Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 dear saliesh you have not given the longitudes of the planets. i am just supposing that since the planets concerned saturn and rahu are with same number of planets and are also in sign of same oddity i suppose rahu has traveresed more than saturn. please check for that if that is the case then rahu should be considered as the lord and not saturn. then Aquarius dasa would be six years. regards partha vedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote: > Dear Narsimha Rao Garu, > > Can you please help me decide whether my reasoning is wrong in the following case? > > I have a problem with computation of 'years' for Aq dasa. > > Thanks > > Shailesh > > > Since Aq is an even-footed Rasi, the year count for it is in reverse/ anti-clock direction and SA, occupying Sg, contributes 2 years. > > However, as per ND calculations of JHL, Aq dasa is for 6 years (indicating that RA has been considered as lord of Aq). > > I have pasted the chart, and JHL ccomputations, of ND, below. > > +--------------+ > > | | |Mar HL | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > |Ket | |GL | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > > | | |Sun Mer | > > | | |Rah | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > |Asc Moo | |Mnd |Ven Glk | > > |Jup SatR | | |AL | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > +--------------+ > > Narayana Dasa of D-1 chart : Maha Dasas > > > Sg: 1960-09-01 - 1972-09-01 > > Cp: 1972-09-01 - 1973-09-01 > > Aq: 1973-09-01 - 1979-09-02 > > Pi: 1979-09-02 - 1982-09-01 > > Ar: 1982-09-01 - 1983-09-02 > > Ta: 1983-09-02 - 1986-09-01 > > Ge: 1986-09-01 - 1988-09-01 > > Cn: 1988-09-01 - 1995-09-02 > > Le: 1995-09-02 - 2007-09-02 > > Vi: 2007-09-02 - 2008-09-01 > > Li: 2008-09-01 - 2018-09-01 > > Sc: 2018-09-01 - 2024-09-01 > > Sg: 2024-09-01 - 2024-09-01 > > Cp: 2024-09-01 - 2035-09-01 > > Aq: 2035-09-01 - 2041-09-01 > > Pi: 2041-09-01 - 2050-09-01 > > Ar: 2050-09-01 - 2061-09-01 > > Ta: 2061-09-01 - 2070-09-01 > > Ge: 2070-09-01 - 2080-08-31 > > Cn: 2080-08-31 - 2085-08-31 > > Le: 2085-08-31 - 2085-08-31 > > Vi: 2085-08-31 - 2096-08-31 > > Li: 2096-08-31 - 2098-09-01 > > Sc: 2098-09-01 - 2104-09-01 > > - > pvr108 > vedic astrology > Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:07 PM > [vedic astrology] Re: Narayana Dasa(discrepancies between manual and JHL) > > > Hi, > > Read the document completely. Narayan, I hope your document gave > Saturn and Ketu exceptions also. > > This chart has Saturn in the initiating sign. If Saturn exception is > applied, then dasas go as Le, Vi, Li, Sc and so on. > > Some people ignore Saturn exception in Leo. If you do that, then of > course the calculations are different. Full JH allows you to change > the initiating sign and exception status. You can experiment then. > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha > > PS: Neither the full JH nor JHLite 4.1 are available to the public > yet. As for JHLite 4.1, those who got the trial version a couple of > months back got it and those who didn't will get later. Please don't > send me a mail about it. > > vedic astrology, Venkateswara Reddy > <venkateshwara_reddy> wrote: > > Dear Narasimha and other members, > > The document on Narayana Dasa in the section of > > Files on Vedic-Astrology group says: > > *2. If the initiating sign is fixed > > (sthira),progression is > > every 6th sign. > > Le (Zodiacal) : Le, Cp, Ge, Sc, Ar, Vi, Aq, Cn, > > Sg,Ta,Li, Pi. > > Ta (Anti-Zodiacal) : Ta, Sg, Cn, Aq, Vi, Ar, Sc, Ge, > > Cp,Le,Pi, Li. > > > > I got different progression, as the intiating sign is > > Leo in the appended chart. > > Can someone throw light on it? > > > > Best regards, > > Venkateshwara Reddy > > > > > > > > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings! > > http://greetings. > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-@e... > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 Dear Partha, The rules for assessing the strength are as under. You have taken step (g) into account whereas I am referring to (f), which should naturally have precedent over (g). Shailesh Chandra Chadhascchadha (AT) hotmail (DOT) com For comparing the strengths of Rahu/Saturn & Ketu/Mars: (a) First see if one lord is in that sign. If so, other lord is stronger. For example, if Saturn is in Aquarius, then invariably Rahu should be taken as its lord. (b) If one of the above houses is with a larger number of planets, then he is stronger. © "SWAAMI GURUJNA DRIGYOGAHA". If one of them is aspected (SIGN ASPECT or RASI DRISHTI) by more out of (aa) Jupiter, (bb) Mercury and (cc) dispositor, then he is stronger. These carry equal weight. Example : Lets assume that we are considering Le & Aq(1/7). Lets also assume that Le is aspected by Ju & Aq by Me, and their lords do not aspect their respective signs. Then there is a tie. When looking for the aspect of lord/dispositor, you can settle for aspect from either lord, but you have to use the stronger lord in all other rules. (d) If one of them is exalted, then he is stronger (opposite for debilitation). (e) One occupying a sign of higher natural strength (Dual>Fixed>Movable) is stronger. (f) One giving more years is stronger. (g) A sign whose lord is more advanced in longitude from the beginning of its sign is stronger. Rahu and Ketu's advancement should be measured from the end of sign rather than beginning. - partvinu5 vedic astrology Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:41 AM [vedic astrology] Narayana dasa=dear sailesh dear salieshyou have not given the longitudes of the planets. i am just supposing that since the planets concerned saturn and rahu are with same number of planets and are also in sign of same oddity i suppose rahu has traveresed more than saturn. please check for that if that is the case then rahu should be considered as the lord and not saturn. then Aquarius dasa would be six years.regardsparthavedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote:> Dear Narsimha Rao Garu,> > Can you please help me decide whether my reasoning is wrong in the following case?> > I have a problem with computation of 'years' for Aq dasa.> > Thanks> > Shailesh > > > Since Aq is an even-footed Rasi, the year count for it is in reverse/ anti-clock direction and SA, occupying Sg, contributes 2 years.> > However, as per ND calculations of JHL, Aq dasa is for 6 years (indicating that RA has been considered as lord of Aq).> > I have pasted the chart, and JHL ccomputations, of ND, below.> > +--------------+> > | | |Mar HL | |> > | | | | |> > | | | | |> > | | | | |> > | | | | |> > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------|> > |Ket | |GL |> > | | | |> > | | | |> > | | | |> > | | | |> > |-----------| Rasi |-----------|> > | | |Sun Mer |> > | | |Rah |> > | | | |> > | | | |> > | | | |> > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------|> > |Asc Moo | |Mnd |Ven Glk |> > |Jup SatR | | |AL |> > | | | | |> > | | | | |> > | | | | |> > +--------------+> > Narayana Dasa of D-1 chart : Maha Dasas> > > Sg: 1960-09-01 - 1972-09-01> > Cp: 1972-09-01 - 1973-09-01> > Aq: 1973-09-01 - 1979-09-02> > Pi: 1979-09-02 - 1982-09-01> > Ar: 1982-09-01 - 1983-09-02> > Ta: 1983-09-02 - 1986-09-01> > Ge: 1986-09-01 - 1988-09-01> > Cn: 1988-09-01 - 1995-09-02> > Le: 1995-09-02 - 2007-09-02> > Vi: 2007-09-02 - 2008-09-01> > Li: 2008-09-01 - 2018-09-01> > Sc: 2018-09-01 - 2024-09-01> > Sg: 2024-09-01 - 2024-09-01> > Cp: 2024-09-01 - 2035-09-01> > Aq: 2035-09-01 - 2041-09-01> > Pi: 2041-09-01 - 2050-09-01> > Ar: 2050-09-01 - 2061-09-01> > Ta: 2061-09-01 - 2070-09-01> > Ge: 2070-09-01 - 2080-08-31> > Cn: 2080-08-31 - 2085-08-31> > Le: 2085-08-31 - 2085-08-31> > Vi: 2085-08-31 - 2096-08-31> > Li: 2096-08-31 - 2098-09-01> > Sc: 2098-09-01 - 2104-09-01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 dear sailesh you are right i think you need not even consider rule(f) , as rule (e) states that a planet is house of higher natural strength is more stronger. so according to rule (e) it should be saturn . saturn is stronger and hence two years. regards partha vedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote: > Dear Partha, > > The rules for assessing the strength are as under. > > You have taken step (g) into account whereas I am referring to (f), which should naturally have precedent over (g). > > Shailesh Chandra Chadha > scchadha@h... > > For comparing the strengths of Rahu/Saturn & Ketu/Mars: > > (a) First see if one lord is in that sign. If so, other lord is stronger. For example, if Saturn is in Aquarius, then invariably Rahu should be taken as its lord. > > (b) If one of the above houses is with a larger number of planets, then he is stronger. > > © "SWAAMI GURUJNA DRIGYOGAHA". If one of them is aspected (SIGN ASPECT or RASI DRISHTI) by more out of > > (aa) Jupiter, (bb) Mercury and (cc) dispositor, then he is stronger. > > These carry equal weight. > > Example : Lets assume that we are considering Le & Aq(1/7). > > Lets also assume that Le is aspected by Ju & Aq by Me, and their lords do not aspect > > their respective signs. > > Then there is a tie. > > When looking for the aspect of lord/dispositor, you can settle for aspect from either lord, but you have to use the stronger lord in all other rules. > > (d) If one of them is exalted, then he is stronger (opposite for debilitation). > > (e) One occupying a sign of higher natural strength (Dual>Fixed>Movable) is stronger. > > (f) One giving more years is stronger. > > (g) A sign whose lord is more advanced in longitude from the beginning of its sign is stronger. > > > > Rahu and Ketu's advancement should be measured from the end of sign rather than beginning. > > > > > > - > partvinu5 > vedic astrology > Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:41 AM > [vedic astrology] Narayana dasa=dear sailesh > > > dear saliesh > > you have not given the longitudes of the planets. i am just supposing > that since the planets concerned saturn and rahu are with same number > of planets and are also in sign of same oddity i suppose rahu has > traveresed more than saturn. please check for that if that is the > case then rahu should be considered as the lord and not saturn. then > Aquarius dasa would be six years. > regards > partha vedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote: > > Dear Narsimha Rao Garu, > > > > Can you please help me decide whether my reasoning is wrong in the > following case? > > > > I have a problem with computation of 'years' for Aq dasa. > > > > Thanks > > > > Shailesh > > > > > > Since Aq is an even-footed Rasi, the year count for it is in > reverse/ anti-clock direction and SA, occupying Sg, contributes 2 > years. > > > > However, as per ND calculations of JHL, Aq dasa is for 6 years > (indicating that RA has been considered as lord of Aq). > > > > I have pasted the chart, and JHL ccomputations, of ND, below. > > > > +--------------+ > > > > | | |Mar HL | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > > > |Ket | |GL | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > > > > | | |Sun Mer | > > > > | | |Rah | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > > > |Asc Moo | |Mnd |Ven Glk | > > > > |Jup SatR | | |AL | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > +--------------+ > > > > Narayana Dasa of D-1 chart : Maha Dasas > > > > > > Sg: 1960-09-01 - 1972-09-01 > > > > Cp: 1972-09-01 - 1973-09-01 > > > > Aq: 1973-09-01 - 1979-09-02 > > > > Pi: 1979-09-02 - 1982-09-01 > > > > Ar: 1982-09-01 - 1983-09-02 > > > > Ta: 1983-09-02 - 1986-09-01 > > > > Ge: 1986-09-01 - 1988-09-01 > > > > Cn: 1988-09-01 - 1995-09-02 > > > > Le: 1995-09-02 - 2007-09-02 > > > > Vi: 2007-09-02 - 2008-09-01 > > > > Li: 2008-09-01 - 2018-09-01 > > > > Sc: 2018-09-01 - 2024-09-01 > > > > Sg: 2024-09-01 - 2024-09-01 > > > > Cp: 2024-09-01 - 2035-09-01 > > > > Aq: 2035-09-01 - 2041-09-01 > > > > Pi: 2041-09-01 - 2050-09-01 > > > > Ar: 2050-09-01 - 2061-09-01 > > > > Ta: 2061-09-01 - 2070-09-01 > > > > Ge: 2070-09-01 - 2080-08-31 > > > > Cn: 2080-08-31 - 2085-08-31 > > > > Le: 2085-08-31 - 2085-08-31 > > > > Vi: 2085-08-31 - 2096-08-31 > > > > Li: 2096-08-31 - 2098-09-01 > > > > Sc: 2098-09-01 - 2104-09-01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 Namaste Shailesh, We need not even go to step (f). There is a tie from (a) till (d). When we come to step (e), since Sg > Le, Saturn should be taken as the lord of Aq. Is there some exception that we are missing here? regards, Krishna. Shailesh wrote: > Dear Partha, > > > > The rules for assessing the strength are as under. > > > > You have taken step (g) into account whereas I am referring to (f), > which should naturally have precedent over (g). > > > > Shailesh Chandra Chadha > scchadha <scchadha > > > > For comparing the strengths of Rahu/Saturn & Ketu/Mars: > > (a) First see if one lord is in that sign. If so, other lord is > stronger. For example, if Saturn is in Aquarius, then invariably Rahu > should be taken as its lord. > > (b) If one of the above houses is with a larger number of planets, > then he is stronger. > > © "SWAAMI GURUJNA DRIGYOGAHA". If one of them is aspected (SIGN > ASPECT or RASI DRISHTI) by more out of > > (aa) Jupiter, (bb) Mercury and (cc) dispositor, then he is stronger. > > These carry equal weight. > > Example : Lets assume that we are considering Le & Aq(1/7). > > Lets also assume that Le is aspected by Ju & Aq by Me, and their lords > do not aspect > > their respective signs. > > Then there is a tie. > > When looking for the aspect of lord/dispositor, you can settle for > aspect from either lord, but you have to use the stronger lord in all > other rules. > > (d) If one of them is exalted, then he is stronger (opposite for > debilitation). > > (e) One occupying a sign of higher natural strength > (Dual>Fixed>Movable) is stronger. > > (f) One giving more years is stronger. > > (g) A sign whose lord is more advanced in longitude from the beginning > of its sign is stronger. > > > > Rahu and Ketu's advancement should be measured from the end of sign > rather than beginning. > > > > > > - > > partvinu5 <partvinu5 > > vedic astrology > <vedic astrology> > > Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:41 AM > > [vedic astrology] Narayana dasa=dear sailesh > > > dear saliesh > > you have not given the longitudes of the planets. i am just supposing > that since the planets concerned saturn and rahu are with same number > of planets and are also in sign of same oddity i suppose rahu has > traveresed more than saturn. please check for that if that is the > case then rahu should be considered as the lord and not saturn. then > Aquarius dasa would be six years. > regards > partha vedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote: > > Dear Narsimha Rao Garu, > > > > Can you please help me decide whether my reasoning is wrong in the > following case? > > > > I have a problem with computation of 'years' for Aq dasa. > > > > Thanks > > > > Shailesh > > > > > > Since Aq is an even-footed Rasi, the year count for it is in > reverse/ anti-clock direction and SA, occupying Sg, contributes 2 > years. > > > > However, as per ND calculations of JHL, Aq dasa is for 6 years > (indicating that RA has been considered as lord of Aq). > > > > I have pasted the chart, and JHL ccomputations, of ND, below. > > > > +--------------+ > > > > | | |Mar HL | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > > > |Ket | |GL | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > > > > | | |Sun Mer | > > > > | | |Rah | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > | | | | > > > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > > > |Asc Moo | |Mnd |Ven Glk | > > > > |Jup SatR | | |AL | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > | | | | | > > > > +--------------+ > > > > Narayana Dasa of D-1 chart : Maha Dasas > > > > > > Sg: 1960-09-01 - 1972-09-01 > > > > Cp: 1972-09-01 - 1973-09-01 > > > > Aq: 1973-09-01 - 1979-09-02 > > > > Pi: 1979-09-02 - 1982-09-01 > > > > Ar: 1982-09-01 - 1983-09-02 > > > > Ta: 1983-09-02 - 1986-09-01 > > > > Ge: 1986-09-01 - 1988-09-01 > > > > Cn: 1988-09-01 - 1995-09-02 > > > > Le: 1995-09-02 - 2007-09-02 > > > > Vi: 2007-09-02 - 2008-09-01 > > > > Li: 2008-09-01 - 2018-09-01 > > > > Sc: 2018-09-01 - 2024-09-01 > > > > Sg: 2024-09-01 - 2024-09-01 > > > > Cp: 2024-09-01 - 2035-09-01 > > > > Aq: 2035-09-01 - 2041-09-01 > > > > Pi: 2041-09-01 - 2050-09-01 > > > > Ar: 2050-09-01 - 2061-09-01 > > > > Ta: 2061-09-01 - 2070-09-01 > > > > Ge: 2070-09-01 - 2080-08-31 > > > > Cn: 2080-08-31 - 2085-08-31 > > > > Le: 2085-08-31 - 2085-08-31 > > > > Vi: 2085-08-31 - 2096-08-31 > > > > Li: 2096-08-31 - 2098-09-01 > > > > Sc: 2098-09-01 - 2104-09-01 > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Terms of Service > <>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 In (d),you've said planet exalted is stronger & opposite for Debilitation. Exaltation is OK. But are you sure debilitation is a state to be reckoned while establishing strength--- making a debilitated planet weaker planet in comparative strength. Regards, Fayyaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2002 Report Share Posted February 13, 2002 Dear Partha & Krishna, Thanks for pointing out my error. I had followed the rule (e) for computing dasa length, but in my reply to you, I erronously quoted (f). My original query to Narsimha Rao ji was that, whereas, as per (e) we should have AQ dasa of 2 years, JHL showed it to be 6 year [>Aq: 1973-09-01 - 1979-09-02] Now, Narsimha Rao garu has confirmed that the AQ Dasa should be 2 years only [ >Aq: 1973-09-01 (23:55:32) - 1975-09-02 (12:12:15)<] With best wishes, Shailesh Chandra Chadhascchadha (AT) hotmail (DOT) com - partvinu5 vedic astrology Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:30 AM [vedic astrology] Re: Narayana dasa=dear sailesh dear sailesh you are righti think you need not even consider rule(f) , as rule (e) states that a planet is house of higher natural strength is more stronger. so according to rule (e) it should be saturn . saturn is stronger and hence two years. regardsparthavedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote:> Dear Partha,> > The rules for assessing the strength are as under.> > You have taken step (g) into account whereas I am referring to (f), which should naturally have precedent over (g).> > Shailesh Chandra Chadha> scchadha@h...> > For comparing the strengths of Rahu/Saturn & Ketu/Mars:> > (a) First see if one lord is in that sign. If so, other lord is stronger. For example, if Saturn is in Aquarius, then invariably Rahu should be taken as its lord.> > (b) If one of the above houses is with a larger number of planets, then he is stronger.> > © "SWAAMI GURUJNA DRIGYOGAHA". If one of them is aspected (SIGN ASPECT or RASI DRISHTI) by more out of> > (aa) Jupiter, (bb) Mercury and (cc) dispositor, then he is stronger.> > These carry equal weight.> > Example : Lets assume that we are considering Le & Aq(1/7).> > Lets also assume that Le is aspected by Ju & Aq by Me, and their lords do not aspect> > their respective signs.> > Then there is a tie.> > When looking for the aspect of lord/dispositor, you can settle for aspect from either lord, but you have to use the stronger lord in all other rules.> > (d) If one of them is exalted, then he is stronger (opposite for debilitation).> > (e) One occupying a sign of higher natural strength (Dual>Fixed>Movable) is stronger.> > (f) One giving more years is stronger.> > (g) A sign whose lord is more advanced in longitude from the beginning of its sign is stronger.> > > > Rahu and Ketu's advancement should be measured from the end of sign rather than beginning.> > > > > > - > partvinu5 > To: vedic astrology > Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:41 AM> Subject: [vedic astrology] Narayana dasa=dear sailesh> > > dear saliesh> > you have not given the longitudes of the planets. i am just supposing > that since the planets concerned saturn and rahu are with same number > of planets and are also in sign of same oddity i suppose rahu has > traveresed more than saturn. please check for that if that is the > case then rahu should be considered as the lord and not saturn. then > Aquarius dasa would be six years.> regards> partha> > > > > > > vedic astrology, "Shailesh" <scchadha@h...> wrote:> > Dear Narsimha Rao Garu,> > > > Can you please help me decide whether my reasoning is wrong in the > following case?> > > > I have a problem with computation of 'years' for Aq dasa.> > > > Thanks> > > > Shailesh > > > > > > Since Aq is an even-footed Rasi, the year count for it is in > reverse/ anti-clock direction and SA, occupying Sg, contributes 2 > years.> > > > However, as per ND calculations of JHL, Aq dasa is for 6 years > (indicating that RA has been considered as lord of Aq).> > > > I have pasted the chart, and JHL ccomputations, of ND, below.> > > > +--------------+> > > > | | |Mar HL | |> > > > | | | | |> > > > | | | | |> > > > | | | | |> > > > | | | | |> > > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------|> > > > |Ket | |GL |> > > > | | | |> > > > | | | |> > > > | | | |> > > > | | | |> > > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------|> > > > | | |Sun Mer |> > > > | | |Rah |> > > > | | | |> > > > | | | |> > > > | | | |> > > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------|> > > > |Asc Moo | |Mnd |Ven Glk |> > > > |Jup SatR | | |AL |> > > > | | | | |> > > > | | | | |> > > > | | | | |> > > > +--------------+> > > > Narayana Dasa of D-1 chart : Maha Dasas> > > > > > Sg: 1960-09-01 - 1972-09-01> > > > Cp: 1972-09-01 - 1973-09-01> > > > Aq: 1973-09-01 - 1979-09-02> > > > Pi: 1979-09-02 - 1982-09-01> > > > Ar: 1982-09-01 - 1983-09-02> > > > Ta: 1983-09-02 - 1986-09-01> > > > Ge: 1986-09-01 - 1988-09-01> > > > Cn: 1988-09-01 - 1995-09-02> > > > Le: 1995-09-02 - 2007-09-02> > > > Vi: 2007-09-02 - 2008-09-01> > > > Li: 2008-09-01 - 2018-09-01> > > > Sc: 2018-09-01 - 2024-09-01> > > > Sg: 2024-09-01 - 2024-09-01> > > > Cp: 2024-09-01 - 2035-09-01> > > > Aq: 2035-09-01 - 2041-09-01> > > > Pi: 2041-09-01 - 2050-09-01> > > > Ar: 2050-09-01 - 2061-09-01> > > > Ta: 2061-09-01 - 2070-09-01> > > > Ge: 2070-09-01 - 2080-08-31> > > > Cn: 2080-08-31 - 2085-08-31> > > > Le: 2085-08-31 - 2085-08-31> > > > Vi: 2085-08-31 - 2096-08-31> > > > Li: 2096-08-31 - 2098-09-01> > > > Sc: 2098-09-01 - 2104-09-01Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 What I meant was that the Exalted planet, out of the two,becomes stronger lord. But if one of the two is debilitated & other is not exalted, is the debilitated planet cosidered weaker of the two, only by being debilitated, just as the exalted one is considered stronger by being exalted? Regards, Fayyaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 Dear Fayyaz, First - it is not what I said - I have only reproduced the words of the Gurus. Secondly, where is the confusion. Read the statement again. Exallted is stronger - is it OK?? Opposite for Debilitation - now what is the opposite of STRONG?? Shailesh Chandra Chadhascchadha (AT) hotmail (DOT) com - Fktareen (AT) aol (DOT) com vedic astrology Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:44 PM Re: [vedic astrology] Narayana dasa=dear sailesh Dear Shailesh, In (d),you've said planet exalted is stronger & opposite for Debilitation. Exaltation is OK. But are you sure debilitation is a state to be reckoned while establishing strength--- making a debilitated planet weaker planet in comparative strength. Regards, Fayyaz Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2002 Report Share Posted February 14, 2002 Dear Fayyaz, That, precisely, is my understanding. I trust there is no error in my understanding. Shailesh - Fktareen (AT) aol (DOT) com vedic astrology Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:44 PM Re: [vedic astrology] Narayana dasa=dear sailesh Dear Shailesh, What I meant was that the Exalted planet, out of the two,becomes stronger lord. But if one of the two is debilitated & other is not exalted, is the debilitated planet cosidered weaker of the two, only by being debilitated, just as the exalted one is considered stronger by being exalted? Regards, Fayyaz Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... 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.