Functional vs Natural

[Guest guest]

Hare Rama Krishna

 

 

Namaste Guruji Solai and others,

 

While thinking about malefic and benefic planets, I constantly face a

dilemma of functional vs natural, i.e., which one of them to consider

or to consider both of them.

 

How can we decide which one (functional or natural) is more relevant

in a given situation (aspect, argala, exaltation/debilitation etc.,)?

 

Can you please give us an anecdote or analogy, which will distinctly

separate these two.

 

Thanks and regards.

 

Your sishya,

viswanadham

[Guest guest]

Sorry to intrude, but I just felt like writing this, though I know I could be way wrong.

Sun, Mars, Saturn, Rahu, Ketu, waning moon and Mercury when in bad company are

all considered natural malefics, while Jupiter, Venus, waxing moon and

well-associated Mercury are natural benefics. By their lordship of certain

houses relative to a native's lagna, their natural tendencies get modified

accordingly. I personally find it tough to support the argument that Sun, the

epitome of dharma, could be a malefic, though scriptures describe it to be so.

Each planet is as a natural significator of certain things. It also plays the

role of the house where it has its moolatrikona, with reference to the natural

chakra with Aries as the first house. Apart from these, it plays the role of

the houses it lords and in which it's posited. This last role, which is purely

functional, makes it either a benefic or malefic. For example, Jupiter for

Librans is a functional malefic, due to his lordship. If posited in Aquarius,

he harms to a large extent the natural good effects of the 5th. house.

If you know the microbiology of the human body, you'll know that some harmful

bacteria are always present, ready to do harm. They're in normal circumstances

dormant due to the overwhelming well-being. When a native's health gets

afflicted, however, the bacteria get the potential to assume quelling

proportions. A natural malefic is something akin to these bacteria. If a

native's chart has afflicted benefics and powerful malefics, he'll be tormented

by their maleficence and vice-versa.

Argala can also be explained roughly using the same example. Though there's the

potential to create harm, the bacteria can turn malevolent only when there's

the intervention - an argala - of an infection or whatever causing the native's

health to be afflicted, resulting in a net malefic influence.

Mars though a natural malefic is a yogakaraka for Cancerians and Leonians, due

to his lordhip. While retaining the power to even kill the native, he'd do him

good, much like the body's immune system. When death occurs following a fever

getting out of hand, its intentions of protecting the native are noble; it

kills because it's naturally endowed with deathly potential. Mars is very like

that. A well-posited mars can endow a native with immense courage, but the

associated indiscretions, if unchecked, could easily ruin the person.

I know this is a potentially wrong answer; you'd do well to check out replies of the gurus here.

Warm regards,

Ramapriya

hubli (AT) vsnl (DOT) com

vishwanatham <vishwanatham (AT) rocketmail (DOT) com> wrote: Hare Rama KrishnaNamaste

Guruji Solai and others,While thinking about malefic and benefic planets, I

constantly face a dilemma of functional vs natural, i.e., which one of them to

consider or to consider both of them. How can we decide which one (functional

or natural) is more relevant in a given situation (aspect, argala,

exaltation/debilitation etc.,)?Can you please give us an anecdote or analogy,

which will distinctly separate these two.Thanks and regards.Your

sishya,viswanadham Terms of

Service.

Send FREE video emails in Mail.