Guest guest Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Respected Guru jis, I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results are provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am reading chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant or the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and is devoid of the aspect of benefic. " So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect or sign aspect or both? Regards, nagarjuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Dear RR, Namaskar. Thank you very much for explaining this. Let me rephrase my question differently. Let's take an example where Mars is placed in Sagittarius and the Moon is in Aries. Mars aspects the following rashis. Rashi aspect --> Pisces, Gemini and Virgo. Planet aspect --> 1 foot aspect on Gemini (7th), 2 feet aspect on Capricorn(3rd) and Virgo(10th), 3 feet aspect on Aries (5th) and Leo (9th), full aspect on Pisces(4th) and Cancer (8th) And in the example chart, if the Moon happens to placed in Aries, then the Moon would not receive rashi aspect of Mars, but only the planet aspect. So, which aspect should I consider? Is it just planet aspect or rashi aspect or both? Is there any verse in BPHS that explains this? I am pasting a part of mail that I wrote to " " here. -- I am just looking out for a reference in BPHS itself where it is mentioned that aspects are by planetary aspect by default and not the rashi aspects. I know there might be many other classics other than BPHS that mention this concept explicitly. But, the very reason why I ask this question is that if Maharishi Parasara has explicitly explained simple concepts like various rashis (which is available in many other books), then why did he not mention which aspect to take? Parasara explicitly mentioned about the strength various planetary aspects and this indicates importance of aspects. So, I am wondering which aspect to use and explicit mention of the same was skipped on purpose. -- Thank you very much for reading this mail patiently. I will benefit a lot a if I get answer for this. Regards, nagarjuna ________________________________ vedic astrology [vedic astrology ] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan Friday, July 17, 2009 8:55 PM vedic astrology [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect <typos corrected> The 'text' that you refer to clearly indicates that the planetary aspects (griha drishti) is being referred to. Rashi 'drishti' should perhaps be termed rashi sambandha (relationship) to avoid such confusions. The rashi sambandha can be thought of as bridges between rashis, or paths connecting one to the other. However to activate this relationship, there would have to be planets in place (natal or transit), for the bridge to be activated. Otherwise it simply remains a potential, a probability, just like any physical bridge. It is there but gets 'used' (comes alive!) only when an individual uses it to travel from point A to point B. The two 'ligators' (rashi and griha drishtis) are additive. RR vedic astrology <vedic astrology%40> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA (ATTSI) " <nc161d wrote: > > Respected Guru jis, > > > > I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results are > provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect > mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am reading > chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not > seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. > > > > Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? > > > > For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. > > > > " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant or > the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and is > devoid of the aspect of benefic. " > > > > So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect or > sign aspect or both? > > > > Regards, > > nagarjuna > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Nagarjuna ji, Please understand that I am writing the following with utmost sincerity. When the High, low and In-Between have all questioned the available versions of BPHS and at least 4-6 versions have been claimed to exist not just from yesterday but from the writings of astrologers over the last several decades, would it not be somewhat daring to rely so much on just BPHS for making this call? That said, personally I have great gratitude for whatever prasaadam we Kaliyugis have been blessed to recieve through whatever versions and portions of BPHS that have survived! But just because something does not exist in " BPHS " (qualifying by the quotes that I am not talking about the Original BPHS presumably conveyed by Oral tradition, but the currently available versions!), does not mean I will not pay attention to it or not treat it sincerely. One problem that is inherent in your approach, if I understood your posting correctly, you are placing emphasis on aspect as being the only 'ligator' or creator of sambandha between two grahas. I realize that for a clean research question, such narrow filter with a square wave 'window' as opposed to a sine wave filter are to be preferred but the astrological analysis of a human experiential reality, like a sociological-epidemiological research can be quite different from an experiment in Physics if you catch my drift! What if neither moon nor mars were in aspect, griha or rishi, but connected through nakshatra sambandha or through a dispositor or some other legitimate " connection " blessed by the Jyotish framework? Isn't that why BPHS describes some guidelines in the Sudarshan Chakra chapter towards the end as to the different roles and responsibilities of planets vis a vis a given house? Going way beyond just drishti! RR vedic astrology , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA (ATTSI) " <nc161d wrote: > > Dear RR, > > > > Namaskar. > > > > Thank you very much for explaining this. Let me rephrase my question > differently. > > > > Let's take an example where Mars is placed in Sagittarius and the Moon > is in Aries. Mars aspects the following rashis. > > Rashi aspect --> Pisces, Gemini and Virgo. > > Planet aspect --> 1 foot aspect on Gemini (7th), 2 feet aspect on > Capricorn(3rd) and Virgo(10th), 3 feet aspect on Aries (5th) and Leo > (9th), full aspect on Pisces(4th) and Cancer (8th) > > > > And in the example chart, if the Moon happens to placed in Aries, then > the Moon would not receive rashi aspect of Mars, but only the planet > aspect. So, which aspect should I consider? Is it just planet aspect or > rashi aspect or both? Is there any verse in BPHS that explains this? > > > > I am pasting a part of mail that I wrote to " " > here. > > > > -- > > I am just looking out for a reference in BPHS itself where it is > mentioned that aspects are by planetary aspect by default and not the > rashi aspects. I know there might be many other classics other than BPHS > that mention this concept explicitly. But, the very reason why I ask > this question is that if Maharishi Parasara has explicitly explained > simple concepts like various rashis (which is available in many other > books), then why did he not mention which aspect to take? Parasara > explicitly mentioned about the strength various planetary aspects and > this indicates importance of aspects. So, I am wondering which aspect to > use and explicit mention of the same was skipped on purpose. > > -- > > > > Thank you very much for reading this mail patiently. I will benefit a > lot a if I get answer for this. > > > > Regards, > > nagarjuna > > > > ________________________________ > > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology ] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan > Friday, July 17, 2009 8:55 PM > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect > > > > > > <typos corrected> > > The 'text' that you refer to clearly indicates that the planetary > aspects (griha > drishti) is being referred to. > > Rashi 'drishti' should perhaps be termed rashi sambandha (relationship) > to avoid > such confusions. The rashi sambandha can be thought of as bridges > between > rashis, or paths connecting one to the other. However to activate this > relationship, there would have to be planets in place (natal or > transit), for the bridge > to be activated. Otherwise it simply remains a potential, a probability, > just like > any physical bridge. It is there but gets 'used' (comes alive!) only > when an > individual uses it to travel from point A to point B. > > The two 'ligators' (rashi and griha drishtis) are additive. > > RR > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > (ATTSI) " <nc161d@> wrote: > > > > Respected Guru jis, > > > > > > > > I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results > are > > provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect > > mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am reading > > chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not > > seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. > > > > > > > > Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? > > > > > > > > For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. > > > > > > > > " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant or > > the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and > is > > devoid of the aspect of benefic. " > > > > > > > > So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect or > > sign aspect or both? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 /*om namo bhagavate narasimhaya* / Dear Nagarjuna I have answered this question already in the past. For different yogas different type of aspects are taken into account. For example Raja yoga between kendra and kona lords is build with graha drsti, whilst Su+Ra giving snake bites/doctors etc is formed by rasi drsti. 6L aspect by grahadrsti is giving diseases, 6L aspect by rasi drsti gives law cases etc. Jivatma vs Jadatma. You have started very broad topic. Regards Rafal Gendarz SJC Jyotish Guru -------------- /*Consultations & Pages* http://rohinaa.com <http://rohinaa.com> rafal <rafal%40rohinaa.com>/ Rohiniranjan pisze: > > > Nagarjuna ji, > > Please understand that I am writing the following with utmost sincerity. > > When the High, low and In-Between have all questioned the available > versions of BPHS and at least 4-6 versions have been claimed to exist > not just from yesterday but from the writings of astrologers over the > last several decades, would it not be somewhat daring to rely so much > on just BPHS for making this call? > > That said, personally I have great gratitude for whatever prasaadam we > Kaliyugis have been blessed to recieve through whatever versions and > portions of BPHS that have survived! But just because something does > not exist in " BPHS " (qualifying by the quotes that I am not talking > about the Original BPHS presumably conveyed by Oral tradition, but the > currently available versions!), does not mean I will not pay attention > to it or not treat it sincerely. > > One problem that is inherent in your approach, if I understood your > posting correctly, you are placing emphasis on aspect as being the > only 'ligator' or creator of sambandha between two grahas. I realize > that for a clean research question, such narrow filter with a square > wave 'window' as opposed to a sine wave filter are to be preferred but > the astrological analysis of a human experiential reality, like a > sociological- epidemiological research can be quite different from an > experiment in Physics if you catch my drift! > > What if neither moon nor mars were in aspect, griha or rishi, but > connected through nakshatra sambandha or through a dispositor or some > other legitimate " connection " blessed by the Jyotish framework? Isn't > that why BPHS describes some guidelines in the Sudarshan Chakra > chapter towards the end as to the different roles and responsibilities > of planets vis a vis a given house? Going way beyond just drishti! > > RR > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40>, " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > (ATTSI) " <nc161d wrote: > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > Namaskar. > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for explaining this. Let me rephrase my question > > differently. > > > > > > > > Let's take an example where Mars is placed in Sagittarius and the Moon > > is in Aries. Mars aspects the following rashis. > > > > Rashi aspect --> Pisces, Gemini and Virgo. > > > > Planet aspect --> 1 foot aspect on Gemini (7th), 2 feet aspect on > > Capricorn(3rd) and Virgo(10th), 3 feet aspect on Aries (5th) and Leo > > (9th), full aspect on Pisces(4th) and Cancer (8th) > > > > > > > > And in the example chart, if the Moon happens to placed in Aries, then > > the Moon would not receive rashi aspect of Mars, but only the planet > > aspect. So, which aspect should I consider? Is it just planet aspect or > > rashi aspect or both? Is there any verse in BPHS that explains this? > > > > > > > > I am pasting a part of mail that I wrote to " vedic_astrology_ classes " > > here. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > I am just looking out for a reference in BPHS itself where it is > > mentioned that aspects are by planetary aspect by default and not the > > rashi aspects. I know there might be many other classics other than BPHS > > that mention this concept explicitly. But, the very reason why I ask > > this question is that if Maharishi Parasara has explicitly explained > > simple concepts like various rashis (which is available in many other > > books), then why did he not mention which aspect to take? Parasara > > explicitly mentioned about the strength various planetary aspects and > > this indicates importance of aspects. So, I am wondering which aspect to > > use and explicit mention of the same was skipped on purpose. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for reading this mail patiently. I will benefit a > > lot a if I get answer for this. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > [vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40>] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan > > Friday, July 17, 2009 8:55 PM > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect > > > > > > > > > > > > <typos corrected> > > > > The 'text' that you refer to clearly indicates that the planetary > > aspects (griha > > drishti) is being referred to. > > > > Rashi 'drishti' should perhaps be termed rashi sambandha (relationship) > > to avoid > > such confusions. The rashi sambandha can be thought of as bridges > > between > > rashis, or paths connecting one to the other. However to activate this > > relationship, there would have to be planets in place (natal or > > transit), for the bridge > > to be activated. Otherwise it simply remains a potential, a probability, > > just like > > any physical bridge. It is there but gets 'used' (comes alive!) only > > when an > > individual uses it to travel from point A to point B. > > > > The two 'ligators' (rashi and griha drishtis) are additive. > > > > RR > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > <vedic- astrology% 40. com> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > > (ATTSI) " <nc161d@> wrote: > > > > > > Respected Guru jis, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results > > are > > > provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect > > > mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am reading > > > chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not > > > seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? > > > > > > > > > > > > For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant or > > > the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and > > is > > > devoid of the aspect of benefic. " > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect or > > > sign aspect or both? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Dear RR ji, Namaskar. Thank you very much for patient reply. This answered my doubts. I feel much clearer now. Regarding your comments on the research part, I am just trying to learn one concept at a time. I was not trying to do predictions/analysis at this point of time. I am merely going through the chapters one at a time. Thank you once again. Regards, nagarjuna ________________________________ vedic astrology [vedic astrology ] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:47 PM vedic astrology [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect Nagarjuna ji, Please understand that I am writing the following with utmost sincerity. When the High, low and In-Between have all questioned the available versions of BPHS and at least 4-6 versions have been claimed to exist not just from yesterday but from the writings of astrologers over the last several decades, would it not be somewhat daring to rely so much on just BPHS for making this call? That said, personally I have great gratitude for whatever prasaadam we Kaliyugis have been blessed to recieve through whatever versions and portions of BPHS that have survived! But just because something does not exist in " BPHS " (qualifying by the quotes that I am not talking about the Original BPHS presumably conveyed by Oral tradition, but the currently available versions!), does not mean I will not pay attention to it or not treat it sincerely. One problem that is inherent in your approach, if I understood your posting correctly, you are placing emphasis on aspect as being the only 'ligator' or creator of sambandha between two grahas. I realize that for a clean research question, such narrow filter with a square wave 'window' as opposed to a sine wave filter are to be preferred but the astrological analysis of a human experiential reality, like a sociological-epidemiological research can be quite different from an experiment in Physics if you catch my drift! What if neither moon nor mars were in aspect, griha or rishi, but connected through nakshatra sambandha or through a dispositor or some other legitimate " connection " blessed by the Jyotish framework? Isn't that why BPHS describes some guidelines in the Sudarshan Chakra chapter towards the end as to the different roles and responsibilities of planets vis a vis a given house? Going way beyond just drishti! RR vedic astrology <vedic astrology%40> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA (ATTSI) " <nc161d wrote: > > Dear RR, > > > > Namaskar. > > > > Thank you very much for explaining this. Let me rephrase my question > differently. > > > > Let's take an example where Mars is placed in Sagittarius and the Moon > is in Aries. Mars aspects the following rashis. > > Rashi aspect --> Pisces, Gemini and Virgo. > > Planet aspect --> 1 foot aspect on Gemini (7th), 2 feet aspect on > Capricorn(3rd) and Virgo(10th), 3 feet aspect on Aries (5th) and Leo > (9th), full aspect on Pisces(4th) and Cancer (8th) > > > > And in the example chart, if the Moon happens to placed in Aries, then > the Moon would not receive rashi aspect of Mars, but only the planet > aspect. So, which aspect should I consider? Is it just planet aspect or > rashi aspect or both? Is there any verse in BPHS that explains this? > > > > I am pasting a part of mail that I wrote to " " > here. > > > > -- > > I am just looking out for a reference in BPHS itself where it is > mentioned that aspects are by planetary aspect by default and not the > rashi aspects. I know there might be many other classics other than BPHS > that mention this concept explicitly. But, the very reason why I ask > this question is that if Maharishi Parasara has explicitly explained > simple concepts like various rashis (which is available in many other > books), then why did he not mention which aspect to take? Parasara > explicitly mentioned about the strength various planetary aspects and > this indicates importance of aspects. So, I am wondering which aspect to > use and explicit mention of the same was skipped on purpose. > > -- > > > > Thank you very much for reading this mail patiently. I will benefit a > lot a if I get answer for this. > > > > Regards, > > nagarjuna > > > > ________________________________ > > vedic astrology <vedic astrology%40> > [vedic astrology <vedic astrology%40> ] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan > Friday, July 17, 2009 8:55 PM > vedic astrology <vedic astrology%40> > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect > > > > > > <typos corrected> > > The 'text' that you refer to clearly indicates that the planetary > aspects (griha > drishti) is being referred to. > > Rashi 'drishti' should perhaps be termed rashi sambandha (relationship) > to avoid > such confusions. The rashi sambandha can be thought of as bridges > between > rashis, or paths connecting one to the other. However to activate this > relationship, there would have to be planets in place (natal or > transit), for the bridge > to be activated. Otherwise it simply remains a potential, a probability, > just like > any physical bridge. It is there but gets 'used' (comes alive!) only > when an > individual uses it to travel from point A to point B. > > The two 'ligators' (rashi and griha drishtis) are additive. > > RR > vedic astrology <vedic astrology%40> > <vedic astrology%40> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > (ATTSI) " <nc161d@> wrote: > > > > Respected Guru jis, > > > > > > > > I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results > are > > provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect > > mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am reading > > chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not > > seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. > > > > > > > > Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? > > > > > > > > For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. > > > > > > > > " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant or > > the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and > is > > devoid of the aspect of benefic. " > > > > > > > > So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect or > > sign aspect or both? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Dear Rafal ji, Namaskar. Yes, I understood your points. It was just that I was looking out for specific reference from BPHS, not anymore. Thank you very much for your time :-) Regards, nagarjuna ________________________________ vedic astrology [vedic astrology ] On Behalf Of Rafal Gendarz Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:31 AM vedic astrology Re: [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect /*om namo bhagavate narasimhaya* / Dear Nagarjuna I have answered this question already in the past. For different yogas different type of aspects are taken into account. For example Raja yoga between kendra and kona lords is build with graha drsti, whilst Su+Ra giving snake bites/doctors etc is formed by rasi drsti. 6L aspect by grahadrsti is giving diseases, 6L aspect by rasi drsti gives law cases etc. Jivatma vs Jadatma. You have started very broad topic. Regards Rafal Gendarz SJC Jyotish Guru -------------- /*Consultations & Pages* http://rohinaa.com <http://rohinaa.com> <http://rohinaa.com <http://rohinaa.com> > rafal <rafal%40rohinaa.com> <rafal%40rohinaa.com>/ Rohiniranjan pisze: > > > Nagarjuna ji, > > Please understand that I am writing the following with utmost sincerity. > > When the High, low and In-Between have all questioned the available > versions of BPHS and at least 4-6 versions have been claimed to exist > not just from yesterday but from the writings of astrologers over the > last several decades, would it not be somewhat daring to rely so much > on just BPHS for making this call? > > That said, personally I have great gratitude for whatever prasaadam we > Kaliyugis have been blessed to recieve through whatever versions and > portions of BPHS that have survived! But just because something does > not exist in " BPHS " (qualifying by the quotes that I am not talking > about the Original BPHS presumably conveyed by Oral tradition, but the > currently available versions!), does not mean I will not pay attention > to it or not treat it sincerely. > > One problem that is inherent in your approach, if I understood your > posting correctly, you are placing emphasis on aspect as being the > only 'ligator' or creator of sambandha between two grahas. I realize > that for a clean research question, such narrow filter with a square > wave 'window' as opposed to a sine wave filter are to be preferred but > the astrological analysis of a human experiential reality, like a > sociological- epidemiological research can be quite different from an > experiment in Physics if you catch my drift! > > What if neither moon nor mars were in aspect, griha or rishi, but > connected through nakshatra sambandha or through a dispositor or some > other legitimate " connection " blessed by the Jyotish framework? Isn't > that why BPHS describes some guidelines in the Sudarshan Chakra > chapter towards the end as to the different roles and responsibilities > of planets vis a vis a given house? Going way beyond just drishti! > > RR > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40>, " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > (ATTSI) " <nc161d wrote: > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > Namaskar. > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for explaining this. Let me rephrase my question > > differently. > > > > > > > > Let's take an example where Mars is placed in Sagittarius and the Moon > > is in Aries. Mars aspects the following rashis. > > > > Rashi aspect --> Pisces, Gemini and Virgo. > > > > Planet aspect --> 1 foot aspect on Gemini (7th), 2 feet aspect on > > Capricorn(3rd) and Virgo(10th), 3 feet aspect on Aries (5th) and Leo > > (9th), full aspect on Pisces(4th) and Cancer (8th) > > > > > > > > And in the example chart, if the Moon happens to placed in Aries, then > > the Moon would not receive rashi aspect of Mars, but only the planet > > aspect. So, which aspect should I consider? Is it just planet aspect or > > rashi aspect or both? Is there any verse in BPHS that explains this? > > > > > > > > I am pasting a part of mail that I wrote to " vedic_astrology_ classes " > > here. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > I am just looking out for a reference in BPHS itself where it is > > mentioned that aspects are by planetary aspect by default and not the > > rashi aspects. I know there might be many other classics other than BPHS > > that mention this concept explicitly. But, the very reason why I ask > > this question is that if Maharishi Parasara has explicitly explained > > simple concepts like various rashis (which is available in many other > > books), then why did he not mention which aspect to take? Parasara > > explicitly mentioned about the strength various planetary aspects and > > this indicates importance of aspects. So, I am wondering which aspect to > > use and explicit mention of the same was skipped on purpose. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for reading this mail patiently. I will benefit a > > lot a if I get answer for this. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > [vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40>] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan > > Friday, July 17, 2009 8:55 PM > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect > > > > > > > > > > > > <typos corrected> > > > > The 'text' that you refer to clearly indicates that the planetary > > aspects (griha > > drishti) is being referred to. > > > > Rashi 'drishti' should perhaps be termed rashi sambandha (relationship) > > to avoid > > such confusions. The rashi sambandha can be thought of as bridges > > between > > rashis, or paths connecting one to the other. However to activate this > > relationship, there would have to be planets in place (natal or > > transit), for the bridge > > to be activated. Otherwise it simply remains a potential, a probability, > > just like > > any physical bridge. It is there but gets 'used' (comes alive!) only > > when an > > individual uses it to travel from point A to point B. > > > > The two 'ligators' (rashi and griha drishtis) are additive. > > > > RR > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > <vedic- astrology% 40. com> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > > (ATTSI) " <nc161d@> wrote: > > > > > > Respected Guru jis, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results > > are > > > provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect > > > mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am reading > > > chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not > > > seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? > > > > > > > > > > > > For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant or > > > the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and > > is > > > devoid of the aspect of benefic. " > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect or > > > sign aspect or both? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Dear Nagarjuna-ji, Your even-keeled response raises much hope, truly! Jyotish, over the years has become more of an 'AKHAADA' than anything else! " Naxalbari " as opposed to 'Nalanda!' Somehow, I got the impression that you 'wrote' about this topic in an article or just presumed (too many messages lately!) that you were teaching. Or perhaps I was predicting ;-) Given the state of modern Jyotish, and available literature apropos the same, my request would be to go analytical and one element at one time as you have wisely chosen your strategy to be, but please remain open to other possibilities as well. Others more fortunate than me may disagree but for most of us, I see us as those panning gold nuggets while we stand in a river and sift through tonnes of sand and gravel and get excited when we see a 'glint' in our sieve that we use to pan gold! And from time to time, we are distracted by LOUD CHEERS of JOY as we hear from another part of the river bed. We move immediately to those parts hoping that there is a better stash of nuggets there. As long as you are in this 'gold rush' for the joy and not the profit or trying to get rich quick, you will enjoy the journey and exploration! I assure you!! Rohiniranjan vedic astrology , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA (ATTSI) " <nc161d wrote: > > Dear RR ji, > > > > Namaskar. Thank you very much for patient reply. This answered my > doubts. I feel much clearer now. > > > > Regarding your comments on the research part, I am just trying to learn > one concept at a time. I was not trying to do predictions/analysis at > this point of time. I am merely going through the chapters one at a > time. > > > > Thank you once again. > > > > Regards, > > nagarjuna > > ________________________________ > > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology ] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan > Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:47 PM > vedic astrology > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect > > > > > > Nagarjuna ji, > > Please understand that I am writing the following with utmost sincerity. > > When the High, low and In-Between have all questioned the available > versions of BPHS and at least 4-6 versions have been claimed to exist > not just from yesterday but from the writings of astrologers over the > last several decades, would it not be somewhat daring to rely so much on > just BPHS for making this call? > > That said, personally I have great gratitude for whatever prasaadam we > Kaliyugis have been blessed to recieve through whatever versions and > portions of BPHS that have survived! But just because something does not > exist in " BPHS " (qualifying by the quotes that I am not talking about > the Original BPHS presumably conveyed by Oral tradition, but the > currently available versions!), does not mean I will not pay attention > to it or not treat it sincerely. > > One problem that is inherent in your approach, if I understood your > posting correctly, you are placing emphasis on aspect as being the only > 'ligator' or creator of sambandha between two grahas. I realize that for > a clean research question, such narrow filter with a square wave > 'window' as opposed to a sine wave filter are to be preferred but the > astrological analysis of a human experiential reality, like a > sociological-epidemiological research can be quite different from an > experiment in Physics if you catch my drift! > > What if neither moon nor mars were in aspect, griha or rishi, but > connected through nakshatra sambandha or through a dispositor or some > other legitimate " connection " blessed by the Jyotish framework? Isn't > that why BPHS describes some guidelines in the Sudarshan Chakra chapter > towards the end as to the different roles and responsibilities of > planets vis a vis a given house? Going way beyond just drishti! > > RR > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > (ATTSI) " <nc161d@> wrote: > > > > Dear RR, > > > > > > > > Namaskar. > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for explaining this. Let me rephrase my question > > differently. > > > > > > > > Let's take an example where Mars is placed in Sagittarius and the Moon > > is in Aries. Mars aspects the following rashis. > > > > Rashi aspect --> Pisces, Gemini and Virgo. > > > > Planet aspect --> 1 foot aspect on Gemini (7th), 2 feet aspect on > > Capricorn(3rd) and Virgo(10th), 3 feet aspect on Aries (5th) and Leo > > (9th), full aspect on Pisces(4th) and Cancer (8th) > > > > > > > > And in the example chart, if the Moon happens to placed in Aries, then > > the Moon would not receive rashi aspect of Mars, but only the planet > > aspect. So, which aspect should I consider? Is it just planet aspect > or > > rashi aspect or both? Is there any verse in BPHS that explains this? > > > > > > > > I am pasting a part of mail that I wrote to " " > > here. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > I am just looking out for a reference in BPHS itself where it is > > mentioned that aspects are by planetary aspect by default and not the > > rashi aspects. I know there might be many other classics other than > BPHS > > that mention this concept explicitly. But, the very reason why I ask > > this question is that if Maharishi Parasara has explicitly explained > > simple concepts like various rashis (which is available in many other > > books), then why did he not mention which aspect to take? Parasara > > explicitly mentioned about the strength various planetary aspects and > > this indicates importance of aspects. So, I am wondering which aspect > to > > use and explicit mention of the same was skipped on purpose. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for reading this mail patiently. I will benefit a > > lot a if I get answer for this. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > [vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> ] On Behalf Of Rohiniranjan > > Friday, July 17, 2009 8:55 PM > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > [vedic astrology] Re: BPHS question - aspect > > > > > > > > > > > > <typos corrected> > > > > The 'text' that you refer to clearly indicates that the planetary > > aspects (griha > > drishti) is being referred to. > > > > Rashi 'drishti' should perhaps be termed rashi sambandha > (relationship) > > to avoid > > such confusions. The rashi sambandha can be thought of as bridges > > between > > rashis, or paths connecting one to the other. However to activate this > > relationship, there would have to be planets in place (natal or > > transit), for the bridge > > to be activated. Otherwise it simply remains a potential, a > probability, > > just like > > any physical bridge. It is there but gets 'used' (comes alive!) only > > when an > > individual uses it to travel from point A to point B. > > > > The two 'ligators' (rashi and griha drishtis) are additive. > > > > RR > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology%40> > > <vedic astrology%40> , " CHERUKURI, NAGARJUNA > > (ATTSI) " <nc161d@> wrote: > > > > > > Respected Guru jis, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have doubt regarding the aspect. Throughout BPHS, various results > > are > > > provided based on aspect. But, I have a doubt regarding the aspect > > > mentioned here. Is it a Sign aspect or planetary aspect? I am > reading > > > chapter 14 (effects of the first house) at this point and I have not > > > seen any note so far mentioning as which aspect to be used. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can learned astrologers answer this query with BPHS reference alone? > > > > > > > > > > > > For e.g., I see the following in chapter 14, point 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > " 3. The native will not enjoy health and comforts if the Ascendant > or > > > the Moon is aspected by malefic planets or is together with them and > > is > > > devoid of the aspect of benefic. " > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what kind of aspect being referred here? Is it planetary aspect > or > > > sign aspect or both? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > nagarjuna > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.