PM> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > All interested members may please check this out -> >> > Date of birth, 16th December 2009 TOB 15.40> > Place of Birth, jaipur.> >> > The child is yet to be born on above date.> >> > In the chart of this yet to be born Child.> >> > The Moon is in 29 degrees Scorpio> > The Sun is in 0.41 degrees Sagittarius> >> > Would we in our right senses deny the above Conjunction> > thereby denying amavasya Birth to the Child ? Would one> > not write Birth on Amavasya in his janma Kundli ?> >> > In my earlier mail I had mentioned about Yogas not working.> > Here too common sense has to be used, and I will not go> > in details. For ex. Budhi aditya may not work, but Guru> > Chandal Yoga may work.> >> > regards,> > Bhaskar.> >> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote:> > >> > >> > > They are considered to be conjunct because there are no cement or> Steel> > > partitions in the sky between the 12 Raashis. Except that Yogas may> not> > > work in conjunctions of two planets in two Raashis- for ex. Budhi> aditya> > > Yoga.> > >> > > regards/Bhaskar.> > >> > >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Vandna Misra> > > vandana_mishra_ 91@ wrote:> > > >> > > > Respected maujiji,> > > > technically you cannot say conjunt,agree but dont they influence> the> > > prospetive house where they are suppose to enter in little> while.don't> > > they exert any impact over the next house..Isuppose that is what> > > manojji,keen to know.> > > > Regards.> > > > VANDNA MISHRA> > > >> > > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Manoj Kumar mouji99@ wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Manoj Kumar mouji99@> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> saadhe-saati> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:13 AM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > No it will not be. A planet would technically be called conjunct> when> > > they are within one "bhava" irrespective of the distance between> them.> > > If they are in different bhavas and close degree wise, then they> cannot> > > be called 'conjunct'.> > > >> > > > regards,> > > >> > > > Mouji> > > >> > > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Anita R ash.rsh55 > wrote:> > > >> > > > Anita R ash.rsh55 >> > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > > saadhe-saati> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:38 AM> > > >> > > > Hi,> > > > In this case, would it would be safe to consider any planets which> are> > > within 30* of each other to be conjunct?> > > > Regs, Anita> > > >> > > > --- On Mon, 28/9/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in>> wrote:> > > >> > > > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in>> > > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> saadhe-saati> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Monday, 28 September, 2009, 4:45 AM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Manoj ji,> > > >> > > > I agree with Vandana ji's dispersal of 45degrees orb to the Moons> > > natal> > > > degrees wrt Shani sadesathi.> > > >> > > > I also agree when you say two planets close to each other in> adjacent> > > > signs are conjunct.> > > >> > > > regards/bhaskar.> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran> > > > <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Vandana Ji,> > > > >> > > > > Then in the same manner, why cannot we consider planets in> adjacent> > > > signs, close to each other, as conjunct? For example, Planet A at> 29> > > deg> > > > Aries. Planet B at 1 degree Taurus. As per Rashi chart, they are> not> > > > considered conjunct. But if we are going to use that theory in> transit> > > > (that is if we are going to consider 180 degree Orb instead of 3> > > signs),> > > > why cant we use the same in Natal astrology?> > > > >> > > > > Regards,> > > > > -Manoj> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __> > > > > Vandna Misra vandana_mishra_ 91@> > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:35:53 PM> > > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > > > saadhe-saati> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > An astute astrologer,Shri Katwe suggested the longitude of the> moon> > > be> > > > taken as the midpoint of the SADESAATI,and that the sadesaati> should> > > > deem to have commenced when saturn, in transit arrives at a> longitude> > > > that is 45 degree less than the longitude of the moon.it would> then> > > end> > > > when saturn in transit would cross the longitude that is 45 degree> > > more> > > > than the longitude of the moon.Shri K.N. Rao SIR has mentioned> this> > > > theory many times in his writings.> > > > > Vandana Mishra> > > > >> > > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com>> wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com>> > > > > >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > > saadhe-saati> > > > > >ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > > >Sunday, September 27, 2009, 5:25 PM> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >Very simply it is the transit of Saturn over natal moon and it> is> > > > said to> > > > > >start when Saturn is in 12th from moon and ends when Saturn> crosses> > > > the 2nd> > > > > >house from moon, the 7 and a half years in 3 signs for a> nativity.> > > > > >Hope this helps.> > > > > >> > > > > >2009/9/27 cvs_45 cvs_45 (AT) (DOT) co.in>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> is the 7 1/2 period of saturn to be reckoned from the> birth-sign> > > or> > > > > >> moon-sign or from both?> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now!> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Dear Mouji ji and all,You are absolutely right, the concept of tithi is sign\house independent and is based on 12 degree and its multiple distance separation.Whenever sun and moon less than 12 degree (eg 11.99 degree) it is Amavasya irrespectively of house\sign placement. The waning and waxing of moon is seen to judge the strength of moon besides other factors.Similarly conjunction of planets (excluding moon) with sun comes under the principle of 'combustion' again the importance of placement in house\sign is very less.The meaning of conjunction changes with the reference of system we undertake.1)For eg we use conjunction of planets in divisional charts but in real sky this conjunction may not appear.2)In various Nadis, planetary conjunction are used with respect to directional position of sign. Like planets in Mesha, Simha, Dhanu are considered in eastern direction and all are considered as yuti.The result are based on karaktatwa of planets which are conjunct together in same direction.3)In Tajik, Rasmis (rays) of planet is widely used to see the planets in conjunction.4)In Natal chart we can use nakshatra pada principle in planetary conjunction as i have explained in earlier post.5) When planets conjunct in last degrees in sign with first degrees in adjacent sign (eg .mars in 0.8 degree in aries and jupiter in 29.5 degreein pisces) they will exert influences on each other. But these both planets will be either in Mrithu Avastha or Bal Avastha and they will fail to give their results due to weak strength atleast jointly (this is my personal opinion).6)In KP as far i know from the writings of Tin Win (a KP astrologer):a)Old KP : Conjunction in the same rasi sign and Hindu aspect without orb are used.b)In four step method : The planets in conjunction or aspecting within the orb of 3° 20´ (extendable to 5° esp. for fast moving planets, if needed)Thankyou,Best Wishes,Vijay GoelJaipur. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote:>> It would indeed be amavasya birth. But Moon and Sun wont be called conjunct. Conjuction have different meanings and birth on an amavasya day have different meaning. Kindly go through the relevant chapters in Jataka Bharanam and Maansaagri respectively.> > regards,> > Mouji> > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote:> > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:54 PM> > > > > > > > All interested members may please check this out -> > Date of birth, 16th December 2009 TOB 15.40> Place of Birth, jaipur.> > The child is yet to be born on above date.> > In the chart of this yet to be born Child.> > The Moon is in 29 degrees Scorpio> The Sun is in 0.41 degrees Sagittarius> > Would we in our right senses deny the above Conjunction> thereby denying amavasya Birth to the Child ? Would one> not write Birth on Amavasya in his janma Kundli ?> > In my earlier mail I had mentioned about Yogas not working.> Here too common sense has to be used, and I will not go> in details. For ex. Budhi aditya may not work, but Guru> Chandal Yoga may work.> > regards,> Bhaskar. > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote:> >> >> > They are considered to be conjunct because there are no cement or Steel> > partitions in the sky between the 12 Raashis. Except that Yogas may not> > work in conjunctions of two planets in two Raashis- for ex. Budhi aditya> > Yoga.> >> > regards/Bhaskar.> >> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Vandna Misra> > vandana_mishra_ 91@ wrote:> > >> > > Respected maujiji,> > > technically you cannot say conjunt,agree but dont they influence the> > prospetive house where they are suppose to enter in little while.don't> > they exert any impact over the next house..Isuppose that is what> > manojji,keen to know.> > > Regards.> > > VANDNA MISHRA> > >> > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Manoj Kumar mouji99@ wrote:> > >> > >> > > Manoj Kumar mouji99@> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:13 AM> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > No it will not be. A planet would technically be called conjunct when> > they are within one "bhava" irrespective of the distance between them.> > If they are in different bhavas and close degree wise, then they cannot> > be called 'conjunct'.> > >> > > regards,> > >> > > Mouji> > >> > > --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Anita R ash.rsh55 > wrote:> > >> > > Anita R ash.rsh55 >> > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > saadhe-saati> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:38 AM> > >> > > Hi,> > > In this case, would it would be safe to consider any planets which are> > within 30* of each other to be conjunct?> > > Regs, Anita> > >> > > --- On Mon, 28/9/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> wrote:> > >> > > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in>> > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding saadhe-saati> > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > Monday, 28 September, 2009, 4:45 AM> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Manoj ji,> > >> > > I agree with Vandana ji's dispersal of 45degrees orb to the Moons> > natal> > > degrees wrt Shani sadesathi.> > >> > > I also agree when you say two planets close to each other in adjacent> > > signs are conjunct.> > >> > > regards/bhaskar.> > >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Chandran> > > <chandran_manoj@ ...> wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Vandana Ji,> > > >> > > > Then in the same manner, why cannot we consider planets in adjacent> > > signs, close to each other, as conjunct? For example, Planet A at 29> > deg> > > Aries. Planet B at 1 degree Taurus. As per Rashi chart, they are not> > > considered conjunct. But if we are going to use that theory in transit> > > (that is if we are going to consider 180 degree Orb instead of 3> > signs),> > > why cant we use the same in Natal astrology?> > > >> > > > Regards,> > > > -Manoj> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ____________ _________ _________ __> > > > Vandna Misra vandana_mishra_ 91@> > > > ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:35:53 PM> > > > Re: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > > saadhe-saati> > > >> > > >> > > > An astute astrologer,Shri Katwe suggested the longitude of the moon> > be> > > taken as the midpoint of the SADESAATI,and that the sadesaati should> > > deem to have commenced when saturn, in transit arrives at a longitude> > > that is 45 degree less than the longitude of the moon.it would then> > end> > > when saturn in transit would cross the longitude that is 45 degree> > more> > > than the longitude of the moon.Shri K.N. Rao SIR has mentioned this> > > theory many times in his writings.> > > > Vandana Mishra> > > >> > > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com> wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > >neelam gupta <neelamgupta07@ gmail.com>> > > > >[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: doubt regarding> > saadhe-saati> > > > >ancient_indian_ astrology> > > > >Sunday, September 27, 2009, 5:25 PM> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >Very simply it is the transit of Saturn over natal moon and it is> > > said to> > > > >start when Saturn is in 12th from moon and ends when Saturn crosses> > > the 2nd> > > > >house from moon, the 7 and a half years in 3 signs for a nativity.> > > > >Hope this helps.> > > > >> > > > >2009/9/27 cvs_45 cvs_45 (AT) (DOT) co.in>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> is the 7 1/2 period of saturn to be reckoned from the birth-sign> > or> > > > >> moon-sign or from both?> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now!> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction. No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is a Tajik concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Can we be mixing two systems? Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas? Will someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta and mundane astrology discussed in Vedas. regards, Mouji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 This is foolish talk and simply twisting a good discussion to something irrelevant. I was talking about influence between two planets in close degrees but in adjacent signs, and instead of replying what I asked you , you are talking totally tangent and wanting to call planets influencing each other in any part of the Horoscope as conjunct. No use wasting time in discussing this..... You have not read the books properly. I will prove you that the orbs concept is a traditional concept. If you search these groups you may find some of my discussions on the same, if you are really interested, and if simply want to negate matters with soundless and mindless arguments, then no use. Bhaskar. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction. No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is a Tajik concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Can we be mixing two systems? > > Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas? Will someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta and mundane astrology discussed in Vedas. > > regards, > > Mouji > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Mr. Bhaskar, Foolish talks or irrelvant talks. Just quote any book which says that planets in two adjacent houses can be called conjunt planets. Simple. Matter ends there. Dont go into things like, whose word is final. regards, Mouji --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: chart of this yet to be born Child. Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 10:59 AM This is foolish talk and simply twisting a good discussion to something irrelevant. I was talking about influence between two planets in close degrees but in adjacent signs, and instead of replying what I asked you , you are talking totally tangent and wanting to call planets influencing each other in any part of the Horoscope as conjunct. No use wasting time in discussing this..... You have not read the books properly. I will prove you that the orbs concept is a traditional concept. If you search these groups you may find some of my discussions on the same, if you are really interested, and if simply want to negate matters with soundless and mindless arguments, then no use. Bhaskar. ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar <mouji99 > wrote: > > For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction. No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is a Tajik concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Can we be mixing two systems? > > Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas? Will someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta and mundane astrology discussed in Vedas. > > regards, > > Mouji > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Please answer in which book is this written that " they cannot be called as conjunct " . Please answer Amavasya is based on conjunction of the Sun or Moon or not ? Please establish that in no text there is mention of orbs for planets . Please ask another member who is unnecessarily taking your side to explain whether tithi is calculated on basis of planetary degrees or not ? None of You can negate the above. there is no question of saying the final word or not. I am talking the truth. You are simpley trying to remove little skin from the hair " Baal ki khaal nikaalna " . I am trying to guge from the members whether a planet in last degrees of a sign and another planet in adjacent sign on the first degrees, can be called conjunct or not, and you come up with funny proclamations. If You wish to talk of texts then too I can prove that planets have been given orbs of influence. If You talk on basis of experience then , we all have our respective experiences, and I just asked you and requested for comments of that Amavasya example but instead of replying whether it was Amavasya birth or not, you are steering the thread to absurd areas. If in the example of Amavasya birth, you consider the birth as amavasya then you have to mandatorily consider the Sun and Moon as conjunct though in adjacent signs. Please negate this with sound reasoning or else, be silent. Bhaskar. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > Mr. Bhaskar, > > Foolish talks or irrelvant talks. Just quote any book which says that planets in two adjacent houses can be called conjunt planets. Simple. > > Matter ends there. Dont go into things like, whose word is final. > > regards, > > Mouji > --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Re: chart of this yet to be born Child. > > Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 10:59 AM > > > This is foolish talk and simply twisting a good discussion to something > irrelevant. > > I was talking about influence between two planets in close degrees but > in adjacent signs, and instead of replying what I asked you , you are > talking totally tangent and wanting to call planets influencing each > other in any part of the Horoscope as conjunct. > > No use wasting time in discussing this..... > > You have not read the books properly. I will prove you that the orbs > concept is a traditional concept. If you search these groups you may > find some of my discussions on the same, if you are really interested, > and if simply want to negate matters with soundless and mindless > arguments, then no use. > > Bhaskar. > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar > mouji99@ > wrote: > > > > For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with > other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction. > No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the > horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it > conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is a Tajik > concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Can we > be mixing two systems? > > > > Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas? Will > someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta and mundane > astrology discussed in Vedas. > > > > regards, > > > > Mouji > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 There is a difference in preaching and practising always. Please let me know in the example chart of a yet to born child I gave of, whether you would call the planets as conjunct or not, though in adjacent signs ? If not then would you negate the Amavsya birth and what tithi would you give then to that day ? Please also do not forget before answering me that tithi is calculated on basis of degrees. regards/Bhaskar. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > Mr. Bhaskar, > > Foolish talks or irrelvant talks. Just quote any book which says that planets in two adjacent houses can be called conjunt planets. Simple. > > Matter ends there. Dont go into things like, whose word is final. > > regards, > > Mouji > --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Re: chart of this yet to be born Child. > > Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 10:59 AM > > > This is foolish talk and simply twisting a good discussion to something > irrelevant. > > I was talking about influence between two planets in close degrees but > in adjacent signs, and instead of replying what I asked you , you are > talking totally tangent and wanting to call planets influencing each > other in any part of the Horoscope as conjunct. > > No use wasting time in discussing this..... > > You have not read the books properly. I will prove you that the orbs > concept is a traditional concept. If you search these groups you may > find some of my discussions on the same, if you are really interested, > and if simply want to negate matters with soundless and mindless > arguments, then no use. > > Bhaskar. > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar > mouji99@ > wrote: > > > > For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with > other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction. > No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the > horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it > conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is a Tajik > concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Can we > be mixing two systems? > > > > Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas? Will > someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta and mundane > astrology discussed in Vedas. > > > > regards, > > > > Mouji > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Question for a question. Great. If Sun and Moon are in same sign on Amavasya, they are conjunct. In adjacent signs on an amavasya, they are not conjunct. regards, Mouji--- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: chart of this yet to be born Child. Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 12:00 PM Please answer in which book is this written that "they cannot be calledas conjunct". Please answer Amavasya is based on conjunction of the Sunor Moon or not ? Please establish that in no text there is mention oforbs for planets . Please ask another member who isunnecessarily taking your side to explain whether tithi is calculated onbasis of planetary degrees or not ?None of You can negate the above. there is no question of saying thefinal word or not. I am talking the truth.You are simpley trying to remove little skin from the hair "Baal kikhaal nikaalna". I am trying to guge from the members whether a planetin last degrees of a sign and another planet in adjacent sign on thefirst degrees, can be called conjunct or not, and you come up with funnyproclamations.If You wish to talk of texts then too I can prove that planets have beengiven orbs of influence.If You talk on basis of experience then , we all have our respectiveexperiences, and I just asked you and requested for comments of thatAmavasya example but instead of replying whether it was Amavasya birthor not, you are steering the thread to absurd areas.If in the example of Amavasya birth, you consider the birth as amavasyathen you have to mandatorily consider the Sun and Moon as conjunctthough in adjacent signs. Please negate this with sound reasoning orelse, be silent.Bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar<mouji99 > wrote:>> Mr. Bhaskar,>> Foolish talks or irrelvant talks. Just quote any book which says thatplanets in two adjacent houses can be called conjunt planets. Simple.>> Matter ends there. Dont go into things like, whose word is final.>> regards,>> Mouji> --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote:>>> Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: chart of this yet to be bornChild.> ancient_indian_ astrology> Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 10:59 AM>>> This is foolish talk and simply twisting a good discussion tosomething> irrelevant.>> I was talking about influence between two planets in close degrees but> in adjacent signs, and instead of replying what I asked you , you are> talking totally tangent and wanting to call planets influencing each> other in any part of the Horoscope as conjunct.>> No use wasting time in discussing this.....>> You have not read the books properly. I will prove you that the orbs> concept is a traditional concept. If you search these groups you may> find some of my discussions on the same, if you are really interested,> and if simply want to negate matters with soundless and mindless> arguments, then no use.>> Bhaskar.>> ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar> mouji99@ > wrote:> >> > For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with> other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction.> No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the> horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it> conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is aTajik> concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Canwe> be mixing two systems?> >> > Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas?Will> someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta andmundane> astrology discussed in Vedas.> >> > regards,> >> > Mouji> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 One gentlemen member mentioned his personal view that planets in ending of sign and starting of signs become weak etc. I ask now whether in the example of a yet to be born child, would the effects of amavasya be too weak for that child and not effect him ??? I also ask whether this member knows that we have other forms of House divisions in india and what he calls as planets in end of the signs as weak may also be in certain (Indian)house division be considered as in the middle of the house., and this position then becomes stronger... anyways ..to each his own.. no issues. best wishes, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Dear Mauji sahab, I know you are a good scholar of jyotish, and I have just read little. I do not wish to argue with fine gentelmen and Astrologers like your goodselves. . Please know that I agree that " Conjunction " is within one sign and not " adjacent " . Please also overlook my impudence and audacity to discuss with a person of your stature. I was actually just looking for inputs on planets close to each other regardless of their being in adjacent signs. I know that you are knowledgable person. Kind regards, Bhaskar. , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote: > > Question for a question. Great. > > If Sun and Moon are in same sign on Amavasya, they are conjunct. In adjacent signs on an amavasya, they are not conjunct. > > regards, > > Mouji > > --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish > Re: chart of this yet to be born Child. > > Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 12:00 PM > Please answer in which book is this written that " they cannot be called > as conjunct " . Please answer Amavasya is based on conjunction of the Sun > or Moon or not ? Please establish that in no text there is mention of > orbs for planets . Please ask another member who is > unnecessarily taking your side to explain whether tithi is calculated on > basis of planetary degrees or not ? > > None of You can negate the above. there is no question of saying the > final word or not. I am talking the truth. > > You are simpley trying to remove little skin from the hair " Baal ki > khaal nikaalna " . I am trying to guge from the members whether a planet > in last degrees of a sign and another planet in adjacent sign on the > first degrees, can be called conjunct or not, and you come up with funny > proclamations. > > If You wish to talk of texts then too I can prove that planets have been > given orbs of influence. > > If You talk on basis of experience then , we all have our respective > experiences, and I just asked you and requested for comments of that > Amavasya example but instead of replying whether it was Amavasya birth > or not, you are steering the thread to absurd areas. > > If in the example of Amavasya birth, you consider the birth as amavasya > then you have to mandatorily consider the Sun and Moon as conjunct > though in adjacent signs. Please negate this with sound reasoning or > else, be silent. > > Bhaskar. > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar > mouji99@ > wrote: > > > > Mr. Bhaskar, > > > > Foolish talks or irrelvant talks. Just quote any book which says that > planets in two adjacent houses can be called conjunt planets. Simple. > > > > Matter ends there. Dont go into things like, whose word is final. > > > > regards, > > > > Mouji > > --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... wrote: > > > > > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish@ ... > > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: chart of this yet to be born > Child. > > ancient_indian_ astrology > > Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 10:59 AM > > > > > > This is foolish talk and simply twisting a good discussion to > something > > irrelevant. > > > > I was talking about influence between two planets in close degrees but > > in adjacent signs, and instead of replying what I asked you , you are > > talking totally tangent and wanting to call planets influencing each > > other in any part of the Horoscope as conjunct. > > > > No use wasting time in discussing this..... > > > > You have not read the books properly. I will prove you that the orbs > > concept is a traditional concept. If you search these groups you may > > find some of my discussions on the same, if you are really interested, > > and if simply want to negate matters with soundless and mindless > > arguments, then no use. > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar > > mouji99@ > wrote: > > > > > > For that matter every planet in the horoscope exerts relation with > > other planet in the horoscope. Shall we start calling it conjunction. > > No. But every planet in the horoscope influences other planet in the > > horoscope in some or the other. We will not start calling it > > conjunction. Orbs of planets where they influence each other is a > Tajik > > concept and not parashari concept, if my memory serves me right. Can > we > > be mixing two systems? > > > > > > Vedic astrology. Is astrology (phalit/predictive) given in Vedas? > Will > > someone knowledgeable in Vedas enlighten us or it is muhurta and > mundane > > astrology discussed in Vedas. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Mouji > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Dear Guru Nagarajan ji,//In Sanskrit, Thithi means reduction…//I am not a Sanskrit scholar, but I think may not be what tithi stands for.Tithi denotes the movement of new Moon, from that point of time when the longitudes of Sun and Moon are equal i.e. ‘amavasya’. Thus, tithi is the time taken by the Moon in increasing its distance from the Sun by 12 degrees. It is an addition and not a reduction in that sense. The word Tithi may be derived from the Sanskrit word Atithi which means arrival or a guest as we say in English. Each phase of moon, and so every lunar day was a new arrival which one was supposed to welcome and worship. We can have other opinions on this.RegardsNeelam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 dear mr.neelam ji, ///Thus, tithi is the time taken by the Moon in increasing its distance from the Sun by 12 degrees. It is an addition and not a reduction in that sense./// i accept ur word addition. in my last line i quote onething that is difference between moon and sun, not sun and moon. yes u r absolutely correct -1 plus -1 = -2 that addition is present here. yes the thithi calculation start with amavasya to poornima. amavasya minus, poornima zero, poornima to amavasya plus. with regards guru.nagarajan. --- On Wed, 30/9/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote: neelam gupta <neelamgupta07Re: Re: chart of this yet to be born Child. Date: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009, 10:40 AM Dear Guru Nagarajan ji,//In Sanskrit, Thithi means reduction…//I am not a Sanskrit scholar, but I think may not be what tithi stands for.Tithi denotes the movement of new Moon, from that point of time when the longitudes of Sun and Moon are equal i.e. ‘amavasya’. Thus, tithi is the time taken by the Moon in increasing its distance from the Sun by 12 degrees. It is an addition and not a reduction in that sense.The word Tithi may be derived from the Sanskrit word Atithi which means arrival or a guest as we say in English. Each phase of moon, and so every lunar day was a new arrival which one was supposed to welcome and worship.We can have other opinions on this.RegardsNeelam Connect more, do more and share more with India Mail. Learn more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 In Vedic Sanskrit, tithi means " The moon's placement " (ta= moon/lakshmi, thi=placement or " stability " ). It is additive, not reductive.Neelamji, it is the other way around. Athiti means " one who arrives without announcement " (a=not ; tithi= known day). So, if you show up at my doorstep today, you will be a celebrated atithi, for you did not announce your intention to come. If we invite guests or if they tell us they are coming, then they are technically not athithis. hari smaraNs,prANadAsa. On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:40 AM, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote: Dear Guru Nagarajan ji,//In Sanskrit, Thithi means reduction…//I am not a Sanskrit scholar, but I think may not be what tithi stands for. Tithi denotes the movement of new Moon, from that point of time when the longitudes of Sun and Moon are equal i.e. ‘amavasya’. Thus, tithi is the time taken by the Moon in increasing its distance from the Sun by 12 degrees. It is an addition and not a reduction in that sense. The word Tithi may be derived from the Sanskrit word Atithi which means arrival or a guest as we say in English. Each phase of moon, and so every lunar day was a new arrival which one was supposed to welcome and worship. We can have other opinions on this.RegardsNeelam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.