RE: Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/17/2003 11:56:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, frank_in_sandiego writes:

 

Hare Krishna

 

Dear Frank,

 

I think the following statement from Sarvartha Chintamani clarifies this. Here it is:

 

Chapter 40, Slk 0

* * *

The "Badhaka" (frustrative) planets are in the case of people with movable signs, the planets in the 11th house & the lord of the 11th house. For those having fixed signs as their Ascendants, the 9th house lord & the planets in the 9th house & for people having common signs as their Ascendant, the 7th house lord & the planets in the 7th house are Badhakas.

 

The planets, lord of the sign occupied by the "Kharesh" (22nd decanate) & Mandi are highly Badhakas (obstructive).

 

* * * End Quote

 

This clearly states the planets that qualify as badhakas. Now if Maandi or the Kharesh or any malefic planets influence these bhadakas, then the power for obstruction becomes even more problematic.

 

This is supported by Jartaka Parijata in the following:

 

"The Dasha period of a planet owning a (Badhasthana) as well as of the one associated therewith leads to disease, distress and other such evils."

 

Obviosly the more malefic the planet(s) that have the association, the more malefic the effect and the greater the evil.

 

BPHS tells us:

 

"If there is a malefic in the Bhava occupied by its lord or in Badhaka Bhava of that Rashi, there will be occasions of great sorrow, imprisonment, and diseases during the Dasha."

 

Now there is clear disagreement in the above with what you quoted from DR.M.L.GUPTA. The classics are very clear in this.

 

Regards,

Brendan

 

 

Dear learned sisyas and Gurus;

Badhaka plays an important role in ones chart. Sanjay has been kind

enough to write a paper on this ( July 03) and Visti has presented

this at the West Coast conference and is on CD for study.

 

That said, I have doubts; I ahve read and listened to the

instruction and continue my studies on this matter.

As I read additional information by DR.M.L.GUPTA he suggests the

following " The so called badhaka lord for a particular lagna

should only be treated as an actual badhaka, if it simultaneously be

the lord of the house tenanted by Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha (Lord

of 22nd drekkana from the lagna)". He continues;

" But according to sloka 48 of Adhyaya II in JATAKA PARIJATA, it is

stated that the 11th house, its owner and the planets posited in

11th house for moveable signs lagna, the 9th house, its lord and

planets in the 9th house for fixed signs Lagna, and the 7th house,

its lord and the planets in 7th house for the dual signs lagna

should only be treated as badhaka if the lord of the said house

simultaneously be the lord of the house tenanted by Mandi (Gulika)

or Karesha i.e. the lord of 22nd drekkana from the lagna"

 

His discussion is at http://www.starteller.com/estart11.html

 

That rider suggests a more focused way of looking at Badhaka and how

to apply the rules given by Sanjayji.

Can a Guru add clarity on this matter.

 

Regards,

Frank in San Diego

[Guest guest]

Dear Frank,

What Dr.. Gupta has said is correct. Lord of the 9th being Trinal lord can not be a Badhaka by virtue of owning 9th house alone in case of fixed signs. So other Badhaka lordship positions could also not be correct unless there are some over riders. Lord of 22nd Drekkana and being lord of house owned by Mandi would however give malfeasance to such a planet. Jataka Parijata position appears to be more logical.Most of astrologers, do treat the Lords of 11,9,7 alone, without any qualifications to such lords,as Badhaka for moveable, fixed and dual Ascendants, but personally I do not think this is the right position.

Hope this helps.

Chandrashekhar.

 

fls999999999 [frank_in_sandiego]Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:17 AMvarahamihira Subject: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateOM Gam Gajavakraye NamahDear learned sisyas and Gurus;Badhaka plays an important role in ones chart. Sanjay has been kind enough to write a paper on this ( July 03) and Visti has presented this at the West Coast conference and is on CD for study.That said, I have doubts; I ahve read and listened to the instruction and continue my studies on this matter.As I read additional information by DR.M.L.GUPTA he suggests the following " The so called badhaka lord for a particular lagna should only be treated as an actual badhaka, if it simultaneously be the lord of the house tenanted by Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha (Lord of 22nd drekkana from the lagna)". He continues; " But according to sloka 48 of Adhyaya II in JATAKA PARIJATA, it is stated that the 11th house, its owner and the planets posited in 11th house for moveable signs lagna, the 9th house, its lord and planets in the 9th house for fixed signs Lagna, and the 7th house, its lord and the planets in 7th house for the dual signs lagna should only be treated as badhaka if the lord of the said house simultaneously be the lord of the house tenanted by Mandi (Gulika) or Karesha i.e. the lord of 22nd drekkana from the lagna"His discussion is at http://www.starteller.com/estart11.html That rider suggests a more focused way of looking at Badhaka and how to apply the rules given by Sanjayji.Can a Guru add clarity on this matter.Regards,Frank in San Diego|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/18/2003 3:57:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:

Jaya Jagannatha

 

Dear Chandrashekar,

 

I have a very difficult time accepting this viewpoint. The affliction by Maandi or Kharesha is simply telling us that the more affliction to the badhak, the worse the results. The implication here is that affliction causes the problem to be more severe. Are we to ignore Gulika, the 8th lord, the 64th Navamsa and the natural and functional malefics? No, i don't think so.

 

As in all matters astrological, the "quantity" of maleficience is the factor to be judged.

 

How does the badhak manifest for each of those lagnas in the first place? How does it obstruct the native?

 

For fixed signs it has to do with Lord Vishnu... Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. They already know it all and are stubborn about this fact. If their is affliction to the badhak, then the attitude is even more problematic. They may be God fearing and spiritual souls but they go their own path, according to their own beliefs, and do not easily surrender to God or Guru. Or they intrepret their Guru's path according to their own viewpoint.

 

Other lagnas can be seen in a similar way but in the different/appropriate areas of life for the movable or dual signs.

 

Regards,

Brendan

 

Dear Frank,

What Dr.. Gupta has said is correct. Lord of the 9th being Trinal lord can not be a Badhaka by virtue of owning 9th house alone in case of fixed signs. So other Badhaka lordship positions could also not be correct unless there are some over riders. Lord of 22nd Drekkana and being lord of house owned by Mandi would however give malfeasance to such a planet. Jataka Parijata position appears to be more logical.Most of astrologers, do treat the Lords of 11,9,7 alone, without any qualifications to such lords,as Badhaka for moveable, fixed and dual Ascendants, but personally I do not think this is the right position.

Hope this helps.

Chandrashekhar.

 

-----Original Message

[Guest guest]

Dear Brendan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.

This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).

I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:50 AMvarahamihira ; parasari_jyotish Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/18/2003 3:57:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Jaya JagannathaDear Chandrashekar,I have a very difficult time accepting this viewpoint. The affliction by Maandi or Kharesha is simply telling us that the more affliction to the badhak, the worse the results. The implication here is that affliction causes the problem to be more severe. Are we to ignore Gulika, the 8th lord, the 64th Navamsa and the natural and functional malefics? No, i don't think so.As in all matters astrological, the "quantity" of maleficience is the factor to be judged.How does the badhak manifest for each of those lagnas in the first place? How does it obstruct the native? For fixed signs it has to do with Lord Vishnu... Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. They already know it all and are stubborn about this fact. If their is affliction to the badhak, then the attitude is even more problematic. They may be God fearing and spiritual souls but they go their own path, according to their own beliefs, and do not easily surrender to God or Guru. Or they intrepret their Guru's path according to their own viewpoint.Other lagnas can be seen in a similar way but in the different/appropriate areas of life for the movable or dual signs.Regards,Brendan

Dear Frank,What Dr.. Gupta has said is correct. Lord of the 9th being Trinal lord can not be a Badhaka by virtue of owning 9th house alone in case of fixed signs. So other Badhaka lordship positions could also not be correct unless there are some over riders. Lord of 22nd Drekkana and being lord of house owned by Mandi would however give malfeasance to such a planet. Jataka Parijata position appears to be more logical.Most of astrologers, do treat the Lords of 11,9,7 alone, without any qualifications to such lords,as Badhaka for moveable, fixed and dual Ascendants, but personally I do not think this is the right position.Hope this helps.Chandrashekhar.

-----Original Message|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:

 

Hare Rama Krishna

 

Dear Chandrashekar,

 

You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords.

 

Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.

 

Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.

 

You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.

 

In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.

 

All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.

 

Regards,

Brendan

 

 

Dear Brendan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.

This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).

I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

[Guest guest]

dear brendan ji & chandrashekhar ji,

coincidentally delhi sjc was also having the same discussion in their class simultaneously. we discussed ur viewpoints too.

chandrashekhar ji sounds very logical. but practically i every person in general comes across badhak problem. almost in every chart, either badhak /or 12from it or its dispositor generally recieves some eveil aspect . otherwise badhak's aspect on lagnesh is enough to cause ranthu kamas- the yoga for eveil eye. if its associated with lords of 6/8houses, then it may cause hanthu kamas & bali kamas.

i m sure there r many charts in which badhak is not dispositor of gulik , but still working.

otherwise ofcourse its malifiscence will increase as said by brendan ji.

the badhaka lesson which sanjay ji gave us has some examples in which badhakesh is not dispositor of gk/mandi, & gives bad results.

i also have a question to ask. though the karma equations cannot be quantifid or timed. we never know when & which of our sanchit karmas will become prarabdha..

from, prasna marga, one gets this impression that badhaka is something associated with kriya man karma , where as if its associated with natal chart that means its has to do with prarabdha too.

plz correct me if im wrong & clear this doubt

thanx

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.

This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).

I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:50 AMvarahamihira ; parasari_jyotish Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/18/2003 3:57:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Jaya JagannathaDear Chandrashekar,I have a very difficult time accepting this viewpoint. The affliction by Maandi or Kharesha is simply telling us that the more affliction to the badhak, the worse the results. The implication here is that affliction causes the problem to be more severe. Are we to ignore Gulika, the 8th lord, the 64th Navamsa and the natural and functional malefics? No, i don't think

so.As in all matters astrological, the "quantity" of maleficience is the factor to be judged.How does the badhak manifest for each of those lagnas in the first place? How does it obstruct the native? For fixed signs it has to do with Lord Vishnu... Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. They already know it all and are stubborn about this fact. If their is affliction to the badhak, then the attitude is even more problematic. They may be God fearing and spiritual souls but they go their own path, according to their own beliefs, and do not easily surrender to God or Guru. Or they intrepret their Guru's path according to their own viewpoint.Other lagnas can be seen in a similar way but in the different/appropriate areas of life for the movable or dual signs.Regards,Brendan

Dear Frank,What Dr.. Gupta has said is correct. Lord of the 9th being Trinal lord can not be a Badhaka by virtue of owning 9th house alone in case of fixed signs. So other Badhaka lordship positions could also not be correct unless there are some over riders. Lord of 22nd Drekkana and being lord of house owned by Mandi would however give malfeasance to such a planet. Jataka Parijata position appears to be more logical.Most of astrologers, do treat the Lords of 11,9,7 alone, without any qualifications to such lords,as Badhaka for moveable, fixed and

dual Ascendants, but personally I do not think this is the right position.Hope this helps.Chandrashekhar.

-----Original Message|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear Prashant,

I have already said that other might have different views. My own logic is straight forward.Laghu Parashari and Sushlokashataka the commentaries on Ududasha indicate whenever Lord of trine and quadrant make a sambandha, good yoga results and effects enhanced if it happens in a quadrant or Trine.No mention what so ever is made of exceptions being applicable to Badhaka or Badhaka Sthana. Now, since barring Chara Lagna the Badhakas own trine or a quadrant should not in case of Sthira or Dual Lagna results have been indicated to be inimical instead of beneficial ? Similarly if the premise of just being lord is given credence then for those with dual Lagna Panchmahapurusha yoga could not occur in 7th house even when Mercury or Jupiter occupy their own house. Shasha yoga could also not occur in 7th house for Aries ascendant as the planet giving yoga would be Badhakesh. This does not seem very logical to me. Parashara also indicates that Trine lords are always Shubha if not also trishadayapati.I have no problem with 11th lord as its malfeasance is established by virtue of being Trishadayapati.

As regards whether Badhaka works every time one must ascertain whether no other factor is giving the result being credited to operation of Badhaka, which I think is rarely attempted.

In so far as Karma and its phala are concerned, the Lord Krishna said that its Gati is difficult to understand for mere mortals. It is far too easy to allocate some happening or other to Prarabdha, when most of the time it is a result of Kriyaman Karma.

However as I said this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have a different opinion.

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Friday, November 21, 2003 6:29 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear brendan ji & chandrashekhar ji,

coincidentally delhi sjc was also having the same discussion in their class simultaneously. we discussed ur viewpoints too.

chandrashekhar ji sounds very logical. but practically i every person in general comes across badhak problem. almost in every chart, either badhak /or 12from it or its dispositor generally recieves some eveil aspect . otherwise badhak's aspect on lagnesh is enough to cause ranthu kamas- the yoga for eveil eye. if its associated with lords of 6/8houses, then it may cause hanthu kamas & bali kamas.

i m sure there r many charts in which badhak is not dispositor of gulik , but still working.

otherwise ofcourse its malifiscence will increase as said by brendan ji.

the badhaka lesson which sanjay ji gave us has some examples in which badhakesh is not dispositor of gk/mandi, & gives bad results.

i also have a question to ask. though the karma equations cannot be quantifid or timed. we never know when & which of our sanchit karmas will become prarabdha..

from, prasna marga, one gets this impression that badhaka is something associated with kriya man karma , where as if its associated with natal chart that means its has to do with prarabdha too.

plz correct me if im wrong & clear this doubt

thanx

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.

This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).

I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:50 AMvarahamihira ; parasari_jyotish Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/18/2003 3:57:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Jaya JagannathaDear Chandrashekar,I have a very difficult time accepting this viewpoint. The affliction by Maandi or Kharesha is simply telling us that the more affliction to the badhak, the worse the results. The implication here is that affliction causes the problem to be more severe. Are we to ignore Gulika, the 8th lord, the 64th Navamsa and the natural and functional malefics? No, i don't think so.As in all matters astrological, the "quantity" of maleficience is the factor to be judged.How does the badhak manifest for each of those lagnas in the first place? How does it obstruct the native? For fixed signs it has to do with Lord Vishnu... Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. They already know it all and are stubborn about this fact. If their is affliction to the badhak, then the attitude is even more problematic. They may be God fearing and spiritual souls but they go their own path, according to their own beliefs, and do not easily surrender to God or Guru. Or they intrepret their Guru's path according to their own viewpoint.Other lagnas can be seen in a similar way but in the different/appropriate areas of life for the movable or dual signs.Regards,Brendan

Dear Frank,What Dr.. Gupta has said is correct. Lord of the 9th being Trinal lord can not be a Badhaka by virtue of owning 9th house alone in case of fixed signs. So other Badhaka lordship positions could also not be correct unless there are some over riders. Lord of 22nd Drekkana and being lord of house owned by Mandi would however give malfeasance to such a planet. Jataka Parijata position appears to be more logical.Most of astrologers, do treat the Lords of 11,9,7 alone, without any qualifications to such lords,as Badhaka for moveable, fixed and dual Ascendants, but personally I do not think this is the right position.Hope this helps.Chandrashekhar.

-----Original Message|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

OM Gam Gajavakraye Hum...

 

Hello Brendan and Chandrashekar,

This discussion is very rewarding for learning. I must agree with

Brendan that more study is warranteed here as is more direction from

Sanjayji.

What still does not pass the common sense test for me is the viewing

of Badhaka in D1.

If this is " beyond the phyical " plane - why look to the D1 ?

As mentioned if we see more of the spiritual from D9 as we calcuate

Ishtadevata and others, why is not D9 or that matter D30 not used

for Badhaka? It affects our progress yet comes from areas unseen.

Your thoughts on this?

 

 

Frank in San Diego

varahamihira , Bpfeeley@A... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> boxdel writes:

>

> Hare Rama Krishna

>

> Dear Chandrashekar,

>

> You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each

chart and

> do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on

this topic

> and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt

the effect

> of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and

whether it

> is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the

planet and it

> placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka

is associated

> with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords.

>

> Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil

the

> results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and

Pisaca yoga in

> association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron

and the impact

> of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where

the native

> himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if

associated with

> the 10th house of karmas.

>

> Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes

that I have

> on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing

paper was

> written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it

the JHora

> calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for

these upagrahas.

>

> You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign

lagnas and

> what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance

for we really

> need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my

own

> understanding on this.

>

> In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my

Guru in my

> Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also

qualify as a

> stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional

for my life as a

> bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected

by Rahu and

> Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my

Guru in

> Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.

>

> All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.

>

> Regards,

> Brendan

>

>

> > Dear Brendan,

> > Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same?

Perhaps you

> > meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord

Krishna's

> > chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right,

Sthira Lagna.

> > Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily

accept God into

> > their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as,

suggested, by you, to

> > the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed,

Pope Alexander

> > VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri

Satya Sai

> > baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo)

Yoganand Paramhans

> > (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.

> > This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9

and 7th

> > house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only

qualification for a

> > planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is

necessary for

> > the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).

> > I could accept if the additional qualifications included being

or

> > conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you

suggest if some textual

> > support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership

of the houses

> > suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a

flat statement.

> > Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might

have their own

> > opinions.

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

[Guest guest]

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous

vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement

in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under

Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own

opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear Frank,

Baadhaka's applicability on a blanket basis itself being a question of debate amongst astrologers, why it should not hold true for D( or any other D Chart is a moot question. Anyway, in my opinion, all D Charts are to be read in conjunction with D! and therefore D-1 indication probably suffice.

Chandrashekhar.

 

fls999999999 [frank_in_sandiego]Sunday, November 23, 2003 3:46 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateOM Gam Gajavakraye Hum...Hello Brendan and Chandrashekar,This discussion is very rewarding for learning. I must agree with Brendan that more study is warranteed here as is more direction from Sanjayji. What still does not pass the common sense test for me is the viewing of Badhaka in D1.If this is "beyond the phyical" plane - why look to the D1 ?As mentioned if we see more of the spiritual from D9 as we calcuate Ishtadevata and others, why is not D9 or that matter D30 not used for Badhaka? It affects our progress yet comes from areas unseen.Your thoughts on this?Frank in San Diegovarahamihira , Bpfeeley@A... wrote:> In a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, > boxdel writes:> > Hare Rama Krishna> > Dear Chandrashekar,> > You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and > do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic > and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect > of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it > is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it > placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated > with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. > > Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the > results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in > association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact > of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native > himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with > the 10th house of karmas.> > Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have > on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was > written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora > calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.> > You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and > what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance for we really > need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own > understanding on this.> > In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my > Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a > stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a > bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and > Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in > Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.> > All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.> > Regards,> Brendan> > > > Dear Brendan,> > Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you > > meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's > > chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. > > Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into > > their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to > > the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander > > VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai > > baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans > > (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. > > This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th > > house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a > > planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for > > the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).> > I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or > > conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual > > support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses > > suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. > > Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own > > opinions.> > Regards,> > Chandrashekhar.> >|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear Prashant,

I too was referring to what has been stated by Acharyas. Jataka Parijata states categorically that Gulika is the synonym for Mandi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:09 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

dera chandrashekhar ji,

there is absolutely no controversy about it, that gulika & mandi are two points on an arc.

points of difference are

1) if there is a separate gulika kal

2) wehther mandi is lordless or lorded by saturn.(i beieve its upagraha of saturn as given in uttara kalmitra)

anyway, one thing we should keep in mind while doing phaladesh that we should analyse if there is any planet on that arc or not . for example if gulika is 17degree scorpio, & mandi is 29deg scorpio, that means arc stretches to 10deg saggi. now if there is any planet on the arc, its caught, its significations will suffer badly. suppose if mars is at 0degrees saggi, it will seem to be away from mandi, but no, its very much near to mid-point of the arc, so its afflicted.

regards

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

I too was referring to what has been stated by Acharyas. Jataka Parijata states categorically that Gulika is the synonym for Mandi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:09 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous

vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement

in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under

Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own

opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear frank,

Badhakesh or obstacle creating planet functions at

the first chakra or mooladhara, of physical existence,

within which lord ganesha (Vighneswara) sits in the

bindu of lam beeja along with brahma (the creator) and

other deities. This chakra tells all about the

physical existence and corresponds to the naisargika

(driven by nature/moola prakriti) existence of the

jeevatma, and u know the 9 naisargika karakas tell us

about the creation aspect for the same reason.

The badha/obstacle refers to the obstacle in the

aarohana/upward rise of kundalini shakti through the

sushumna nadi along the spinal cord. Kundalini sleeps

in the mooladhara chakra, being obstructed by the

" brahma granthi " (knot representing ones' moola

prakriti), till it is awakened by yogic practices and

the 3.5 kundali/knot is untied. Ganesha is prayed for

the same reason with the mantra which ends with Hum

beeja (used to awaken the kundalini shakti). Untill

this kundalini is awakened and the knot released,

there will be obstacles at the physical level of

existence for the person. If badhakesh is related to

AK then ofcourse, there is a lot of effort put in by

the person to free himself of his moola prakriti.

Note that the birth/creation itself, shows the

physical manifestation, and therefore every soul on

this earth has to clear this phase of existence

irrespective of how great it goes on to become. This

explains why the badhakesh of D-1 chart has any

importance whatsoever in other D-charts as well

because physical level of existence affects everything

about the person who has not yet risen above it. So

praying to vighneswara with the badhaka damana mantra

is very crucial for those aspiring to overcome that

" obstacles " part.

I wonder if the three different badhakeshas'

(kharesh, dispositor of mandi and badhakesh to lagna)

correspond to the three knots of kundalini, i.e.

corresponding to three gunas!!! I hope sanjay will

explain that for benefit of all.

BTW, sanjayP, ur point of badhakesh acting like

rahu because ketu opposes it etc. is not clear to me

though it sounds interesting.

regards,

nitish

--- fls999999999 <frank_in_sandiego wrote:

> OM Gam Gajavakraye Hum...

>

> Hello Brendan and Chandrashekar,

> This discussion is very rewarding for learning. I

> must agree with

> Brendan that more study is warranteed here as is

> more direction from

> Sanjayji.

> What still does not pass the common sense test for

> me is the viewing

> of Badhaka in D1.

> If this is " beyond the phyical " plane - why look to

> the D1 ?

> As mentioned if we see more of the spiritual from D9

> as we calcuate

> Ishtadevata and others, why is not D9 or that matter

> D30 not used

> for Badhaka? It affects our progress yet comes from

> areas unseen.

> Your thoughts on this?

>

>

> Frank in San Diego

> varahamihira , Bpfeeley@A...

> wrote:

> > In a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern

> Standard Time,

> > boxdel writes:

> >

> > Hare Rama Krishna

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekar,

> >

> > You bring up some very good points and again, we

> must look at each

> chart and

> > do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a

> few weeks ago on

> this topic

> > and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my

> last e-mail wrt

> the effect

> > of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on

> the placement and

> whether it

> > is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the

> aspects on the

> planet and it

> > placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on

> whether the badhaka

> is associated

> > with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th

> lords.

> >

> > Again, I really believe the greater the

> maleficience the more evil

> the

> > results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the

> Sarpa yoga and

> Pisaca yoga in

> > association with the badhak. It sound much like a

> witches cauldron

> and the impact

> > of evil spirits on the life of the native and in

> some cases where

> the native

> > himself can be used by such forces to do

> destructive work if

> associated with

> > the 10th house of karmas.

> >

> > Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search

> for some notes

> that I have

> > on that topic. Some regards them to be the same

> but a convincing

> paper was

> > written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As

> I understand it

> the JHora

> > calculations are based on that paper. That's what

> I use myself for

> these upagrahas.

> >

> > You make a great point with the list of charts

> with fixed sign

> lagnas and

> > what can I say. This is worth a good study under

> Sanjay guidance

> for we really

> > need to tease out this topic. I am far from being

> happy with my

> own

> > understanding on this.

> >

> > In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was

> very close to my

> Guru in my

> > Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind

> and I also

> qualify as a

> > stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely

> wonderful and devotional

> for my life as a

> > bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined

> Sani and aspected

> by Rahu and

> > Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In

> fact, I found my

> Guru in

> > Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to

> Karakamsa.

> >

> > All this needs more work and this is the way we do

> the work.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Brendan

> >

> >

> > > Dear Brendan,

> > > Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and

> Mandi not the same?

> Perhaps you

> > > meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of

> Sthira Lagnas, Lord

> Krishna's

> > > chart that is generally accepted shows, if I

> remember right,

> Sthira Lagna.

> > > Would you attribute the qualities of Such

> natives don't easily

> accept God into

> > > their lives or do so according to their own

> beliefs. as,

> suggested, by you, to

> > > the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to

> Prophet Mohammed,

> Pope Alexander

> > > VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius

> Rising), Shri

> Satya Sai

> > > baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo),

> Yes he Lama(Leo)

> Yoganand Paramhans

> > > (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.

>

> > > This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere

> owning of 11,9

> and 7th

> > > house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can

> not be the only

> qualification for a

> > > planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional

> malfeasance is

> necessary for

> > > the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).

> > > I could accept if the additional qualifications

> included being

> or

> > > conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th

> lord as you

> suggest if some textual

> > > support for it comes out. However accepting that

> mere ownership

> of the houses

> > > suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to

> me, a bit of a

> flat statement.

> > > Of course this is my personal opinion and other

> worthies might

> have their own

> > > opinions.

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

>

>

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

http://companion./

[Guest guest]

` nmae naray[ay,

om namo näräyaëäya|Dear Nitish Ji,

Thanks for this thought provoking message.

With Sri Hari Vaayu Naama Smarana,

Ramadas Rao.Nitish Arya <yeeahoo_99 wrote:

Dear frank, Badhakesh or obstacle creating planet functions atthe first chakra or mooladhara, of physical existence,within which lord ganesha (Vighneswara) sits in thebindu of lam beeja along with brahma (the creator) andother deities. This chakra tells all about thephysical existence and corresponds to the naisargika(driven by nature/moola prakriti) existence of thejeevatma, and u know the 9 naisargika karakas tell usabout the creation aspect for the same reason. The badha/obstacle refers to the obstacle in theaarohana/upward rise of kundalini shakti through thesushumna nadi along the spinal cord. Kundalini sleepsin the mooladhara chakra, being obstructed by the"brahma granthi" (knot representing ones' moolaprakriti), till it is awakened by yogic practices andthe 3.5 kundali/knot is

untied. Ganesha is prayed forthe same reason with the mantra which ends with Humbeeja (used to awaken the kundalini shakti). Untillthis kundalini is awakened and the knot released,there will be obstacles at the physical level ofexistence for the person. If badhakesh is related toAK then ofcourse, there is a lot of effort put in bythe person to free himself of his moola prakriti. Note that the birth/creation itself, shows thephysical manifestation, and therefore every soul onthis earth has to clear this phase of existenceirrespective of how great it goes on to become. Thisexplains why the badhakesh of D-1 chart has anyimportance whatsoever in other D-charts as wellbecause physical level of existence affects everythingabout the person who has not yet risen above it. Sopraying to vighneswara with the badhaka damana mantrais very crucial for those aspiring to overcome that"obstacles"

part. I wonder if the three different badhakeshas'(kharesh, dispositor of mandi and badhakesh to lagna)correspond to the three knots of kundalini, i.e.corresponding to three gunas!!! I hope sanjay willexplain that for benefit of all. BTW, sanjayP, ur point of badhakesh acting likerahu because ketu opposes it etc. is not clear to methough it sounds interesting.regards,nitish--- fls999999999 <frank_in_sandiego wrote:> OM Gam Gajavakraye Hum...> > Hello Brendan and Chandrashekar,> This discussion is very rewarding for learning. I> must agree with > Brendan that more study is warranteed here as is> more direction from > Sanjayji. > What still does not pass the common sense test for> me is the viewing > of Badhaka in D1.> If this is "beyond the phyical" plane - why look to> the D1 ?> As mentioned if we

see more of the spiritual from D9> as we calcuate > Ishtadevata and others, why is not D9 or that matter> D30 not used > for Badhaka? It affects our progress yet comes from> areas unseen.> Your thoughts on this?> > > Frank in San Diego> varahamihira , Bpfeeley@A...> wrote:> > In a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern> Standard Time, > > boxdel writes:> > > > Hare Rama Krishna> > > > Dear Chandrashekar,> > > > You bring up some very good points and again, we> must look at each > chart and > > do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a> few weeks ago on > this topic > > and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my> last e-mail wrt > the effect > > of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on> the

placement and > whether it > > is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the> aspects on the > planet and it > > placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on> whether the badhaka > is associated > > with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th> lords. > > > > Again, I really believe the greater the> maleficience the more evil > the > > results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the> Sarpa yoga and > Pisaca yoga in > > association with the badhak. It sound much like a> witches cauldron > and the impact > > of evil spirits on the life of the native and in> some cases where > the native > > himself can be used by such forces to do> destructive work if > associated with > > the 10th house of karmas.> > > > Gulika and Maandi are different and I will

search> for some notes > that I have > > on that topic. Some regards them to be the same> but a convincing > paper was > > written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As> I understand it > the JHora > > calculations are based on that paper. That's what> I use myself for > these upagrahas.> > > > You make a great point with the list of charts> with fixed sign > lagnas and > > what can I say. This is worth a good study under> Sanjay guidance > for we really > > need to tease out this topic. I am far from being> happy with my > own > > understanding on this.> > > > In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was> very close to my > Guru in my > > Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind> and I also > qualify as a > > stubborn soul,

but the dasa was extremely> wonderful and devotional > for my life as a > > bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined> Sani and aspected > by Rahu and > > Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In> fact, I found my > Guru in > > Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to> Karakamsa.> > > > All this needs more work and this is the way we do> the work.> > > > Regards,> > Brendan> > > > > > > Dear Brendan,> > > Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and> Mandi not the same? > Perhaps you > > > meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of> Sthira Lagnas, Lord > Krishna's > > > chart that is generally accepted shows, if I> remember right, > Sthira Lagna. > > > Would you attribute the qualities of

Such> natives don't easily > accept God into > > > their lives or do so according to their own> beliefs. as, > suggested, by you, to > > > the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to> Prophet Mohammed, > Pope Alexander > > > VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius> Rising), Shri > Satya Sai > > > baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo),> Yes he Lama(Leo) > Yoganand Paramhans > > > (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right.> > > > This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere> owning of 11,9 > and 7th > > > house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can> not be the only > qualification for a > > > planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional> malfeasance is > necessary for > > > the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).>

> > I could accept if the additional qualifications> included being > or > > > conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th> lord as you > suggest if some textual > > > support for it comes out. However accepting that> mere ownership > of the houses > > > suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to> me, a bit of a > flat statement. > > > Of course this is my personal opinion and other> worthies might > have their own > > > opinions.> > > Regards,> > > Chandrashekhar.> > >> > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it nowhttp://companion./|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear Prashant,

Shlokas can be interpreted in different ways. So forgetting about the calculations,let us try to find out whether Gulika and Mandi are same or not, which incidentally was the beginning of the discussion.Since you do not want to considered Jataka Parijata , which gives very clearly, Mandi as a synonym of Gulika; let us restrict to BPHS. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana Edition of BPHS has a shloka indicating Gulika and Mandi are one and the same Shloka 15 Ch.4 says" Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate".

For the sake of argument, if we write off that edition and restrict our selves the edition translated by R. Santanam( Khairatilal Edition, Sitaram Jha translation) when Parashara gives information on how to calculate all UpaGrahas from Dhoom to Mrityu and Gulika, if Mandi and Gulika are not the same why does not he indicate how Mandi's calculation is to be done? If there is any shloka indicating this, kindly indicate the same, so that I can refresh my knowledge, and may be add to it.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Monday, November 24, 2003 6:53 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dera chandrashekhar ji,

there is absolutely no controversy about it, that gulika & mandi are two points on an arc.

points of difference are

1) if there is a separate gulika kal

2) wehther mandi is lordless or lorded by saturn.(i beieve its upagraha of saturn as given in uttara kalmitra)

anyway, one thing we should keep in mind while doing phaladesh that we should analyse if there is any planet on that arc or not . for example if gulika is 17degree scorpio, & mandi is 29deg scorpio, that means arc stretches to 10deg saggi. now if there is any planet on the arc, its caught, its significations will suffer badly. suppose if mars is at 0degrees saggi, it will seem to be away from mandi, but no, its very much near to mid-point of the arc, so its afflicted.

regards

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

I too was referring to what has been stated by Acharyas. Jataka Parijata states categorically that Gulika is the synonym for Mandi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:09 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

dear dear chandrashekhar ji,

i m surprised!

its not me who wants to prove that gulika & mandi r different. why did u get such perception?

i was trying to analyse your thougts on 5 kalvelas whetehr thses could b different from 8equal portions thru which we get gulika. & i was being very open minded in doing so. we have been taught a slighttly different theory. but still i m very open to others thoughts.as u said there can b different translations, i agree to u , & precisely that is the reason why one can't rely on single text.

i used to quote the same phrase to prove gulika & mandi r same(2points on saturn's arc). but in addition to this we believe gulika kal & gulika are also not diferent & belongs to saturn(not lordless).

i write not to argue but to learn from scholars like u, if i offended u , i apologize for that.

yours sincerely

prashant Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

Shlokas can be interpreted in different ways. So forgetting about the calculations,let us try to find out whether Gulika and Mandi are same or not, which incidentally was the beginning of the discussion.Since you do not want to considered Jataka Parijata , which gives very clearly, Mandi as a synonym of Gulika; let us restrict to BPHS. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana Edition of BPHS has a shloka indicating Gulika and Mandi are one and the same Shloka 15 Ch.4 says" Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate".

For the sake of argument, if we write off that edition and restrict our selves the edition translated by R. Santanam( Khairatilal Edition, Sitaram Jha translation) when Parashara gives information on how to calculate all UpaGrahas from Dhoom to Mrityu and Gulika, if Mandi and Gulika are not the same why does not he indicate how Mandi's calculation is to be done? If there is any shloka indicating this, kindly indicate the same, so that I can refresh my knowledge, and may be add to it.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Monday, November 24, 2003 6:53 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dera chandrashekhar ji,

there is absolutely no controversy about it, that gulika & mandi are two points on an arc.

points of difference are

1) if there is a separate gulika kal

2) wehther mandi is lordless or lorded by saturn.(i beieve its upagraha of saturn as given in uttara kalmitra)

anyway, one thing we should keep in mind while doing phaladesh that we should analyse if there is any planet on that arc or not . for example if gulika is 17degree scorpio, & mandi is 29deg scorpio, that means arc stretches to 10deg saggi. now if there is any planet on the arc, its caught, its significations will suffer badly. suppose if mars is at 0degrees saggi, it will seem to be away from mandi, but no, its very much near to mid-point of the arc, so its afflicted.

regards

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

I too was referring to what has been stated by Acharyas. Jataka Parijata states categorically that Gulika is the synonym for Mandi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:09 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous

vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement

in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under

Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own

opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

` nmae naray[ay,

om namo näräyaëäya|Dear Chandrashekhar Ji,

Sorry for intererence.Regarding Gulika,even Prashna Margam says either Mandi or Gulika are same.Only Sarvartha Chintamani is differentiatin between the 2.Even the famous Kerala Jyotish Sri Ponnusseri Nilakantha Sharma also agrees that both Mandi and Gulika are the same.For Gulika,he mentions about Gulika Kala during which all auspicious functions are banned.So in this connection I also agree with you.

With Sri hari Vaayu Naama Smarana,

Ramadas Rao.

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

Shlokas can be interpreted in different ways. So forgetting about the calculations,let us try to find out whether Gulika and Mandi are same or not, which incidentally was the beginning of the discussion.Since you do not want to considered Jataka Parijata , which gives very clearly, Mandi as a synonym of Gulika; let us restrict to BPHS. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana Edition of BPHS has a shloka indicating Gulika and Mandi are one and the same Shloka 15 Ch.4 says" Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate".

For the sake of argument, if we write off that edition and restrict our selves the edition translated by R. Santanam( Khairatilal Edition, Sitaram Jha translation) when Parashara gives information on how to calculate all UpaGrahas from Dhoom to Mrityu and Gulika, if Mandi and Gulika are not the same why does not he indicate how Mandi's calculation is to be done? If there is any shloka indicating this, kindly indicate the same, so that I can refresh my knowledge, and may be add to it.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Monday, November 24, 2003 6:53 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dera chandrashekhar ji,

there is absolutely no controversy about it, that gulika & mandi are two points on an arc.

points of difference are

1) if there is a separate gulika kal

2) wehther mandi is lordless or lorded by saturn.(i beieve its upagraha of saturn as given in uttara kalmitra)

anyway, one thing we should keep in mind while doing phaladesh that we should analyse if there is any planet on that arc or not . for example if gulika is 17degree scorpio, & mandi is 29deg scorpio, that means arc stretches to 10deg saggi. now if there is any planet on the arc, its caught, its significations will suffer badly. suppose if mars is at 0degrees saggi, it will seem to be away from mandi, but no, its very much near to mid-point of the arc, so its afflicted.

regards

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

I too was referring to what has been stated by Acharyas. Jataka Parijata states categorically that Gulika is the synonym for Mandi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:09 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous

vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement

in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under

Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own

opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira

[Guest guest]

Dear Prashant,

I am not offended at all. I know you as a serious student. I was just explaining where BPHS indicates that they are identical and not different as is being assumed. The problem arises as there are more than 8 versions of BPHS and some have different shlokas.

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:01 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear dear chandrashekhar ji,

i m surprised!

its not me who wants to prove that gulika & mandi r different. why did u get such perception?

i was trying to analyse your thougts on 5 kalvelas whetehr thses could b different from 8equal portions thru which we get gulika. & i was being very open minded in doing so. we have been taught a slighttly different theory. but still i m very open to others thoughts.as u said there can b different translations, i agree to u , & precisely that is the reason why one can't rely on single text.

i used to quote the same phrase to prove gulika & mandi r same(2points on saturn's arc). but in addition to this we believe gulika kal & gulika are also not diferent & belongs to saturn(not lordless).

i write not to argue but to learn from scholars like u, if i offended u , i apologize for that.

yours sincerely

prashant Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

Shlokas can be interpreted in different ways. So forgetting about the calculations,let us try to find out whether Gulika and Mandi are same or not, which incidentally was the beginning of the discussion.Since you do not want to considered Jataka Parijata , which gives very clearly, Mandi as a synonym of Gulika; let us restrict to BPHS. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana Edition of BPHS has a shloka indicating Gulika and Mandi are one and the same Shloka 15 Ch.4 says" Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate".

For the sake of argument, if we write off that edition and restrict our selves the edition translated by R. Santanam( Khairatilal Edition, Sitaram Jha translation) when Parashara gives information on how to calculate all UpaGrahas from Dhoom to Mrityu and Gulika, if Mandi and Gulika are not the same why does not he indicate how Mandi's calculation is to be done? If there is any shloka indicating this, kindly indicate the same, so that I can refresh my knowledge, and may be add to it.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Monday, November 24, 2003 6:53 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dera chandrashekhar ji,

there is absolutely no controversy about it, that gulika & mandi are two points on an arc.

points of difference are

1) if there is a separate gulika kal

2) wehther mandi is lordless or lorded by saturn.(i beieve its upagraha of saturn as given in uttara kalmitra)

anyway, one thing we should keep in mind while doing phaladesh that we should analyse if there is any planet on that arc or not . for example if gulika is 17degree scorpio, & mandi is 29deg scorpio, that means arc stretches to 10deg saggi. now if there is any planet on the arc, its caught, its significations will suffer badly. suppose if mars is at 0degrees saggi, it will seem to be away from mandi, but no, its very much near to mid-point of the arc, so its afflicted.

regards

prashantChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Prashant,

I too was referring to what has been stated by Acharyas. Jataka Parijata states categorically that Gulika is the synonym for Mandi.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

prashant narang [prashantnarang]Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:09 AMvarahamihira Subject: RE: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activate

dear chandrashekhar ji,

being an unbiased student, i m trying to analyse mandi & gulika theory. as such no theory is mine, becuase i've not made any research myself, but just comparing to what i have been taught......

according to what u said , the other kaal velas should b calculated separately. but what i've been taught is that day /night is divided in 8equal parts . during the day , 7portions r distributed to 7 planets commencing from lord of the weekday. 8th is lordless.. the degree ascending on start of saturn's portion is gulika, the degree ascending at the mid point of this portion is called mandi. similarly, mid point of sun's portion is kala, mar's-mrityu, ju's-yamaghantaka, me's-ardhaprahara..

these points/degrees r kniown as upagrahas, no upagrahas r assigned to portion of moon & venus.

even if we ignore 5 kaal velas right now, u believe that mandi belongs to 8th lordless portion.

i think now narsimha ji /sanjay ji should explain this to us because i m writing what he has used in his software.

regards

prashant

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel wrote:

 

Dear Brendan,

I agree that much more needs to be done in the matter of understanding Badhakas and that position of planets house ownerships etc. needs to be studied before labeling a planet a Badhaka. I am happy that you see my point of view I think many Acharyas have commented that Mandi and Gulika are one and the same. Gulika Kaala is different from Gulika.Gulika Kaala is one of the 5 KalaVelas. Whereas Mandi is the portion(8th) of a day, not lorded over by any planet( or rather Mandi spashta is when the portion of Saturn ends), Gulika kaala is the portion lorded over by Saturn in the first five parts, Moon and Venus parts being left off. Parashara says in Chapter 4 Shloka 15 " Namantaram tu tasyaiva Mandirityabhidheeyate" in Benares edition of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana. this shloka is not in the editions available with English Translations. Jataka Parijata also says that Mandi and Gulika are synonymous vide shloka 4 1/2 ch. 2. So There should be no confusion, is what I think.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bpfeeley [bpfeeley]Friday, November 21, 2003 11:05 AMvarahamihira Subject: Re: |Sri Varaha| Badhaka Discussion: Mandi (Gulika) or Kharesha to activateIn a message dated 11/20/2003 4:12:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, boxdel writes:Hare Rama KrishnaDear Chandrashekar,You bring up some very good points and again, we must look at each chart and do the analysis. I had a discussion with Sanjay a few weeks ago on this topic and I was left with the conclusion I mention in my last e-mail wrt the effect of the badhaka on the native. So much depends on the placement and whether it is in a movable, fixed or dual rasi and also the aspects on the planet and it placement in the Navamsa. It also depends on whether the badhaka is associated with the lagna or its lord or the 6th and 8th lords. Again, I really believe the greater the maleficience the more evil the results and Sanjay has mention the effects of the Sarpa yoga and Pisaca yoga in association with the badhak. It sound much like a witches cauldron and the impact of evil spirits on the life of the native and in some cases where the native himself can be used by such forces to do destructive work if associated with the 10th house of karmas.Gulika and Maandi are different and I will search for some notes that I have on that topic. Some regards them to be the same but a convincing paper was written by an SJC Guru/Sishya a few years ago. As I understand it the JHora calculations are based on that paper. That's what I use myself for these upagrahas.You make a great point with the list of charts with fixed sign lagnas and what can I say. This is worth a good study under Sanjay guidance for we really need to tease out this topic. I am far from being happy with my own understanding on this.In my own chart, The Moon is my 9th lord and was very close to my Guru in my Moon dasa. Yes, there was obstruction in my mind and I also qualify as a stubborn soul, but the dasa was extremely wonderful and devotional for my life as a bhakta to Radha/Krishna. The Moon is conjoined Sani and aspected by Rahu and Mars, but also aspected by Mercury and Venus. In fact, I found my Guru in Moon/Rahu but the combo is also in the 12th to Karakamsa.All this needs more work and this is the way we do the work.Regards,Brendan

Dear Brendan,Correct me if I am wrong, but is Gulika and Mandi not the same? Perhaps you meant Gulika Kaala? About generalization of Sthira Lagnas, Lord Krishna's chart that is generally accepted shows, if I remember right, Sthira Lagna. Would you attribute the qualities of Such natives don't easily accept God into their lives or do so according to their own beliefs. as, suggested, by you, to the Lord? Or can the theory be extended to Prophet Mohammed, Pope Alexander VII, Ramakrishna Paramhans (All with Aquarius Rising), Shri Satya Sai baba(Scorpio),Shri Chaitanya Maha Prabhu(Leo), Yes he Lama(Leo) Yoganand Paramhans (Leo)? I am sure you would not think that right. This is, precisely, the reason that I think mere owning of 11,9 and 7th house for Chara Sthira and Dual Ascendant can not be the only qualification for a planet being termed as Badhaka. Some additional malfeasance is necessary for the planet to become Badhaka(Obstructer).I could accept if the additional qualifications included being or conjoining Lords of 64th Navamsha or even 8th lord as you suggest if some textual support for it comes out. However accepting that mere ownership of the houses suggested makes a planet Badhaka is, at least to me, a bit of a flat statement. Of course this is my personal opinion and other worthies might have their own opinions.Regards,Chandrashekhar.|Om Tat Sat|http://www.varahamihira