Michelle's Marriage Analysis

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter and List Members,

 

Before one would even consider Saturn, I thought that Mars is the planet

which should be giving the results in Michelle's chart. Mars has the highest

points, and even though it aspects a primary upachaya (House B), it is still

lord of a secondary upachaya, so the " disqualification " as far as an

inability to bring about results is canceled. The lords of Houses D and E,

even if they aspect main upachayas, can still bring about the results.

 

However, in this case, this doesn't appear to be the case. So I think that

THIS is the reference point from which we have to figure out " why " ...

 

So in review of Michelle's chart - here Mars sits with the HIGHEST number of

points and Lords (and resides in) House E...which would be the period of

around April 5, 1985 to Aug. 11, 1985 as the " probable " date that a marriage

would have taken place (and then narrowed down further according to the

Sun's transit)....but perhaps there is an " earlier " date to consider

first...In other words, I wouldn't have even considered Saturn seriously

UNTIL I could have ruled out Mars...So I'm working with Mars here now and

trying to figure how Saturn ties in and how. So starting with Mars...The

following MAY explain this marriage taking place in the Saturn sub...

 

Saturn is not considered samdharmi to Mars through 4th/10 position UNLESS we

consider the LORDS of the " natural " 9th and 12th through the " Tenth House

Theory " (4th/10th position - Saturn being the natural lord of Capricorn and

Mars the natural lord of Aries, putting these natural rulerships in a 4/10

position.) So Saturn IS Samdharmi to Mars, and a Saturn sub comes FIRST

before a Mars sub... So MAYBE because both Mars and Saturn are strong enough

to bring about the results of marriage (with more than 12 points), the

marriage happens in the EARLIEST sub-period, which would be Saturn's sub. In

addition to that, Saturn is also in the Nakshatra of Purvashadha, which is

ruled by the natural indicator for marriage, Venus. And to further support

this theory, on March 1, 1980, the date of the marriage, the Sun IS

transiting through SATURN'S sign of Aquarius...another plus for Saturn

sub...could this perhaps be the answer to this puzzle? Just thinking out

loud again. ;-)

 

~Namaste~

Sandy

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter and List Members,

 

On second thought... I'm NOT at all sure my analysis below holds any

validity at all. (Back to the drawing table...;-()

 

When reviewing the Lesson information, on page 45, rule number 6, there is

only mention of " certain " signs and planets being samdharmi through the

" natural rulers " of the 4th and 10th, so I'm not at all sure that the

application is valid concerning ALL the 4th/10th houses - or

Capricorn/Aries - because Krushna already mentioned that Saturn and Venus

are samdharmi - as is Mars and Sun. Guess we should wait to hear from Sach,

who I am sure can clear up some of our confusions. So even though these

signs are in 4th/10th placements from each other, perhaps samdharmi ONLY

applies to the select few given on page 45...Does anyone know? Thanks.

 

~Namaste~

Sandy

> Dear Peter and List Members,

>

> Before one would even consider Saturn, I thought that Mars is the planet

> which should be giving the results in Michelle's chart. Mars has the

highest

> points, and even though it aspects a primary upachaya (House B), it is

still

> lord of a secondary upachaya, so the " disqualification " as far as an

> inability to bring about results is canceled. The lords of Houses D and E,

> even if they aspect main upachayas, can still bring about the results.

>

> However, in this case, this doesn't appear to be the case. So I think that

> THIS is the reference point from which we have to figure out " why " ...

>

> So in review of Michelle's chart - here Mars sits with the HIGHEST number

of

> points and Lords (and resides in) House E...which would be the period of

> around April 5, 1985 to Aug. 11, 1985 as the " probable " date that a

marriage

> would have taken place (and then narrowed down further according to the

> Sun's transit)....but perhaps there is an " earlier " date to consider

> first...In other words, I wouldn't have even considered Saturn seriously

> UNTIL I could have ruled out Mars...So I'm working with Mars here now and

> trying to figure how Saturn ties in and how. So starting with Mars...The

> following MAY explain this marriage taking place in the Saturn sub...

>

> Saturn is not considered samdharmi to Mars through 4th/10 position UNLESS

we

> consider the LORDS of the " natural " 9th and 12th through the " Tenth House

> Theory " (4th/10th position - Saturn being the natural lord of Capricorn

and

> Mars the natural lord of Aries, putting these natural rulerships in a 4/10

> position.) So Saturn IS Samdharmi to Mars, and a Saturn sub comes FIRST

> before a Mars sub... So MAYBE because both Mars and Saturn are strong

enough

> to bring about the results of marriage (with more than 12 points), the

> marriage happens in the EARLIEST sub-period, which would be Saturn's sub.

In

> addition to that, Saturn is also in the Nakshatra of Purvashadha, which is

> ruled by the natural indicator for marriage, Venus. And to further support

> this theory, on March 1, 1980, the date of the marriage, the Sun IS

> transiting through SATURN'S sign of Aquarius...another plus for Saturn

> sub...could this perhaps be the answer to this puzzle? Just thinking out

> loud again. ;-)

>

> ~Namaste~

> Sandy

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sandy,

That is very sound reasoning even though I'm not sure of the correctness of

it technically. Perhaps Sach will be able to enlighten us.

The only problem as I see it is what would we have done if we hadn't known

that she was married on 1st of March. The first Mars sub-period starts about

the 5th April 1985 which would have made her 24 at the time and not too old

for marriage, in fact a very suitable age for a western marriage.

I would say at this stage I am very impressed with the methodology at this

stage and it will probably get better as we become more conversant with the

method. As for this particular problem - well Krushna did say that he could

predict 80% (or was it 90%) within a few days. He did not say that he could

predict 100%.

 

namaste,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Sandy,

 

I,m not sure about this 4/10 positions either. You can also get the 4/10

position from Scorpio and Aquarius but I think that is the wrong way round.

As you read this you will see I have had a message from Sach and have given

him theinformation he needed so we should have a reply with about 48hrs.

Here's hoping.

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Visti,

 

Please see my replies below:

 

> Om Krishna Guru.

> Ok I took a look at the worksheet.

>

> Mars scores highest points, so the sub period whould be decided from

Mars, however Mars aspects 7th house and is diqualified.

 

Mars is NOT disqualified, AS IT IS LORD OF A SECONDARY UPACHAYA (HOUSE E),

so aspectual disqualification does not apply here to Mars. The planets

aspecting the main upachayas are Sun, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Venus and

Saturn - which disqualifies all except for the lords of the secondary

upachayas (Houses D and E) - which are the Sun and Mars. So Mars remains the

primary candidate for marriage with the highest points and no

disqualifications.

 

Like I said earlier, if this chart were given to me with an " unknown

" marriage date, I would have picked the Mars sub-period around April 5, 1985

and narrowed it down according to the Sun's transit because of the age of

Michelle (24 years old) before looking any further. So we may be " missing "

something vital here, or perhaps, as Peter suggested, this chart falls into

the small percentage that doesn't work with this method. I anxiously await

to hear from Sach - perhaps he can help us sort out the confusion. ;-)

 

~Namaste~

Sandy

 

>

> Mars' Samdharmi planets are: Venus and Sun. Now how on earth we decide

which one to use is a big question to me. But if we pick Venus, we notice

that its combust and unable to produce benefic results, so we take its

samdharmi, which in this case is Saturn.

>

> Using above delianation we can see that the sub period of Saturn gives the

marriage.

>

> There are no planets in 4th from anything, except the Nodes, which aren't

to be considered in this rule.

>

> The indications of marriage are seen from 7th lord and sign, along with

Venus' sign and constellation, and aspects to Venus.

>

> Mars is in 6th from 7th house, and in own sign, this may indicate

passionate relationship in the couple.

> Venus in 1st house combust by Sun and in Nakshatra of Mars, along with

being in own sign.

> This really weakens the effects of Venus, but the results don't seem to

show.

>

> The alleviation of Jupiters aspect on 2nd house and 7th ruler, may be the

good side of this.

>

> But its all to be put into consideration.

> Best wishes, Visti.

>

> -

> Peter Sutcliffe <petermay

>

> Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:51 AM

> Re: Michelle's Marriage Analysis

>

>

> > Sandy,

> >

> > I,m not sure about this 4/10 positions either. You can also get the 4/10

> > position from Scorpio and Aquarius but I think that is the wrong way

round.

> > As you read this you will see I have had a message from Sach and have

given

> > him theinformation he needed so we should have a reply with about 48hrs.

> > Here's hoping.

> >

> > Peter

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Visti,

I read your reply and Sandy's answer. However although it may not be

relevant now how do you make Mars sandahrmi planets to be Venus and Sun?. I

can see that the Sun and Mars are in a 4/10 relationship so that is Ok but

where do you get Venus as a Sandahrmi planet?. Going on from there if you

pick Venus as a Sandahrmi planet for Mars ( assun=ming you're right) you

then go on to pick Saturn as a sandahrmi planet. Can you do this?. That is

pick a sandahrmi of a sandahrmi and if so how far can you go?. Can you have

a sandahrmi of a sandahrmi of a sandahrmi ad infinitum?.

 

Peter