Rahu-Ketu [non corporeal drishtis -- how about ascendant?]

[Guest guest]

Obviously now you realize that it was not a 'dumb' question at all :-

) given that it generated so many words, statements and paragraphs!

Imagine what would have happened if you had not asked it. Even if

confusions got aired, in the end everyone benefits. Please keep the

enquiring spirit alive. Astrology, sadly, suffers from a lot

of 'gospel' type thinking and an invitation to examine generally

brings up the bad humour in many. I hope most of us do not have a

personal stake or mistaken sense of being responsible for astrology's

raison d'etre or for explaining every bit of it. Those who do, I hope

they have blocked my name from their 'messages to read' folders

already :-)

 

In all fairness, I have some problems with putting too much faith in

the role of 'visible' or other kinds of lights and "rays" (I know

about the 'rashmi' consideration in bala determinations but then by

that token we should all be using Sripati house divisions for all

phalit astrology also and not use equal house divisions or whole sign

houses -- which is not done generally). I also have problems with

pseudo-scientific explanations underlying astrology and how it works

to be dependent on gravitation forces or some such physical forces. I

have read somewhere that the gravitation pull exerted by the average

birthing team on the baby is higher than that due to the planets

combined (minus earth ofcourse). Some similar 'astroscientists' also

offer the explanation that since moon can bring about tides in

oceans, it should be affecting the body cells which have 70-80%

water. The ocean is one large body of water, cells are

compartmentalized entities. How many have seen tides in small puddles

and small pools and lakes each time the moon rises?

 

Terminology can be confusing, as Divya rightly pointed out and we

should treat aspect (western sense) different from drishti (glance -

jyotish). Unless one uses the terms to mean a bridge or connection. I

like to view drishtis as connections between two planets or planets

in two signs. The former connection is brought into force by the

drishtis of planets, the latter is a bridge created by sign drishtis

(fixed with 3/4 chara signs, etc). When both kinds of relationships

are there, I would consider that the bond is stronger. I will try to

explore that aspect (pun unintended!) in any chart discussions I give

here or elsewhere. Nothing is stopping you from exploring that right

away, though. For instance, look at the dasha and bhukti lords and

see if they are expressing in a certain way or with certain intensity

and if that can be explained by the 'drishti' consideration. I

realize that due to the multifactorial nature of astrology such

teasing out becomes difficult, but let that not scare us away from

seeing and examining that.

 

Rahu and ketu, similar to ascendant or rising degree are NODAL in

nature. Created by non-physical celestial intersection or crossing.

Lunar nodes are created by the crossing of the paths of apparent

sun/earth and moon, while ascendant is created by the crossing of

local horizon with the zodiacal circle.

 

Perhaps ascendant should also have a drishti!

 

 

 

 

,

< wrote:

>

> I'm really a novice, but while reading the Rahu Ketu

> Aspects, I was wondering how is it that the other

> planets are considered having Rays, or the ability to

> have rays and not Rahu and Ketu when its only the Sun

> which is the source of light. All the others are

> emitting reflected light.

> This might have been discussed before and maybe I'm

> asking something quiet dumb.

>

>

>

>

> _________

> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all

new Security Centre. http://uk.security.

>