About Samdharmis

October 4, 2001

Dear List,

I am trying to think of

an analogy as to why a samdharmi planet can act as a “substitute” for a viable

significator even when legally not even a player, and thus make it possibly

easier to understand.

Take a baseball game…It

is time for a certain player in that game to go up to bat. (Please bear with me

as I am not well-versed in what these baseball actions are “technically”

called, but I am trying to make the connection easier to understand. J)

So the player (say Venus)

who is supposed to go up to bat, instead uses a “substitute” or “pinch hitter”

(say Saturn) who is not even IN the game, but comes in to “represent” him,

because he may get a “result” where the playing batter cannot. This “substitute”

or “pinch hitter” then hits a home run for the player, and this qualifies as a

legitimate “hit” in the rule book, and is not dismissed based on the fact that the

substitute batter isn’t even a player in the game…

Hoping I didn’t make this

more confusing or worse…J

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/

October 4, 2001

Dear Sandy and List,

I like your analogy. Actually, this concept of one planet standing in for another is not too different than the Systems Approach implementation of mooltrikona lords and natural rulers standing in for the rulers of non-mooltrikona signs by way of the "order or seeing significations."

This concept is really not too foreign in everyday life as well. Weaker countries stand by and let stronger allied countries represent their interests. Lawyers stand in place of clients, power of attorney can be granted to another person, as a stockholder I can give another stockholder the right to vote on my behalf, etc., etc.

If such things take place in real life, and if you buy the concept of "as above, so it is below", and vice versa, then what is so unusual about this concept?

Ron Grimes

Sandy Crowther [sandy] Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:15 AMAstrologyandtimingevents (AT) (DOT) Com About Samdharmis

Dear List,

I am trying to think of an analogy as to why a samdharmi planet can act as a “substitute” for a viable significator even when legally not even a player, and thus make it possibly easier to understand.

Take a baseball game…It is time for a certain player in that game to go up to bat. (Please bear with me as I am not well-versed in what these baseball actions are “technically” called, but I am trying to make the connection easier to understand. J)

So the player (say Venus) who is supposed to go up to bat, instead uses a “substitute” or “pinch hitter” (say Saturn) who is not even IN the game, but comes in to “represent” him, because he may get a “result” where the playing batter cannot. This “substitute” or “pinch hitter” then hits a home run for the player, and this qualifies as a legitimate “hit” in the rule book, and is not dismissed based on the fact that the substitute batter isn’t even a player in the game…

Hoping I didn’t make this more confusing or worse…J

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/

October 4, 2001

Dear Ron, Sandy, Donna, and list,

Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not start now.

However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the pinch hitter

is fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?

Let me stretch the analogy a bit. Let us say that an aspect is like a

blinding light hitting the eye of the batter. This light would remain

whether the main batter comes or a pinch hitter comes.

The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that when the

samdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has, how can

it work?

The issue that is generated from this is to know what is the handicap and

how it works. If we know that, then we can better understand the whole

system.

You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of respect

for your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses to take

things as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am genuinely sorry

about that.

At the same time, my doubts and questions remain and I hope Krushnaji would

answer these.

Warm regards to all of you

Sanjay

-

" Ron Grimes " <rongrimes

Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:33 PM

RE: About Samdharmis

Dear Sandy and List,

I like your analogy. Actually, this concept of one planet standing in

for another is not too different than the Systems Approach

implementation of mooltrikona lords and natural rulers standing in for

the rulers of non-mooltrikona signs by way of the " order or seeing

significations. "

This concept is really not too foreign in everyday life as well. Weaker

countries stand by and let stronger allied countries represent their

interests. Lawyers stand in place of clients, power of attorney can be

granted to another person, as a stockholder I can give another

stockholder the right to vote on my behalf, etc., etc.

If such things take place in real life, and if you buy the concept of

" as above, so it is below " , and vice versa, then what is so unusual

about this concept?

Ron Grimes

Sandy Crowther [sandy]

Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:15 AM

Astrologyandtimingevents (AT) (DOT) Com

About Samdharmis

Dear List,

I am trying to think of an analogy as to why a samdharmi planet can act

as a " substitute " for a viable significator even when legally not even a

player, and thus make it possibly easier to understand.

Take a baseball game.It is time for a certain player in that game to go

up to bat. (Please bear with me as I am not well-versed in what these

baseball actions are " technically " called, but I am trying to make the

connection easier to understand. :-))

So the player (say Venus) who is supposed to go up to bat, instead uses

a " substitute " or " pinch hitter " (say Saturn) who is not even IN the

game, but comes in to " represent " him, because he may get a " result "

where the playing batter cannot. This " substitute " or " pinch hitter "

then hits a home run for the player, and this qualifies as a legitimate

" hit " in the rule book, and is not dismissed based on the fact that the

substitute batter isn't even a player in the game.

Hoping I didn't make this more confusing or worse.:-)

~Namaste~

Sandy

<http://www.jupitersweb.com/> http://www.jupitersweb.com/

_______

Get your free @ address at

October 5, 2001

Dear Sanjay -

Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not start now.

Not to worry. This is only to expected at this time as Mercury is retrograde while everything usually gets screwed up in communications anyway and misunderstandings can crop up for no reason. As long as everyone is aware of this, then we can all keep a cool head about this. Controversy is good when it leads to understanding in the long run.

However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the pinch hitter

is fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?

Sure it does. I just visualize the Samdharmis as 'back-up" planets, that's all. Take all the highest placed planets in the total of strengths and see if they will work in the end result of the event that you're looking for. If one of those planets is Samdharmi to another one on the high score card, then they can act as back-ups for the other one and in effect take over when the other planet cannot return the required results.

The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that when the

samdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has, how can

it work?

To my understanding, the Samdharmi would NOT be subject to the same handicap as the main planet, otherwise what would be the point? It's sole purpose is to relieve the other planet of its "duties" when it is unable to provide the required result for the event. Therefore it is VERY capable of producing the event all on its own merits as long as it has the required number of high points on the score card. Sort of like subbing for the teacher. That person takes over the temporary duties of the teacher but doesn't necessarily take over his job. He's there only as an aide to help out in an emergency.

You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of respect

for your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses to take

things as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am genuinely sorry

about that.

There is no need to apologize, Sanjay. You are a VERY intelligent man. Just the fact that you can put together the EXCEL worksheet and do those complicated formulas is certainly proof enough of that. I'm sure the ornery streak does you well in many instances and asking questions until you can get the answers you need to have is essential to what makes you tick. This is just a frustrating time period right now I'm sure and once things settle down, and Krushna gives us a revised edition of the Samdharmi rules, we can all get on with the lessons at hand. Your input on this list in invaluable and all of us here certainly respect your points of view no matter what the issue at hand is.

Donna

October 5, 2001

Dear Donna,

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I have no doubts about my

intelligence. However, I suppose all (or that should be most) of us suffer

from the " wood for the trees " syndrome every now and then.

You have missed one point in my mail.

All this about pinch hitters and back ups is fine. Let me tell you what is

bothering me now.

1. When we were originally going through the lessons, it was discussed that

planets aspecting A B or C cannot give the result. This was also

re-emphasized when we discussed why malefic such as Saturn are good in 6th

etc.

2. The only exceptions discussed were lords of D or E who have some kind of

sunglasses to protect them from the blinding light of aspects. Samdharmis

were not mentioned as an exception in this.

Let us put all this down to the communication being incomplete at that time.

So let us assume that samdharmi can give the result even if it aspects A B

or C even if it not the lord of D or E.

If that is the rule, then that is the rule and I accept that as I have no

background to argue against this.

What causes cognitive dissonance here is the accompanying question it

raises.

The question is, if a samdharmi can give the result even if it aspecting A B

or C, then why can't the main planet itself give the result? After all, the

samdharmi also must have enough points to be able to give the result. If it

has less than 12 points, then it can't give the result (unless there are

other exceptions to this rule which I might have overlooked).

Let me illustrate this by an example.

Let us say that there are two samdharmis, X and Y. Both of these aspect one

of A B or C. X has 16 points and Y has 15. By the logic you and Sandy and

Ron have used, both of these can give the result because both are strong

significators. Let us assume other planets have lower points.

When it is the sub of X, it can't give result on its own because it is

aspecting. But it will give the result as the samdharmi of Y. Similarly,

when it is the sub of Y, it cannot give the result on its own because of the

aspect but can give the result as a samdharmi of X.

This, in my mind, considerably increases the chance that any event can

happen in any sub because you can usually find that the planet whose sub is

running is samdharmi to one or more strong significators.

Further, let us assume that it is indeed the case and nothing can be done

about it. Even then, the basic issue remains. And that is the question,

" what prevents the plant which is aspecting A B or C from giving the

result? " And if something prevents it, why does it also not prevent the

samdharmi which is also aspecting A B or C?

I think of aspects as force fields or vibrations set up by planets. Let us

say that there are two kinds of vibrations set up. One by the normal planets

and the others by the lords of D or E. The normal planets set up vibrations

opposite to their nature. The lords of D and E set up only supportive

vibrations (and this is the reason no negative points are counted for the

aspects given by them but the positive points are counted.) The ordinary

kind of vibrations set by the non D and E lords prevent the planet for

acting directly in the matters related to these houses. The D and E lords,

because of their sympathetic vibrations, are able to act.

Now this is just a concoction from my head and might just be a whole lot of

cock and bull. But it sort of fits in with the logic of the system.

The thing which stands out in my logic of this system is that any planet,

samdharmi or not, cannot give the result (unless it is lord of D or E) if it

is aspecting A B or C.

If this is not the case, then I need to make another theory of how the

aspects prevent a planet from giving the result. If I don't build a

consistent theory, then it will keep nagging me.

That is the reason I am waiting for clarifications from Krushnaji.

Krushnaji, you might be reading this and laughing because the answer might

be trivially evident to you. Please enlighten me also.

Whew, that was a long one, wasn't it? I hope I did not jumble things up too

much.

Thank you for reading this, as Sandy likes to say, after one of her long

ones. I hope you read this too Sandy.

Sanjay

-

<DQuinn12

Friday, October 05, 2001 6:57 PM

Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Sanjay -

> Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not start now.

>

Not to worry. This is only to expected at this time as Mercury is retrograde

while everything usually gets screwed up in communications anyway and

misunderstandings can crop up for no reason. As long as everyone is aware of

this, then we can all keep a cool head about this. Controversy is good when

it leads to understanding in the long run.

However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the pinch hitter

is fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?

Sure it does. I just visualize the Samdharmis as 'back-up " planets, that's

all. Take all the highest placed planets in the total of strengths and see

if

they will work in the end result of the event that you're looking for. If

one

of those planets is Samdharmi to another one on the high score card, then

they can act as back-ups for the other one and in effect take over when the

other planet cannot return the required results.

The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that when the

samdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has, how can

it work?

To my understanding, the Samdharmi would NOT be subject to the same handicap

as the main planet, otherwise what would be the point? It's sole purpose is

to relieve the other planet of its " duties " when it is unable to provide the

required result for the event. Therefore it is VERY capable of producing the

event all on its own merits as long as it has the required number of high

points on the score card. Sort of like subbing for the teacher. That person

takes over the temporary duties of the teacher but doesn't necessarily take

over his job. He's there only as an aide to help out in an emergency.

You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of respect

for your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses to take

things as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am genuinely sorry

about that.

There is no need to apologize, Sanjay. You are a VERY intelligent man. Just

the fact that you can put together the EXCEL worksheet and do those

complicated formulas is certainly proof enough of that. I'm sure the ornery

streak does you well in many instances and asking questions until you can

get

the answers you need to have is essential to what makes you tick. This is

just a frustrating time period right now I'm sure and once things settle

down, and Krushna gives us a revised edition of the Samdharmi rules, we can

all get on with the lessons at hand. Your input on this list in invaluable

and all of us here certainly respect your points of view no matter what the

issue at hand is.

Donna

_______

Get your free @ address at

October 5, 2001

Dear

Sanjay,

Yes I read

this…All of it! J…Nice to know I am not the

only one who gets longwinded from time to time…And I know you are a highly

intelligent individual so don’t EVER think anything has to do with me questioning

that, OK? That was never a consideration Sanjay.…Maybe you are a scientist or

an engineer or something? J…At any rate, I’ll have to

re-read your post in the middle of the night when there is no noise to

interrupt my thought process and I can concentrate to see where you are going

with this, and why you feel the need to go there…J

I just

want to share this one thing with you. I just recently completed teaching a

course of students MaHaBote – which is Burmese Birthday Astrology. Part of the

main concept of teaching and learning Mahabote is a total acceptance of working

with two constants – 638 or 639 – to enable one to correctly calculate the Mahabote

chart. WHY these two constants are used – I have no clue. No one does, but it

is an ancient system and it works. But my point is that these constants are

part of the system, and it is necessary that you accept them and not try to

change them for predictive results to be forthcoming.

I am not

having the problem of acceptance as you are, because I have seen it done all

the time, over and over, in other systems, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Simplistic analogies are helpful in explaining things. I believe that Ron’s

post additionally tried to bring about the “why’s and wherefore’s” as to “how” this

can possibly be acceptable, and did a good job.

Take

System’s Approach – you have studied that, right? Substitutions are always

there, when not disqualified initially to bring about the result. Another

ruling allows that very same disqualified planet to bring about the result –

such as in the mooltrikona lords and order of seeing significations. So

initially the very same planet is immediately disqualified, then immediately re-qualifies

based on another rule. If you look at it as two separate issues and approached

to logic, it becomes easier to accept – but somehow I think your mind will not

allow you to do that. J…Dig on Sanjay…Hopefully

you will soon find acceptable answers for yourself. J Thanks.

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/

-----Original

Message-----

Sanjay Jaggia

[sanjaygg2001]

Friday, October 05, 2001

9:11 AM

To:

Re:

Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Donna,

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I have no doubts about my

intelligence. However, I suppose all (or that should be most) of us suffer

from the " wood for the trees " syndrome every now and then.

You have missed one point in my mail.

All this about pinch hitters and back ups is fine. Let me tell you what is

bothering me now.

1. When we were originally going through the lessons, it was discussed that

planets aspecting A B or C cannot give the result. This was also

re-emphasized when we discussed why malefic such as Saturn are good in 6th

etc.

2. The only exceptions discussed were lords of D or E who have some kind of

sunglasses to protect them from the blinding light of aspects. Samdharmis

were not mentioned as an exception in this.

Let us put all this down to the communication being incomplete at that

time.

So let us assume that samdharmi can give the result even if it aspects A B

or C even if it not the lord of D or E.

If that is the rule, then that is the rule and I accept that as I have no

background to argue against this.

What causes cognitive dissonance here is the accompanying question it

raises.

The question is, if a samdharmi can give the result even if it aspecting A

B

or C, then why can't the main planet itself give the result? After all, the

samdharmi also must have enough points to be able to give the result. If it

has less than 12 points, then it can't give the result (unless there are

other exceptions to this rule which I might have overlooked).

Let me illustrate this by an example.

Let us say that there are two samdharmis, X and Y. Both of these aspect one

of A B or C. X has 16 points and Y has 15. By the logic you and Sandy and

Ron have used, both of these can give the result because both are strong

significators. Let us assume other planets have lower points.

When it is the sub of X, it can't give result on its own because it is

aspecting. But it will give the result as the samdharmi of Y. Similarly,

when it is the sub of Y, it cannot give the result on its own because of

the

aspect but can give the result as a samdharmi of X.

This, in my mind, considerably increases the chance that any event can

happen in any sub because you can usually find that the planet whose sub is

running is samdharmi to one or more strong significators.

Further, let us assume that it is indeed the case and nothing can be done

about it. Even then, the basic issue remains. And that is the question,

" what prevents the plant which is aspecting A B or C from giving the

result? " And if something prevents it, why does it also not prevent

the

samdharmi which is also aspecting A B or C?

I think of aspects as force fields or vibrations set up by planets. Let us

say that there are two kinds of vibrations set up. One by the normal

planets

and the others by the lords of D or E. The normal planets set up vibrations

opposite to their nature. The lords of D and E set up only supportive

vibrations (and this is the reason no negative points are counted for the

aspects given by them but the positive points are counted.) The ordinary

kind of vibrations set by the non D and E lords prevent the planet for

acting directly in the matters related to these houses. The D and E lords,

because of their sympathetic vibrations, are able to act.

Now this is just a concoction from my head and might just be a whole lot of

cock and bull. But it sort of fits in with the logic of the system.

The thing which stands out in my logic of this system is that any planet,

samdharmi or not, cannot give the result (unless it is lord of D or E) if

it

is aspecting A B or C.

If this is not the case, then I need to make another theory of how the

aspects prevent a planet from giving the result. If I don't build a

consistent theory, then it will keep nagging me.

That is the reason I am waiting for clarifications from Krushnaji.

Krushnaji, you might be reading this and laughing because the answer might

be trivially evident to you. Please enlighten me also.

Whew, that was a long one, wasn't it? I hope I did not jumble things up too

much.

Thank you for reading this, as Sandy likes to say, after one of her long

ones. I hope you read this too Sandy.

Sanjay

-

<DQuinn12

Friday, October 05, 2001 6:57 PM

Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Sanjay -

> Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not start

now.

>

Not to worry. This is only to expected at this time as Mercury is

retrograde

while everything usually gets screwed up in communications anyway and

misunderstandings can crop up for no reason. As long as everyone is aware

of

this, then we can all keep a cool head about this. Controversy is good when

it leads to understanding in the long run.

However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the pinch

hitter

is fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?

Sure it does. I just visualize the Samdharmis as 'back-up " planets,

that's

all. Take all the highest placed planets in the total of strengths and see

if

they will work in the end result of the event that you're looking for. If

one

of those planets is Samdharmi to another one on the high score card, then

they can act as back-ups for the other one and in effect take over when the

other planet cannot return the required results.

The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that when

the

samdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has, how can

it work?

To my understanding, the Samdharmi would NOT be subject to the same

handicap

as the main planet, otherwise what would be the point? It's sole purpose is

to relieve the other planet of its " duties " when it is unable to

provide the

required result for the event. Therefore it is VERY capable of producing

the

event all on its own merits as long as it has the required number of high

points on the score card. Sort of like subbing for the teacher. That person

takes over the temporary duties of the teacher but doesn't necessarily take

over his job. He's there only as an aide to help out in an emergency.

You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of respect

for your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses to take

things as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am genuinely

sorry

about that.

There is no need to apologize, Sanjay. You are a VERY intelligent man. Just

the fact that you can put together the EXCEL worksheet and do those

complicated formulas is certainly proof enough of that. I'm sure the ornery

streak does you well in many instances and asking questions until you can

get

the answers you need to have is essential to what makes you tick. This is

just a frustrating time period right now I'm sure and once things settle

down, and Krushna gives us a revised edition of the Samdharmi rules, we can

all get on with the lessons at hand. Your input on this list in invaluable

and all of us here certainly respect your points of view no matter what the

issue at hand is.

Donna

_______

Get your free @ address at

October 5, 2001

Hi Sandy,

I may be completely ignorant but I just thought that the 2 numbers 638 and 639 were sinply to convert our calender to the Burmese calender and the TWO nubers were to correct the starting date of our calender to the starting date of theirs. In other words I assumed that their year must start on the equivalent day to our April16th. Not that it matters i'm same as you I will still simply accept it if it has nothing at all to do with the different callenders.

Peter

Sandy Crowther [sandy]Saturday, 6 October 2001 12:42 AM Subject: RE: Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Sanjay,

Yes I read this…All of it! J…Nice to know I am not the only one who gets longwinded from time to time…And I know you are a highly intelligent individual so don’t EVER think anything has to do with me questioning that, OK? That was never a consideration Sanjay.…Maybe you are a scientist or an engineer or something? J…At any rate, I’ll have to re-read your post in the middle of the night when there is no noise to interrupt my thought process and I can concentrate to see where you are going with this, and why you feel the need to go there…J

I just want to share this one thing with you. I just recently completed teaching a course of students MaHaBote – which is Burmese Birthday Astrology. Part of the main concept of teaching and learning Mahabote is a total acceptance of working with two constants – 638 or 639 – to enable one to correctly calculate the Mahabote chart. WHY these two constants are used – I have no clue. No one does, but it is an ancient system and it works. But my point is that these constants are part of the system, and it is necessary that you accept them and not try to change them for predictive results to be forthcoming.

I am not having the problem of acceptance as you are, because I have seen it done all the time, over and over, in other systems, and it makes perfect sense to me. Simplistic analogies are helpful in explaining things. I believe that Ron’s post additionally tried to bring about the “why’s and wherefore’s” as to “how” this can possibly be acceptable, and did a good job.

Take System’s Approach – you have studied that, right? Substitutions are always there, when not disqualified initially to bring about the result. Another ruling allows that very same disqualified planet to bring about the result – such as in the mooltrikona lords and order of seeing significations. So initially the very same planet is immediately disqualified, then immediately re-qualifies based on another rule. If you look at it as two separate issues and approached to logic, it becomes easier to accept – but somehow I think your mind will not allow you to do that. J…Dig on Sanjay…Hopefully you will soon find acceptable answers for yourself. J Thanks.

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/

Sanjay Jaggia [sanjaygg2001]Friday, October 05, 2001 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Donna,Thanks for your words of encouragement. I have no doubts about myintelligence. However, I suppose all (or that should be most) of us sufferfrom the "wood for the trees" syndrome every now and then.You have missed one point in my mail.All this about pinch hitters and back ups is fine. Let me tell you what isbothering me now.1. When we were originally going through the lessons, it was discussed thatplanets aspecting A B or C cannot give the result. This was alsore-emphasized when we discussed why malefic such as Saturn are good in 6thetc.2. The only exceptions discussed were lords of D or E who have some kind ofsunglasses to protect them from the blinding light of aspects. Samdharmiswere not mentioned as an exception in this.Let us put all this down to the communication being incomplete at that time.So let us assume that samdharmi can give the result even if it aspects A Bor C even if it not the lord of D or E.If that is the rule, then that is the rule and I accept that as I have nobackground to argue against this.What causes cognitive dissonance here is the accompanying question itraises.The question is, if a samdharmi can give the result even if it aspecting A Bor C, then why can't the main planet itself give the result? After all, thesamdharmi also must have enough points to be able to give the result. If ithas less than 12 points, then it can't give the result (unless there areother exceptions to this rule which I might have overlooked).Let me illustrate this by an example.Let us say that there are two samdharmis, X and Y. Both of these aspect oneof A B or C. X has 16 points and Y has 15. By the logic you and Sandy andRon have used, both of these can give the result because both are strongsignificators. Let us assume other planets have lower points.When it is the sub of X, it can't give result on its own because it isaspecting. But it will give the result as the samdharmi of Y. Similarly,when it is the sub of Y, it cannot give the result on its own because of theaspect but can give the result as a samdharmi of X.This, in my mind, considerably increases the chance that any event canhappen in any sub because you can usually find that the planet whose sub isrunning is samdharmi to one or more strong significators.Further, let us assume that it is indeed the case and nothing can be doneabout it. Even then, the basic issue remains. And that is the question,"what prevents the plant which is aspecting A B or C from giving theresult?" And if something prevents it, why does it also not prevent thesamdharmi which is also aspecting A B or C?I think of aspects as force fields or vibrations set up by planets. Let ussay that there are two kinds of vibrations set up. One by the normal planetsand the others by the lords of D or E. The normal planets set up vibrationsopposite to their nature. The lords of D and E set up only supportivevibrations (and this is the reason no negative points are counted for theaspects given by them but the positive points are counted.) The ordinarykind of vibrations set by the non D and E lords prevent the planet foracting directly in the matters related to these houses. The D and E lords,because of their sympathetic vibrations, are able to act.Now this is just a concoction from my head and might just be a whole lot ofcock and bull. But it sort of fits in with the logic of the system.The thing which stands out in my logic of this system is that any planet,samdharmi or not, cannot give the result (unless it is lord of D or E) if itis aspecting A B or C.If this is not the case, then I need to make another theory of how theaspects prevent a planet from giving the result. If I don't build aconsistent theory, then it will keep nagging me.That is the reason I am waiting for clarifications from Krushnaji.Krushnaji, you might be reading this and laughing because the answer mightbe trivially evident to you. Please enlighten me also.Whew, that was a long one, wasn't it? I hope I did not jumble things up toomuch.Thank you for reading this, as Sandy likes to say, after one of her longones. I hope you read this too Sandy.Sanjay-<DQuinn12Friday, October 05, 2001 6:57 PM Re: About SamdharmisDear Sanjay -> Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not start now.>Not to worry. This is only to expected at this time as Mercury is retrogradewhile everything usually gets screwed up in communications anyway andmisunderstandings can crop up for no reason. As long as everyone is aware ofthis, then we can all keep a cool head about this. Controversy is good whenit leads to understanding in the long run.However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the pinch hitteris fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?Sure it does. I just visualize the Samdharmis as 'back-up" planets, that'sall. Take all the highest placed planets in the total of strengths and seeifthey will work in the end result of the event that you're looking for. Ifoneof those planets is Samdharmi to another one on the high score card, thenthey can act as back-ups for the other one and in effect take over when theother planet cannot return the required results.The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that when thesamdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has, how canit work?To my understanding, the Samdharmi would NOT be subject to the same handicapas the main planet, otherwise what would be the point? It's sole purpose isto relieve the other planet of its "duties" when it is unable to provide therequired result for the event. Therefore it is VERY capable of producing theevent all on its own merits as long as it has the required number of highpoints on the score card. Sort of like subbing for the teacher. That persontakes over the temporary duties of the teacher but doesn't necessarily takeover his job. He's there only as an aide to help out in an emergency.You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of respectfor your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses to takethings as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am genuinely sorryabout that.There is no need to apologize, Sanjay. You are a VERY intelligent man. Justthe fact that you can put together the EXCEL worksheet and do thosecomplicated formulas is certainly proof enough of that. I'm sure the ornerystreak does you well in many instances and asking questions until you cangetthe answers you need to have is essential to what makes you tick. This isjust a frustrating time period right now I'm sure and once things settledown, and Krushna gives us a revised edition of the Samdharmi rules, we canall get on with the lessons at hand. Your input on this list in invaluableand all of us here certainly respect your points of view no matter what theissue at hand is.Donna_______Get your free @ address at

October 5, 2001

Dear Peter,

Yes…You are correct – This IS to convert the birth year to the Burmese equivalent,

and I didn’t want to go in to the rest of the factors here – but my point was

to address that these 2 particular constants HAVE to be accepted in order for

the system to work, and for the rest of the chart construction to take place. Because

in following the rest of the steps for calculation, when we then divide this

number we get (after subtraction) by 7, then discard

the quotient and keep the remainder to be able to construct the

correct birth chart – this procedure in its entirety also has to be accepted.

To some – this is totally bizarre and makes no sense whatsoever – but if one

cannot get past the total acceptance of working with those numbers and calculations

as relevant and acceptable, one cannot ever accept that Mahabote has any

validity. And if they try to figure out the logistics of why it has to be this

way in order to bring results, they will run into a series of dead ends, and

drive themselves nuts.

So I was just trying to “short cut” another example of needing to accept

some things for certain results to come about – that’s all. We have to have

faith and trust in the Teacher, and those that walked the path before him/her,

and accept their successes and willingness to then share their knowledge with

us, if we ever expect to emulate the same level of satisfactory results and

predictive successes. So if one cannot always understand why – you sometimes

just have to trust. That was my point in a “short cut” sort of way…Sorry if I

caused any confusion…didn’t mean to rattle on and on…J.

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/

-----Original

Message-----

Peter Sutcliffe

[petermay]

Friday, October 05, 2001

10:46 AM

To:

RE:

Re: About Samdharmis

Hi Sandy,

I may be completely

ignorant but I just thought that the 2 numbers 638 and 639 were sinply to

convert our calender to the Burmese calender and the TWO nubers were to correct

the starting date of our calender to the starting date of theirs. In other

words I assumed that their year must start on the equivalent day to our

April16th. Not that it matters i'm same as you I will still simply accept it if

it has nothing at all to do with the different callenders.

Peter

-----Original

Message-----

Sandy Crowther

[sandy]

Saturday, 6 October 2001

12:42 AM

To:

RE:

Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Sanjay,

Yes I read this…All of it! J…Nice to know I am not the only one who gets longwinded from

time to time…And I know you are a highly intelligent individual so don’t EVER

think anything has to do with me questioning that, OK? That was never a

consideration Sanjay.…Maybe you are a scientist or an engineer or something? J…At any rate, I’ll have to re-read your post in the middle

of the night when there is no noise to interrupt my thought process and I can

concentrate to see where you are going with this, and why you feel the need to

go there…J

I just want to share this one thing with you. I just

recently completed teaching a course of students MaHaBote – which is Burmese

Birthday Astrology. Part of the main concept of teaching and learning Mahabote

is a total acceptance of working with two constants – 638 or 639 – to enable

one to correctly calculate the Mahabote chart. WHY these two constants are used

– I have no clue. No one does, but it is an ancient system and it works. But my

point is that these constants are part of the system, and it is necessary that

you accept them and not try to change them for predictive results to be

forthcoming.

I am not having the problem of acceptance as you are,

because I have seen it done all the time, over and over, in other systems, and

it makes perfect sense to me. Simplistic analogies are helpful in explaining

things. I believe that Ron’s post additionally tried to bring about the “why’s

and wherefore’s” as to “how” this can possibly be acceptable, and did a good

job.

Take System’s Approach – you have studied that,

right? Substitutions are always there, when not disqualified initially to bring

about the result. Another ruling allows that very same disqualified planet to

bring about the result – such as in the mooltrikona lords and order of seeing

significations. So initially the very same planet is immediately disqualified,

then immediately re-qualifies based on another rule. If you look at it as two

separate issues and approached to logic, it becomes easier to accept – but

somehow I think your mind will not allow you to do that. J…Dig on Sanjay…Hopefully you will soon find acceptable

answers for yourself. J Thanks.

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/

-----Original

Message-----

Sanjay Jaggia

[sanjaygg2001]

Friday, October 05, 2001

9:11 AM

To:

Re:

Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Donna,

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I have no doubts about my

intelligence. However, I suppose all (or that should be most) of us suffer

from the " wood for the trees " syndrome every now and then.

You have missed one point in my mail.

All this about pinch hitters and back ups is fine. Let me tell you what is

bothering me now.

1. When we were originally going through the lessons, it was discussed that

planets aspecting A B or C cannot give the result. This was also

re-emphasized when we discussed why malefic such as Saturn are good in 6th

etc.

2. The only exceptions discussed were lords of D or E who have some kind of

sunglasses to protect them from the blinding light of aspects. Samdharmis

were not mentioned as an exception in this.

Let us put all this down to the communication being incomplete at that

time.

So let us assume that samdharmi can give the result even if it aspects A B

or C even if it not the lord of D or E.

If that is the rule, then that is the rule and I accept that as I have no

background to argue against this.

What causes cognitive dissonance here is the accompanying question it

raises.

The question is, if a samdharmi can give the result even if it aspecting A

B

or C, then why can't the main planet itself give the result? After all, the

samdharmi also must have enough points to be able to give the result. If it

has less than 12 points, then it can't give the result (unless there are

other exceptions to this rule which I might have overlooked).

Let me illustrate this by an example.

Let us say that there are two samdharmis, X and Y. Both of these aspect one

of A B or C. X has 16 points and Y has 15. By the logic you and Sandy and

Ron have used, both of these can give the result because both are strong

significators. Let us assume other planets have lower points.

When it is the sub of X, it can't give result on its own because it is

aspecting. But it will give the result as the samdharmi of Y. Similarly,

when it is the sub of Y, it cannot give the result on its own because of

the

aspect but can give the result as a samdharmi of X.

This, in my mind, considerably increases the chance that any event can

happen in any sub because you can usually find that the planet whose sub is

running is samdharmi to one or more strong significators.

Further, let us assume that it is indeed the case and nothing can be done

about it. Even then, the basic issue remains. And that is the question,

" what prevents the plant which is aspecting A B or C from giving the

result? " And if something prevents it, why does it also not prevent

the

samdharmi which is also aspecting A B or C?

I think of aspects as force fields or vibrations set up by planets. Let us

say that there are two kinds of vibrations set up. One by the normal

planets

and the others by the lords of D or E. The normal planets set up vibrations

opposite to their nature. The lords of D and E set up only supportive

vibrations (and this is the reason no negative points are counted for the

aspects given by them but the positive points are counted.) The ordinary

kind of vibrations set by the non D and E lords prevent the planet for

acting directly in the matters related to these houses. The D and E lords,

because of their sympathetic vibrations, are able to act.

Now this is just a concoction from my head and might just be a whole lot of

cock and bull. But it sort of fits in with the logic of the system.

The thing which stands out in my logic of this system is that any planet,

samdharmi or not, cannot give the result (unless it is lord of D or E) if

it

is aspecting A B or C.

If this is not the case, then I need to make another theory of how the

aspects prevent a planet from giving the result. If I don't build a

consistent theory, then it will keep nagging me.

That is the reason I am waiting for clarifications from Krushnaji.

Krushnaji, you might be reading this and laughing because the answer might

be trivially evident to you. Please enlighten me also.

Whew, that was a long one, wasn't it? I hope I did not jumble things up too

much.

Thank you for reading this, as Sandy likes to say, after one of her long

ones. I hope you read this too Sandy.

Sanjay

-

<DQuinn12

Friday, October 05, 2001 6:57 PM

Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Sanjay -

> Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not start

now.

>

Not to worry. This is only to expected at this time as Mercury is

retrograde

while everything usually gets screwed up in communications anyway and

misunderstandings can crop up for no reason. As long as everyone is aware

of

this, then we can all keep a cool head about this. Controversy is good when

it leads to understanding in the long run.

However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the pinch

hitter

is fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?

Sure it does. I just visualize the Samdharmis as 'back-up " planets,

that's

all. Take all the highest placed planets in the total of strengths and see

if

they will work in the end result of the event that you're looking for. If

one

of those planets is Samdharmi to another one on the high score card, then

they can act as back-ups for the other one and in effect take over when the

other planet cannot return the required results.

The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that when

the

samdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has, how can

it work?

To my understanding, the Samdharmi would NOT be subject to the same

handicap

as the main planet, otherwise what would be the point? It's sole purpose is

to relieve the other planet of its " duties " when it is unable to

provide the

required result for the event. Therefore it is VERY capable of producing

the

event all on its own merits as long as it has the required number of high

points on the score card. Sort of like subbing for the teacher. That person

takes over the temporary duties of the teacher but doesn't necessarily take

over his job. He's there only as an aide to help out in an emergency.

You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of respect

for your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses to take

things as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am genuinely

sorry

about that.

There is no need to apologize, Sanjay. You are a VERY intelligent man. Just

the fact that you can put together the EXCEL worksheet and do those

complicated formulas is certainly proof enough of that. I'm sure the ornery

streak does you well in many instances and asking questions until you can

get

the answers you need to have is essential to what makes you tick. This is

just a frustrating time period right now I'm sure and once things settle

down, and Krushna gives us a revised edition of the Samdharmi rules, we can

all get on with the lessons at hand. Your input on this list in invaluable

and all of us here certainly respect your points of view no matter what the

issue at hand is.

Donna

_______

Get your free @ address at

To

from this group, send an email to:

-

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

To

from this group, send an email to:

-

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

October 5, 2001

DEAR SANDY,

I NEVER PLAYED BASE BALL. AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. I PLAYED

KABBADDI, CRICKET, IN MY TIME.

SORRY :-)

KRUSHNA

> I am trying to think of an analogy as to why a samdharmi planet can

act as a

> " substitute " for a viable significator even when legally not even a

player,

> and thus make it possibly easier to understand.

>

> Take a baseball game…It is time for a certain player in that game

to go up

> to bat. (Please bear with me as I am not well-versed in what these

baseball

> actions are " technically " called, but I am trying to make the

connection

> easier to understand. :-))

>

> So the player (say Venus) who is supposed to go up to bat, instead

uses a

> " substitute " or " pinch hitter " (say Saturn) who is not even IN the

game, but

> comes in to " represent " him, because he may get a " result " where

the playing

> batter cannot. This " substitute " or " pinch hitter " then hits a home

run for

> the player, and this qualifies as a legitimate " hit " in the rule

book, and

> is not dismissed based on the fact that the substitute batter isn't

even a

> player in the game…

>

> Hoping I didn't make this more confusing or worse…:-)

>

> ~Namaste~

> Sandy

> http://www.jupitersweb.com/ <http://www.jupitersweb.com/>

October 5, 2001

Dear Sanjay,

I have taken print out of your matter. I will try to cover

all in my new writeup on samdharmi and when the planets will not be

able to give the results.

I think we had already discussed in our lessons, that sight

of the planets are of reverse action. and every power ful planet is

having its sight more worst. so if a powerful planet is aspecting the

A,B,C house then it it self do not give the result, it deputes some

samdharmi ( we may call it assistant ). Now the samdharmi planet do

not have any choice, it have to work for the powerful planet, so

there is no question for having it's sight on the houses.

I think I have covered also, that when samdharmi or assistant

planet plays culpritship. The status of 12th lord is also important.

malefic planets such as Saturn or mars with more points, some times

gives good results.

I will try to cover all the points, as for as possible.

krushna

, " Sanjay Jaggia "

<sanjaygg2001> wrote:

> Dear Donna,

>

> Thanks for your words of encouragement. I have no doubts about my

> intelligence. However, I suppose all (or that should be most) of us

suffer

> from the " wood for the trees " syndrome every now and then.

>

> You have missed one point in my mail.

>

> All this about pinch hitters and back ups is fine. Let me tell you

what is

> bothering me now.

>

> 1. When we were originally going through the lessons, it was

discussed that

> planets aspecting A B or C cannot give the result. This was also

> re-emphasized when we discussed why malefic such as Saturn are good

in 6th

> etc.

>

> 2. The only exceptions discussed were lords of D or E who have some

kind of

> sunglasses to protect them from the blinding light of aspects.

Samdharmis

> were not mentioned as an exception in this.

>

> Let us put all this down to the communication being incomplete at

that time.

> So let us assume that samdharmi can give the result even if it

aspects A B

> or C even if it not the lord of D or E.

>

> If that is the rule, then that is the rule and I accept that as I

have no

> background to argue against this.

>

> What causes cognitive dissonance here is the accompanying question

it

> raises.

>

> The question is, if a samdharmi can give the result even if it

aspecting A B

> or C, then why can't the main planet itself give the result? After

all, the

> samdharmi also must have enough points to be able to give the

result. If it

> has less than 12 points, then it can't give the result (unless

there are

> other exceptions to this rule which I might have overlooked).

>

> Let me illustrate this by an example.

>

> Let us say that there are two samdharmis, X and Y. Both of these

aspect one

> of A B or C. X has 16 points and Y has 15. By the logic you and

Sandy and

> Ron have used, both of these can give the result because both are

strong

> significators. Let us assume other planets have lower points.

>

> When it is the sub of X, it can't give result on its own because it

is

> aspecting. But it will give the result as the samdharmi of Y.

Similarly,

> when it is the sub of Y, it cannot give the result on its own

because of the

> aspect but can give the result as a samdharmi of X.

>

> This, in my mind, considerably increases the chance that any event

can

> happen in any sub because you can usually find that the planet

whose sub is

> running is samdharmi to one or more strong significators.

>

> Further, let us assume that it is indeed the case and nothing can

be done

> about it. Even then, the basic issue remains. And that is the

question,

> " what prevents the plant which is aspecting A B or C from giving the

> result? " And if something prevents it, why does it also not prevent

the

> samdharmi which is also aspecting A B or C?

>

> I think of aspects as force fields or vibrations set up by planets.

Let us

> say that there are two kinds of vibrations set up. One by the

normal planets

> and the others by the lords of D or E. The normal planets set up

vibrations

> opposite to their nature. The lords of D and E set up only

supportive

> vibrations (and this is the reason no negative points are counted

for the

> aspects given by them but the positive points are counted.) The

ordinary

> kind of vibrations set by the non D and E lords prevent the planet

for

> acting directly in the matters related to these houses. The D and E

lords,

> because of their sympathetic vibrations, are able to act.

>

> Now this is just a concoction from my head and might just be a

whole lot of

> cock and bull. But it sort of fits in with the logic of the system.

>

> The thing which stands out in my logic of this system is that any

planet,

> samdharmi or not, cannot give the result (unless it is lord of D or

E) if it

> is aspecting A B or C.

>

> If this is not the case, then I need to make another theory of how

the

> aspects prevent a planet from giving the result. If I don't build a

> consistent theory, then it will keep nagging me.

>

> That is the reason I am waiting for clarifications from Krushnaji.

>

> Krushnaji, you might be reading this and laughing because the

answer might

> be trivially evident to you. Please enlighten me also.

>

> Whew, that was a long one, wasn't it? I hope I did not jumble

things up too

> much.

>

> Thank you for reading this, as Sandy likes to say, after one of her

long

> ones. I hope you read this too Sandy.

>

> Sanjay

>

> -

> <DQuinn12@A...>

>

> Friday, October 05, 2001 6:57 PM

> Re: About Samdharmis

>

> Dear Sanjay -

>

> > Starting a controversy is never on my list. I hope one does not

start now.

> >

> Not to worry. This is only to expected at this time as Mercury is

retrograde

> while everything usually gets screwed up in communications anyway

and

> misunderstandings can crop up for no reason. As long as everyone is

aware of

> this, then we can all keep a cool head about this. Controversy is

good when

> it leads to understanding in the long run.

>

> However, I am wary of analogies. The analogy of Sandy about the

pinch hitter

> is fine is baseball but does it apply in ashtavarga?

>

> Sure it does. I just visualize the Samdharmis as 'back-up " planets,

that's

> all. Take all the highest placed planets in the total of strengths

and see

> if

> they will work in the end result of the event that you're looking

for. If

> one

> of those planets is Samdharmi to another one on the high score

card, then

> they can act as back-ups for the other one and in effect take over

when the

> other planet cannot return the required results.

>

> The issue is not why a samdharmi can't represent. The issue is that

when the

> samdharmi is subject to the same handicap that the main planet has,

how can

> it work?

>

> To my understanding, the Samdharmi would NOT be subject to the same

handicap

> as the main planet, otherwise what would be the point? It's sole

purpose is

> to relieve the other planet of its " duties " when it is unable to

provide the

> required result for the event. Therefore it is VERY capable of

producing the

> event all on its own merits as long as it has the required number

of high

> points on the score card. Sort of like subbing for the teacher.

That person

> takes over the temporary duties of the teacher but doesn't

necessarily take

> over his job. He's there only as an aide to help out in an

emergency.

>

> You are all very experienced astrologers and I have a great deal of

respect

> for your opinion. I just have an ornery streak in me which refuses

to take

> things as given. I know it can be annoying at times and I am

genuinely sorry

> about that.

>

> There is no need to apologize, Sanjay. You are a VERY intelligent

man. Just

> the fact that you can put together the EXCEL worksheet and do those

> complicated formulas is certainly proof enough of that. I'm sure

the ornery

> streak does you well in many instances and asking questions until

you can

> get

> the answers you need to have is essential to what makes you tick.

This is

> just a frustrating time period right now I'm sure and once things

settle

> down, and Krushna gives us a revised edition of the Samdharmi

rules, we can

> all get on with the lessons at hand. Your input on this list in

invaluable

> and all of us here certainly respect your points of view no matter

what the

> issue at hand is.

>

> Donna

>

> _______

>

> Get your free @ address at

October 5, 2001

Dear Sandy,

I have answered most of these points in another mail to you. Another long

one, I am afraid. Shall I go and stand in the corner now :-)?

Sanjay

-

" Sandy Crowther " <sandy

Friday, October 05, 2001 9:42 PM

RE: Re: About Samdharmis

Dear Sanjay,

Yes I read this.All of it! :-).Nice to know I am not the only one who gets

longwinded from time to time.And I know you are a highly intelligent

individual so don't EVER think anything has to do with me questioning that,

OK? That was never a consideration Sanjay..Maybe you are a scientist or an

engineer or something? :-).At any rate, I'll have to re-read your post in

the middle of the night when there is no noise to interrupt my thought

process and I can concentrate to see where you are going with this, and why

you feel the need to go there.:-)

I just want to share this one thing with you. I just recently completed

teaching a course of students MaHaBote - which is Burmese Birthday

Astrology. Part of the main concept of teaching and learning Mahabote is a

total acceptance of working with two constants - 638 or 639 - to enable one

to correctly calculate the Mahabote chart. WHY these two constants are

used - I have no clue. No one does, but it is an ancient system and it

works. But my point is that these constants are part of the system, and it

is necessary that you accept them and not try to change them for predictive

results to be forthcoming.

I am not having the problem of acceptance as you are, because I have seen it

done all the time, over and over, in other systems, and it makes perfect

sense to me. Simplistic analogies are helpful in explaining things. I

believe that Ron's post additionally tried to bring about the " why's and

wherefore's " as to " how " this can possibly be acceptable, and did a good

job.

Take System's Approach - you have studied that, right? Substitutions are

always there, when not disqualified initially to bring about the result.

Another ruling allows that very same disqualified planet to bring about the

result - such as in the mooltrikona lords and order of seeing

significations. So initially the very same planet is immediately

disqualified, then immediately re-qualifies based on another rule. If you

look at it as two separate issues and approached to logic, it becomes easier

to accept - but somehow I think your mind will not allow you to do that.

:-).Dig on Sanjay.Hopefully you will soon find acceptable answers for

yourself. :-) Thanks.

~Namaste~

Sandy

http://www.jupitersweb.com/ <http://www.jupitersweb.com/>

Sanjay Jaggia [sanjaygg2001]

Friday, October 05, 2001 9:11 AM

Re: Re: About Samdharmis