Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 Dear Chris, At 10:39 AM 1/16/02 -0500, you wrote: < Regarding all planets having a full trine influence while in transit > >Dear Ernst, > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't >you think? > >Chris Chris, we discussed this a while back. Planets that are closest to trine, i.e. within the same Navamsa range in their respective signs, are going to be conjoined in the Navamsa chart. This is a very important principle, and should be watched carefully. Thus, even beneficial planets that are in trine relation with each other (within the 3:20 d. orb), may not be beneficial, depending on which house of the Navamsa chart they are conjoined in, and what their Navamsa rulerships are. No, this is not something that is new - its just a matter of observing things that should be observed, yet are often overlooked by astrologers. This was among several strong arguments to support the trine aspect of Rahu, that we had about a year ago. That is, even if you don't agree that Rahu aspects, you will have to agree that he *conjoins* Navamsa planets who are in trine from *him*. Best wishes, Robert ===================================== Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA Phone: 541-318-0248 visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail rk. rk and rkoch rkoch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 > Chris, we discussed this a while back. Planets that > are closest to trine, > i.e. within the same Navamsa range in their > respective signs, are going to > be conjoined in the Navamsa chart. This is a very > important principle, and > should be watched carefully. Thus, even beneficial > planets that are in > trine relation with each other (within the 3:20 d. > orb), may not be > beneficial, depending on which house of the Navamsa > chart they are > conjoined in, and what their Navamsa rulerships are. > Dear Robert, In terms of transit effects,it seems that the D9 transits could be overlayed to the rashi chart. For a more complete picture the D1 transits could be overlayed to the D9 chart. Not to mention D9 transits to the D9 chart. This could get rather complex. Regards Ron Send FREE video emails in Mail! http://promo./videomail/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 Dear Robert, At 10:25 AM 1/16/02 -0800, Robert A. Koch wrote: >Dear Chris, > >At 10:39 AM 1/16/02 -0500, you wrote: > >< Regarding all planets having a full trine influence while in transit > > >>Dear Ernst, >> >>Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't >>you think? >> >>Chris > >Chris, we discussed this a while back. Planets that are closest to trine, >i.e. within the same Navamsa range in their respective signs, are going to >be conjoined in the Navamsa chart. This is a very important principle, and >should be watched carefully. Thus, even beneficial planets that are in >trine relation with each other (within the 3:20 d. orb), may not be >beneficial, depending on which house of the Navamsa chart they are >conjoined in, and what their Navamsa rulerships are. First off, we should clarify that this doesn't mean that planets merely falling within 3*20 of each other are in trine in navamsha; they have to be within the same 3*20 division of the rashi chart, a very different thing. > >No, this is not something that is new - its just a matter of observing >things that should be observed, yet are often overlooked by >astrologers. This was among several strong arguments to support the trine >aspect of Rahu, that we had about a year ago. That is, even if you don't >agree that Rahu aspects, you will have to agree that he *conjoins* Navamsa >planets who are in trine from *him*. I'm not sure what your point here is with respect to mine as I made no mention of Rahu but rather Mars. Except for Ernst's claim that Phaladeepika holds that transiting planets casts trinal aspects(Ernst, do you have a page reference? I don't know that text very well), I think the notion that Mars could cast a trine is completely foreign to the customary practice of jyotish. This is not to say that it can't be found somewhere in the classical texts, only that most vedic astrologers don't use it. And even if one were to employ the trines-in-rashi-is-a-conjunction-in-navamsha approach as you or Andrew suggests, this clearly isn't the case here, as Bush's navamsha Saturn falls in Leo and transiting Mars is in Pisces. Chris > > > >Best wishes, >Robert > >===================================== >Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer >Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA >Phone: 541-318-0248 >visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail >rk. rk and >rkoch rkoch > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >: gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2002 Report Share Posted January 17, 2002 Dear Chris, Just to clarify, I did not say that a planet in trine aspects while in transit, I said that it has the ability to trigger an event, two very different things. We have to keep in mind that an aspect colors things, so if Saturn aspects a factor in the chart it is colored by Saturn's nature, it becomes black, slow, etc. In transit, a planet in trine simply has the capacity to start something. And, as you thought, Phaladeepika says that the event occurs when the transiting planet is in the same navamsa portion from 1-9. So the transit has a 3 degree 20 minute influence. This is not just for planets transiting in trine, but also for transitng planets aspecting. So if the lagna lord was Mars, and it aspects the Sun with its 4th sight, then when Mars is in the same navamsa, 1-9, as is the Sun, an event is triggered. I don't have the chapter and sloka # available to me right now, just moved, books not at hand. BUt it is in a chapte called "When bhavas give thier results" towards the end of the chapter I believe. Best Regards, Ernst Wilhelm www.vedic astrology.net Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers - "Christopher Kevill" <ckevill <gjlist>; <gjlist> Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:14 PM Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > Dear Robert, > > At 10:25 AM 1/16/02 -0800, Robert A. Koch wrote: > >Dear Chris, > > > >At 10:39 AM 1/16/02 -0500, you wrote: > > > >< Regarding all planets having a full trine influence while in transit > > > > >>Dear Ernst, > >> > >>Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't > >>you think? > >> > >>Chris > > > >Chris, we discussed this a while back. Planets that are closest to trine, > >i.e. within the same Navamsa range in their respective signs, are going to > >be conjoined in the Navamsa chart. This is a very important principle, and > >should be watched carefully. Thus, even beneficial planets that are in > >trine relation with each other (within the 3:20 d. orb), may not be > >beneficial, depending on which house of the Navamsa chart they are > >conjoined in, and what their Navamsa rulerships are. > > First off, we should clarify that this doesn't mean that planets merely > falling within 3*20 of each other are in trine in navamsha; they have to be > within the same 3*20 division of the rashi chart, a very different thing. > > > > >No, this is not something that is new - its just a matter of observing > >things that should be observed, yet are often overlooked by > >astrologers. This was among several strong arguments to support the trine > >aspect of Rahu, that we had about a year ago. That is, even if you don't > >agree that Rahu aspects, you will have to agree that he *conjoins* Navamsa > >planets who are in trine from *him*. > > I'm not sure what your point here is with respect to mine as I made no > mention of Rahu but rather Mars. Except for Ernst's claim that > Phaladeepika holds that transiting planets casts trinal aspects(Ernst, do > you have a page reference? I don't know that text very well), I think the > notion that Mars could cast a trine is completely foreign to the customary > practice of jyotish. This is not to say that it can't be found somewhere > in the classical texts, only that most vedic astrologers don't use it. And > even if one were to employ the trines-in-rashi-is-a-conjunction-in-navamsha > approach as you or Andrew suggests, this clearly isn't the case here, as > Bush's navamsha Saturn falls in Leo and transiting Mars is in Pisces. > > Chris > > > > > > > > >Best wishes, > >Robert > > > >===================================== > >Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer > >Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA > >Phone: 541-318-0248 > >visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail > >rk. rk and > >rkoch rkoch > > > > > > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > >: gjlist- > > > > > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2002 Report Share Posted January 17, 2002 Dear Chris, At 11:14 PM 1/16/02 -0500, you wrote: >First off, we should clarify that this doesn't mean that planets merely >falling within 3*20 of each other are in trine in navamsha; they have to be >within the same 3*20 division of the rashi chart, a very different thing. No, that wasn't my point. The point I made was, that planets that are in *trine*, i.e. approx. 120 d. apart, may fall in the same Navamsa and thus work like conjunctions. I can't stress the importance of this enough. In the example given, if Rahu were, say, at 9 d. Cn, and lagna lord Venus were between 6.40 Sc and 9.59 Sc, then they will be conjoined in the Navamsa chart in the debilitation sign of Venus, i.e. Virgo. Now, depending on the Navamsa lagna, these planets might fall in 6, 8, or 12, thus making the delineation of their results very negative, more so than you would otherwise suppose from their rasi positions. Another point: Apart from the Navamsas, Nadi Jyotishis consider the common ruled naksatras where natal and/or transiting planets may be placed. This gives you a wide degree difference of 13:20 d., much less 3.20 as per Navamsa divisions. Planets falling in the common ruled naksatras, will bring to bear the planet ruling those naksatras very strongly in the determination of the outcome of the transit. The same is true so far as natal positions of planets are concerned. This point was touched upon in some previous posts also. Say, for example, the Sun in some chart is at 2 d. Sc, whereas Mars is at 29 d. Gemini. There is no aspect between them yet the naksatras thus occupied, are respectively Vishakha and Punarvasu, both ruled by Jupiter as per Vimsottari. Not only will the Sun and Mars give their combined results to Jupiter during his Vimsottari dasa/bhuktis, but they will give Jupiter's results during their own dasa/bhuktis as well. In response to Ron's point, that this might make things too complicated: my response would be, that human life is hardly a simplified thing, especially in Kali-yuga. Thus the more you sharpen your tools, then the easier it will be to ferret out the subtleties. >I'm not sure what your point here is with respect to mine as I made no >mention of Rahu but rather Mars. Except for Ernst's claim that >Phaladeepika holds that transiting planets casts trinal aspects(Ernst, do >you have a page reference? The aspect, if there is one, is not the point being made. The point is, that planets in transit, in trines [which is a degree range, not necessarily an aspect] to each other, are strongly connected through occupation of a common Navamsa. This makes their effects intermingle just as much, or more so, than if they were in aspect in the conventional ways. You may not, however, pay too much attention to the Navamsa position of fast-moving transit planets like Mercury, Venus, or Moon. However, slow movers like Saturn, Rahu, and Jupiter should be watched carefully, as when they enter a very afflicted natal Navamsa division (where, say, there are some challenged planets), then they can wreak havoc for the very brief period of time that they are in that 3.20 division. In the Chandra -Kala Nadi, there is also much ado about the 64th Navamsa, and Saturn/Rahu transits do those divisions related to death, etc. So try to put Navamsa positions, and transit planets in particular Navamsas, in your tool box. You will not think that these are unnecessary complications - you'll see some real-life correspondences to the transits and actual events. Robert ===================================== Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty member SJVC and ACVA Phone: 541-318-0248 visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail rk. rk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2002 Report Share Posted January 17, 2002 Dear Ernst, At 05:33 AM 1/17/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: >Dear Chris, > Just to clarify, I did not say that a planet in trine aspects while in >transit, I said that it has the ability to trigger an event, two very >different things. We have to keep in mind that an aspect colors things, so >if Saturn aspects a factor in the chart it is colored by Saturn's nature, it >becomes black, slow, etc. In transit, a planet in trine simply has the >capacity to start something. I'm not sure what this means exactly. If aspects don't trigger events, then what does? I think you'll have to clarify your clarification! And, as you thought, Phaladeepika says that the >event occurs when the transiting planet is in the same navamsa portion from >1-9. So the transit has a 3 degree 20 minute influence. This is not just for >planets transiting in trine, but also for transitng planets aspecting. So if >the lagna lord was Mars, and it aspects the Sun with its 4th sight, then >when Mars is in the same navamsa, 1-9, as is the Sun, an event is triggered. Right, and as I said previously, this situation didn't exist in Bush's "preztel event", so the Mars trine in transit didn't have a navamsha hit. > I don't have the chapter and sloka # available to me right now, just >moved, books not at hand. BUt it is in a chapte called "When bhavas give >thier results" towards the end of the chapter I believe. I've looked at the transit chapter but have yet to find anything. Chris > > >Best Regards, >Ernst Wilhelm >www.vedic astrology.net >Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers > >- >"Christopher Kevill" <ckevill ><gjlist>; <gjlist> >Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:14 PM >Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > > >> Dear Robert, >> >> At 10:25 AM 1/16/02 -0800, Robert A. Koch wrote: >> >Dear Chris, >> > >> >At 10:39 AM 1/16/02 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >< Regarding all planets having a full trine influence while in transit > >> > >> >>Dear Ernst, >> >> >> >>Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't >> >>you think? >> >> >> >>Chris >> > >> >Chris, we discussed this a while back. Planets that are closest to >trine, >> >i.e. within the same Navamsa range in their respective signs, are going >to >> >be conjoined in the Navamsa chart. This is a very important principle, >and >> >should be watched carefully. Thus, even beneficial planets that are in >> >trine relation with each other (within the 3:20 d. orb), may not be >> >beneficial, depending on which house of the Navamsa chart they are >> >conjoined in, and what their Navamsa rulerships are. >> >> First off, we should clarify that this doesn't mean that planets merely >> falling within 3*20 of each other are in trine in navamsha; they have to >be >> within the same 3*20 division of the rashi chart, a very different thing. >> >> > >> >No, this is not something that is new - its just a matter of observing >> >things that should be observed, yet are often overlooked by >> >astrologers. This was among several strong arguments to support the >trine >> >aspect of Rahu, that we had about a year ago. That is, even if you don't >> >agree that Rahu aspects, you will have to agree that he *conjoins* >Navamsa >> >planets who are in trine from *him*. >> >> I'm not sure what your point here is with respect to mine as I made no >> mention of Rahu but rather Mars. Except for Ernst's claim that >> Phaladeepika holds that transiting planets casts trinal aspects(Ernst, do >> you have a page reference? I don't know that text very well), I think the >> notion that Mars could cast a trine is completely foreign to the customary >> practice of jyotish. This is not to say that it can't be found somewhere >> in the classical texts, only that most vedic astrologers don't use it. >And >> even if one were to employ the >trines-in-rashi-is-a-conjunction-in-navamsha >> approach as you or Andrew suggests, this clearly isn't the case here, as >> Bush's navamsha Saturn falls in Leo and transiting Mars is in Pisces. >> >> Chris >> >> > >> > >> > >> >Best wishes, >> >Robert >> > >> >===================================== >> >Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer >> >Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA >> >Phone: 541-318-0248 >> >visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail >> >rk. rk and >> >rkoch rkoch >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >> >: gjlist- >> > >> > >> > >> >Your use of is subject to >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >> : gjlist- >> >> >> >> Your use of is subject to >> > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >: gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2002 Report Share Posted January 17, 2002 Dear Robert, At 10:50 AM 1/17/02 -0800, Robert A. Koch wrote: >Dear Chris, > >At 11:14 PM 1/16/02 -0500, you wrote: > >>First off, we should clarify that this doesn't mean that planets merely >>falling within 3*20 of each other are in trine in navamsha; they have to be >>within the same 3*20 division of the rashi chart, a very different thing. > >No, that wasn't my point. The point I made was, that planets that are in >*trine*, i.e. approx. 120 d. apart, may fall in the same Navamsa and thus >work like conjunctions. I can't stress the importance of this >enough. In the example given, if Rahu were, say, at 9 d. Cn, and lagna >lord Venus were between 6.40 Sc and 9.59 Sc, then they will be conjoined in >the Navamsa chart in the debilitation sign of Venus, i.e. Virgo. Now, >depending on the Navamsa lagna, these planets might fall in 6, 8, or 12, >thus making the delineation of their results very negative, more so than >you would otherwise suppose from their rasi positions. Yes, thank you for elaborating on the navamsha connection to transits. However, I believe my original point regarding the transiting Mars trine to Bush's natal Saturn still stands. There was no navamsha connection between those two planets. To me, this is a blind spot of jyotish that warrants fixing. > >The aspect, if there is one, is not the point being made. The point is, >that planets in transit, in trines [which is a degree range, not >necessarily an aspect] to each other, are strongly connected through >occupation of a common Navamsa. The point I was originally making is the one that both you and Ernst have failed to answer: there is no common navamsha to the Mars transit to Saturn. Everything else you've said here is superfluous on that. regards, Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 Dear Chris, At 08:32 PM 1/17/02 -0500, you wrote: >The point I was originally making is the one that both you and Ernst have >failed to answer: there is no common navamsha to the Mars transit to >Saturn. Everything else you've said here is superfluous on that. > >regards, >Chris You questioned the *technique* of analyzing transits of planets in trine, that Ernst put forward, not the specific matters in question re: Bush's chart. That is what he and I were replying to. Here's what you said originally, in response to Ernst, which I also responded to: Chris At 05:04 AM 1/15/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: >Dear Christopher, > all planets have a full trine influence for triggering events in Transit. >Phaladeepika has a great chapter on the use of Transits to trigger events. >Dear Ernst, >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't >you think? Anyway, if you are looking for reasons why Bush fainted, I could give a few other explanations that are more interesting *to me* anyway than transits of Saturn and Mars. Best wishes, Robert ===================================== Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA Phone: 541-318-0248 visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail rk. rk and rkoch rkoch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 > Anyway, if you are looking for reasons why Bush fainted, I could give a few > other explanations that are more interesting *to me* anyway than transits > of Saturn and Mars. > > > Best wishes, > Robert Dear Robert I'm all ears...I'd love to hear any insights or ideas you are willing to share. cynthia> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 Anyway, if you are looking for reasons why Bush fainted, I could give a few > other explanations that are more interesting *to me* anyway than transits > of Saturn and Mars. > > > Best wishes, > Robert Dear Robert I'm all ears...I'd love to hear any insights or ideas you are willing to share. cynthia> Yes, Robert, please do share your explanations and views on this. All best to you, Patrice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 Dear Cynthia and Patrice, Regarding my post re: G.W. Bush, and what interested me more about his fainting episode, you wrote: Dear Robert I'm all ears...I'd love to hear any insights or ideas you are willing to share. cynthia> Yes, Robert, please do share your explanations and views on this. All best to you, Patrice OK, then, here goes! 1. The Vimsottari and Yogini dasas that were operating on 1/13/2002, when Bush fainted, were poignant, but I will come to those later. The Vimsottari dasa was Sa/Ra/Sa/Su, whereas for Yogini, it was Sa/Ma/Ma/Ra. For now, note the following, which I found to be very interesting on that day: 2. These were the transiting positions of planets on that day: Body Longitude Nakshatra Pada Rasi Navamsa ChKarak Lagna 17 Ta 54' 03.71" Rohini 3 Ta Ge - Sun 29 Sg 32' 44.67" U.Shaa. 1 Sg Sg AK Moon 2 Cp 09' 40.57" U.Shaa. 2 Cp Cp DK Mars 2 Pi 21' 35.44" Poo.Bhaa. 4 Pi Cn GK Mercury 18 Cp 22' 48.55" Sravanam 3 Cp Ge MK Jupiter ® 15 Ge 05' 04.80" Aardra 3 Ge Aq PiK Venus 29 Sg 23' 16.06" U.Shaa. 1 Sg Sg AmK Saturn ® 14 Ta 44' 14.86" Rohini 2 Ta Ta PK Rahu 1 Ge 47' 57.73" Mrigasira 3 Ge Li BK Ketu 1 Sg 47' 57.73" Moola 1 Sg Ar - Uranus 29 Cp 12' 54.95" Dhanishtha 2 Cp Vi - Neptune 14 Cp 01' 48.79" Sravanam 2 Cp Ta - Pluto 22 Sc 35' 58.56" Jyeshtha 2 Sc Cp - Maandi 6 Ge 50' 28.11" Aardra 1 Ge Sg - Gulika 28 Ta 21' 27.19" Mrigasira 2 Ta Vi - 3. Note that in Nadi astrology, the degree of each sign following significant planets related to health, can be critical to health/longevity if transited by malefic planets. That is, as in Bush's case, Atmakaraka Venus is at 28:23 Cancer. Thus, whenever malefic planets transit on, or close to that degree, in any sign, it can influence his health adversely. Of course, such transits could happen frequently. However, whether or not they will be damaging to health, greatly or mildly, will depend on which dasas are operating simultaneously. 4. Note that natural AK Sun, and Chara AK Venus were transiting at 29 degrees of Sg when the event occurred, which is the latter cusp of the 6th and 7th houses. Moon had just entered Cp also, at about 1 degree when the event occurred. Now, here's where it gets interesting: 5. In the transit analysis system called Sarvatobhadra Chakra, natal and transit planets aspect certain naksatras, depending on which naksatra they occupy natally, or in transit. The break-down is like this: The Sun and Moon aspect the 14th and 15th stars from them (i.e., from the star where they are placed). Mars aspects the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 15th stars from him. Mercury and Venus aspect the 1st and 15th stars from them. Jupiter aspects the 10th, 15th-, and 19th stars from him. Saturn aspects the 3rd, 5th, 15th, and 19th stars from him. So on 1/14/02, all of Sun, Venus, and lagna lord Moon, were in the naksatra of Uttarashadha, a naksatra from which they all aspect Pusyami, which is the rising naksatra of Bush's chart. They also aspect the naksatra Punarvasu, which is where Bush's Sun is located in the sign of Gemini. * Synthesizing all of this information, we can draw the following conclusions: (1) that, Sun, Moon, and Venus, are all karakas of the physical body: Sun and Venus as Atmakarakas, and Moon ruling the lagna; (2) they are transiting in a degree position, which is malefic to the AK Venus (relating to health), given Ve natally at 28 d. Cn, with the transit planets at around 29 Sg, the 6th house; (3) from the naksatra of Uttarashadha where they were placed in transit, they all aspect the naksatra Pushyami, Bush's rising naksatra (which is thus sensitive to health), while the Sun and Moon aspect Punarvasu, where Bush's natal Sun is placed. Sun is not only critical to health in general, but it is also the lord of the 2nd house, representing the throat, which is supposed to be the pathogenesis of Bush's fainting. * Now, to Saturn: Saturn Rx at 14 degrees of Ta, makes the *exact* drishti to Bush's lagna at 14 degrees of Cn. Saturn is also in Rohini, and aspects the 3rd, 5th, and 15th naksatra from him. The 5th naksatra from Rohini, is again Pushyami, Bush's rising naksatra, who is thus getting hammered sufficiently by all of the above planets in positions damaging to health. * Dasas: In Yogini dasa (which is a good dasa for longevity, as well as matters threatening to health) Bush was running Sa/Ma/Ma/Ra. In the Navamsa chart, all three of these malefics afflict Jupiter, who is lord of the 2nd house. Note that Mars is transiting at around 5 Pisces, which is equal to the Navamsa of Leo, his natal Navamsa position. Leo is also the 2nd house in the rasi chart, where Mars is placed natally as well. Thus there is some truth to the speculation that Bush swallowed a pretzel in the wrong way, thus depressing some nerve which resulted in his fainting. * In Vim. dasa, it was Sa/Ra/Sa/Su. Note now the Sun's significance as the 2nd lord, and Sooksma dasa lord also. Natally, the lagna is hemmed in by Mars, Sun, and Saturn, while the Sun is hemmed in by Rahu and Saturn. Naturally, these dasas operating to the 4th level, are going to shake up the physical foundations of the man when they operate, while meanwhile they get the help from transiting Saturn as indicated above, and Rahu in the sign of Gemini as well. Rahu in transit (who acts like Saturn, according to Parasara), will aspect the 5th naksatra from his position in Mrigashira, which is Aslesha. Aslesha is the part of the lagna where Mercury (representing consciousness and the nervous system), and Venus (the Atmkarakas) are situated, at 16:43 and 20:23 Cn respectively. So, the above correspondences to transiting positions, and the naksatras aspected by transiting planets, are what interest me more with Bush's fainting situation. It is quite an interesting phenomenon when Sun, lagna lord Moon, and AK Venus were all transiting approximately in the same degree, in a sandhi position between the 6th and 7th houses. It could have been worse, although I think Bush has better longevity than that. Here's one last point for anybody out there: I am not too convinced about these observations of some astrologers, that Bush is going to get assassinated sometime early this year. Whoever is convinced of this, I would like to hear your arguments. Thanks! Best wishes, Robert ===================================== Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJVC and ACVA Phone: 541-318-0248 visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> or e-mail rk (AT) robertkoch (DOT) com. rk (AT) robertkoch (DOT) com and rkoch (AT) bendnet (DOT) com rkoch (AT) bendnet (DOT) com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Dear Robert, At 12:36 PM 1/18/02 -0800, Robert A. Koch wrote: >Dear Chris, > >At 08:32 PM 1/17/02 -0500, you wrote: > > >>The point I was originally making is the one that both you and Ernst have >>failed to answer: there is no common navamsha to the Mars transit to >>Saturn. Everything else you've said here is superfluous on that. >> >>regards, >>Chris > >You questioned the *technique* of analyzing transits of planets in trine, >that Ernst put forward, not the specific matters in question re: Bush's >chart. That is what he and I were replying to. Here's what you said >originally, in response to Ernst, which I also responded to: > >Chris >At 05:04 AM 1/15/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: > >Dear Christopher, > > all planets have a full trine influence for triggering events in Transit. > >Phaladeepika has a great chapter on the use of Transits to trigger events. > > >Dear Ernst, > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't > >you think? I think you missed my original post which initiated this thread. In it, I merely noted the transiting trine of Mars to Saturn at the time of the preztel attack and wondered how jyotish could account for it. Ernst's response to that gave his explanation which, so far, has come up short. Chris > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Dear Christopher, > > >Dear Ernst, > > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't > > >you think? It depends, if they are in the habbit of trying to predict the day of an event through the help of transits then I am sure they would be aware of it. Most astrologers don't attempt that and we don't discuss it much in favor of dasas, which have so much meat to discuss versus the simplicity of transits. But when trying to hit the day a transit is nice and simple. Working with dasas down to 5 levels is risky due to inaccurate birth times, not to mention quite often the 5th level will be several days long. A few reasons could be put forth why planets in trine to the navamsa arc can trigger an event. One is that they are then conjunct in the navamsa. But that can not be the only reason as planets can join in the navamsa and be out of trines as well. THe other reason is that the trine position, dividing the circle into three, and three representing the movement of energy, could explain why trines can trigger events. Then the fact that they share elements could also be the reason. So there are a lot of reasons to make connections to trines. Phaladeepika also makes mention that planets in Kendra to each other are in Shambandha, he does not say drishti/spect, but Shambandha, meaning they are mutually connected. SO there are a lot of ways that planets can interrelate, only one of which is through planetary aspect. Best Regards, Ernst Wilhelm www.vedic astrology.net Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers - "Christopher Kevill" <ckevill <gjlist>; <gjlist> Saturday, January 19, 2002 8:25 AM Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > Dear Robert, > > At 12:36 PM 1/18/02 -0800, Robert A. Koch wrote: > >Dear Chris, > > > >At 08:32 PM 1/17/02 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >>The point I was originally making is the one that both you and Ernst have > >>failed to answer: there is no common navamsha to the Mars transit to > >>Saturn. Everything else you've said here is superfluous on that. > >> > >>regards, > >>Chris > > > >You questioned the *technique* of analyzing transits of planets in trine, > >that Ernst put forward, not the specific matters in question re: Bush's > >chart. That is what he and I were replying to. Here's what you said > >originally, in response to Ernst, which I also responded to: > > > >Chris > >At 05:04 AM 1/15/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: > > >Dear Christopher, > > > all planets have a full trine influence for triggering events in Transit. > > >Phaladeepika has a great chapter on the use of Transits to trigger events. > > > > >Dear Ernst, > > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, don't > > >you think? > > > I think you missed my original post which initiated this thread. In it, I > merely noted the transiting trine of Mars to Saturn at the time of the > preztel attack and wondered how jyotish could account for it. Ernst's > response to that gave his explanation which, so far, has come up short. > > Chris > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 Ernst, At 05:02 PM 1/19/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: >Dear Christopher, > > > >Dear Ernst, >> > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, >don't >> > >you think? > >It depends, if they are in the habbit of trying to predict the day of an >event through the help of transits then I am sure they would be aware of it. >Most astrologers don't attempt that and we don't discuss it much in favor of >dasas, which have so much meat to discuss versus the simplicity of transits. >But when trying to hit the day a transit is nice and simple. Working with >dasas down to 5 levels is risky due to inaccurate birth times, not to >mention quite often the 5th level will be several days long. > A few reasons could be put forth why planets in trine to the navamsa arc >can trigger an event. One is that they are then conjunct in the navamsa. But >that can not be the only reason as planets can join in the navamsa and be >out of trines as well. Yes, this is the point also made by Andrew and Robert. However, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I want to reiterate that this navamsha conjunction wasn't present at the time of Bush's preztel attack. I think some of the confusion stems from the fact that I *thought* the navamsha conjunction did explain things as you suggested. That's why I posted the apparently affirmative response above. However, after I posted it, I actually checked out the chart and found there was no conjunction of Mars and Saturn in the navamsha. There was no aspect whatsoever. So all we have here is a rashi trine aspect from Mars to Saturn. Can I ask you why you don't give any credence to the notion of partial strength aspects as outlined by Frawley? It would seem to be only way of "squaring the circle" in this case -- short of actually amending jyotish notions of aspecting. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 Dear Christopher, If Mars was in exact trine to Bushes planet then it has to be in the same navamsa. What day was that, I have Mars in trine to Saturn with a navamsa orb from the 14-18. REgarding your query as to using why nobody seems to be using partial aspects like Frawley mentions, in fact I only use calculated aspects, not simply like Frawley mentions in his books, but I calculate the virupas from 0-60 to get the exact aspect, as per Sri Pati and BPHS. So if that interests you I would recommend it. Best Regards, Ernst Wilhelm www.vedic astrology.net Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers - "Christopher Kevill" <ckevill <gjlist>; <gjlist> Sunday, January 20, 2002 7:43 AM Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > Ernst, > > At 05:02 PM 1/19/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: > >Dear Christopher, > > > > >Dear Ernst, > >> > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, > >don't > >> > >you think? > > > >It depends, if they are in the habbit of trying to predict the day of an > >event through the help of transits then I am sure they would be aware of it. > >Most astrologers don't attempt that and we don't discuss it much in favor of > >dasas, which have so much meat to discuss versus the simplicity of transits. > >But when trying to hit the day a transit is nice and simple. Working with > >dasas down to 5 levels is risky due to inaccurate birth times, not to > >mention quite often the 5th level will be several days long. > > A few reasons could be put forth why planets in trine to the navamsa arc > >can trigger an event. One is that they are then conjunct in the navamsa. But > >that can not be the only reason as planets can join in the navamsa and be > >out of trines as well. > > Yes, this is the point also made by Andrew and Robert. However, at the > risk of beating a dead horse, I want to reiterate that this navamsha > conjunction wasn't present at the time of Bush's preztel attack. I think > some of the confusion stems from the fact that I *thought* the navamsha > conjunction did explain things as you suggested. That's why I posted the > apparently affirmative response above. However, after I posted it, I > actually checked out the chart and found there was no conjunction of Mars > and Saturn in the navamsha. There was no aspect whatsoever. So all we have > here is a rashi trine aspect from Mars to Saturn. > > Can I ask you why you don't give any credence to the notion of partial > strength aspects as outlined by Frawley? It would seem to be only way of > "squaring the circle" in this case -- short of actually amending jyotish > notions of aspecting. > > Chris > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 Dear Crusty This notion of planets in exact trine being conjunct in Navamsha is a useful tool but like anything must be looked at in context of the whole chart. I have given you a number of examples including the chart of Das Goravani who has Saturn in trine to Venus. Being conjunct in the navamsha of Scorpio enabled me to suggest certain problems in his marriage that turned out to be completely true. I read another chart for a lady on this group who had suffered life long depression and yet no astrologer had picked it up in her chart even though she had consulted a "name" astrologer. I noticed not only were her Moon and Saturn in exact trine but they fell in the navamsha of Venus with Venus. I asked her firstly if she suffered depression and if the depression was related to relationships and chiefly marriage. Once again it was spot on correct- so do not underestimate this. I give no weight to the Bush incident as I nearly choke on my nuts everynight (not to mention my foot getting stuck in my mouth as well.) If it was a major incident ok I might look for an aspect- but a pretzel going down the wrong way is hardly a 3 mile island stuff is it. Andrew www.muruga/ Join Now!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2002 Report Share Posted January 21, 2002 Dear Ernst and Andrew, At 04:57 PM 1/20/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: >Dear Christopher, > If Mars was in exact trine to Bushes planet then it has to be in the same >navamsa. What day was that, I have Mars in trine to Saturn with a navamsa >orb from the 14-18. I'm afraid you haven't been reading my previous posts very carefully. First off, Bush choked on the preztel on the Jan 13 at about 6.30 pm, when Mars was at 2Pi33. This was a little less than one degree from an exact trine to natal Saturn at 3Cn30. This is in keeping with the commonly understood (western?) idea that applying transits are more powerful than separating ones. Navamsha Saturn is in Leo (1*28) and navamsha Mars is in Cancer 23*00. So to repeat this for the second (or is it the third?) time: there is no navamsha conjunction between Mars and Saturn at the time of the preztel attack. I hope you appreciate the fact that I refrained from using capital letters there. >REgarding your query as to using why nobody seems to be using partial >aspects like Frawley mentions, in fact I only use calculated aspects, not >simply like Frawley mentions in his books, but I calculate the virupas from >0-60 to get the exact aspect, as per Sri Pati and BPHS. So if that interests >you I would recommend it. I'm interested in it, but it looks like a ton of work and not really applicable in everyday practice. Why not simply pay attention to Mars' trines? I think I know why -- because it's not clearly stated anywhere in the ancient texts. But frankly, when dogmatism triumphs over common sense, I have to question the reason why we are slaves to the texts. Is that faith in the texts the end in itself or is the end we seek to become better astrologers? To me, the answer if clear. Chris > >Best Regards, >Ernst Wilhelm >www.vedic astrology.net >Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers > >- >"Christopher Kevill" <ckevill ><gjlist>; <gjlist> >Sunday, January 20, 2002 7:43 AM >Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > > >> Ernst, >> >> At 05:02 PM 1/19/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: >> >Dear Christopher, >> > > > >Dear Ernst, >> >> > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, >> >don't >> >> > >you think? >> > >> >It depends, if they are in the habbit of trying to predict the day of an >> >event through the help of transits then I am sure they would be aware of >it. >> >Most astrologers don't attempt that and we don't discuss it much in favor >of >> >dasas, which have so much meat to discuss versus the simplicity of >transits. >> >But when trying to hit the day a transit is nice and simple. Working with >> >dasas down to 5 levels is risky due to inaccurate birth times, not to >> >mention quite often the 5th level will be several days long. >> > A few reasons could be put forth why planets in trine to the navamsa >arc >> >can trigger an event. One is that they are then conjunct in the navamsa. >But >> >that can not be the only reason as planets can join in the navamsa and be >> >out of trines as well. >> >> Yes, this is the point also made by Andrew and Robert. However, at the >> risk of beating a dead horse, I want to reiterate that this navamsha >> conjunction wasn't present at the time of Bush's preztel attack. I think >> some of the confusion stems from the fact that I *thought* the navamsha >> conjunction did explain things as you suggested. That's why I posted the >> apparently affirmative response above. However, after I posted it, I >> actually checked out the chart and found there was no conjunction of Mars >> and Saturn in the navamsha. There was no aspect whatsoever. So all we >have >> here is a rashi trine aspect from Mars to Saturn. >> >> Can I ask you why you don't give any credence to the notion of partial >> strength aspects as outlined by Frawley? It would seem to be only way of >> "squaring the circle" in this case -- short of actually amending jyotish >> notions of aspecting. >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >> : gjlist- >> >> >> >> Your use of is subject to >> > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat >: gjlist- > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 Dear Christopher, so Mars was not in an effective position to trigger Bush's Saturn. Western astrologers would say yes, they like 3-6 degree orbs, but they really only become triggers when they are in the same navamsa position. I think the trigger, and there always is one, is the aspect of the Moon, the lagna lord to Saturn the 8th lord, indicating a traumatic experience, and one that could of caused death. The tranist is more significant cause the transiting Moon and transiting Mercury are in the same rasi and Mercury is the 12th lord. Best Regards, Ernst Wilhelm www.vedic astrology.net Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers - "Christopher Kevill" <ckevill <gjlist>; <gjlist> Monday, January 21, 2002 9:28 AM Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > Dear Ernst and Andrew, > > At 04:57 PM 1/20/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: > >Dear Christopher, > > If Mars was in exact trine to Bushes planet then it has to be in the same > >navamsa. What day was that, I have Mars in trine to Saturn with a navamsa > >orb from the 14-18. > > I'm afraid you haven't been reading my previous posts very carefully. > First off, Bush choked on the preztel on the Jan 13 at about 6.30 pm, when > Mars was at 2Pi33. This was a little less than one degree from an exact > trine to natal Saturn at 3Cn30. This is in keeping with the commonly > understood (western?) idea that applying transits are more powerful than > separating ones. Navamsha Saturn is in Leo (1*28) and navamsha Mars is in > Cancer 23*00. So to repeat this for the second (or is it the third?) > time: there is no navamsha conjunction between Mars and Saturn at the time > of the preztel attack. I hope you appreciate the fact that I refrained > from using capital letters there. > > >REgarding your query as to using why nobody seems to be using partial > >aspects like Frawley mentions, in fact I only use calculated aspects, not > >simply like Frawley mentions in his books, but I calculate the virupas from > >0-60 to get the exact aspect, as per Sri Pati and BPHS. So if that interests > >you I would recommend it. > > I'm interested in it, but it looks like a ton of work and not really > applicable in everyday practice. Why not simply pay attention to Mars' > trines? I think I know why -- because it's not clearly stated anywhere in > the ancient texts. But frankly, when dogmatism triumphs over common sense, > I have to question the reason why we are slaves to the texts. Is that > faith in the texts the end in itself or is the end we seek to become better > astrologers? To me, the answer if clear. > > Chris > > > > > >Best Regards, > >Ernst Wilhelm > >www.vedic astrology.net > >Kala Vedic Astrology Software & Kala Occult Publishers > > > >- > >"Christopher Kevill" <ckevill > ><gjlist>; <gjlist> > >Sunday, January 20, 2002 7:43 AM > >Re: [GJ] Transiting trines > > > > > >> Ernst, > >> > >> At 05:02 PM 1/19/02 -0800, Ernst Wilhelm wrote: > >> >Dear Christopher, > >> > > > >Dear Ernst, > >> >> > >Well, that will come as news to most practicing vedic astrologers, > >> >don't > >> >> > >you think? > >> > > >> >It depends, if they are in the habbit of trying to predict the day of an > >> >event through the help of transits then I am sure they would be aware of > >it. > >> >Most astrologers don't attempt that and we don't discuss it much in favor > >of > >> >dasas, which have so much meat to discuss versus the simplicity of > >transits. > >> >But when trying to hit the day a transit is nice and simple. Working with > >> >dasas down to 5 levels is risky due to inaccurate birth times, not to > >> >mention quite often the 5th level will be several days long. > >> > A few reasons could be put forth why planets in trine to the navamsa > >arc > >> >can trigger an event. One is that they are then conjunct in the navamsa. > >But > >> >that can not be the only reason as planets can join in the navamsa and be > >> >out of trines as well. > >> > >> Yes, this is the point also made by Andrew and Robert. However, at the > >> risk of beating a dead horse, I want to reiterate that this navamsha > >> conjunction wasn't present at the time of Bush's preztel attack. I think > >> some of the confusion stems from the fact that I *thought* the navamsha > >> conjunction did explain things as you suggested. That's why I posted the > >> apparently affirmative response above. However, after I posted it, I > >> actually checked out the chart and found there was no conjunction of Mars > >> and Saturn in the navamsha. There was no aspect whatsoever. So all we > >have > >> here is a rashi trine aspect from Mars to Saturn. > >> > >> Can I ask you why you don't give any credence to the notion of partial > >> strength aspects as outlined by Frawley? It would seem to be only way of > >> "squaring the circle" in this case -- short of actually amending jyotish > >> notions of aspecting. > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > >> : gjlist- > >> > >> > >> > >> Your use of is subject to > >> > > > > > > > > > >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > >: gjlist- > > > > > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > 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.