Need Help:- Question about Benefics Vs. Malefics

[Guest guest]

Dear Puneet

 

At the elementary level my understanding is as folows.

Priority should be given to Natural benefics and malefics.

Natural benefics become functional malefics due to ownership of

inauspiscious houses like 3,6,8,12,11 etc.Then they will give results

in relation to the houses they own.

They lose beneficience due to ownership of kendra houses as well.

 

So when we say benefics or malefics it is relative,though natural

ones have priority.

 

If they own good as well as bad houses then results can be mixed.

 

Learned members could help me in understanding the basics.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

 

vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

<puneet_b> wrote:

> Dear Friends,

> I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some clarification

> on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> 1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

>

> 2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and aspect of

> malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

rising

> signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in those charts

> even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

>

> Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> Thanx and Regards

> Puneet Bhardwaj

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

I have received your kind reply.I thnak you for your

response.

Regards,

jagannathan.

 

--- Puneet Bhardwaj <puneet_b wrote: >

Dear Friends,

> I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some

> clarification

> on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> 1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about

> benefics and

> malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..."

> Are we talking

> about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

>

> 2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is

> good and aspect of

> malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional

> malefic for some rising

> signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad

> in those charts

> even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

>

> Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> Thanx and Regards

> Puneet Bhardwaj

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

>

> Archives:

> vedic astrology

>

> Group info:

>

vedic astrology/info.html

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

> vedic astrology-

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

> || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

> ||

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

=====

 

 

 

Jagannathan .

 

 

______________________

India Mobile: Download the latest polyphonic ringtones.

Go to http://in.mobile.

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

Thank you for replying.. But you have just defined Functional

benefics and not really answered my question about how to interpret

the astrology classics/books. I hope some body can clarify my doubts.

Once again my questions were :-

 

1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

 

2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and aspect of

malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

rising signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in those

charts even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

 

Regards,

Puneet bhardwaj

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> Dear Puneet

>

> At the elementary level my understanding is as folows.

> Priority should be given to Natural benefics and malefics.

> Natural benefics become functional malefics due to ownership of

> inauspiscious houses like 3,6,8,12,11 etc.Then they will give results

> in relation to the houses they own.

> They lose beneficience due to ownership of kendra houses as well.

>

> So when we say benefics or malefics it is relative,though natural

> ones have priority.

>

> If they own good as well as bad houses then results can be mixed.

>

> Learned members could help me in understanding the basics.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

>

>

> vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

> <puneet_b> wrote:

> > Dear Friends,

> > I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some clarification

> > on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> > 1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> > malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> > about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >

> > 2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and aspect of

> > malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> rising

> > signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in those charts

> > even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >

> > Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> > Thanx and Regards

> > Puneet Bhardwaj

[Guest guest]

Dear Puneet

 

I think in a hurry u over looked some points.If you could read my

mail again you might understand.

Try to understand this statement from my mail.'So when we say

benefics or malefics it is relative,though natural

ones have priority'.and then read the mail fully.If you have doubts

again i will try to help as well.

 

regds

pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

<puneet_b> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

> Thank you for replying.. But you have just defined

Functional

> benefics and not really answered my question about how to interpret

> the astrology classics/books. I hope some body can clarify my

doubts.

> Once again my questions were :-

>

> 1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

>

> 2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and aspect

of

> malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> rising signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in

those

> charts even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

>

> Regards,

> Puneet bhardwaj

> vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> > Dear Puneet

> >

> > At the elementary level my understanding is as folows.

> > Priority should be given to Natural benefics and malefics.

> > Natural benefics become functional malefics due to ownership of

> > inauspiscious houses like 3,6,8,12,11 etc.Then they will give

results

> > in relation to the houses they own.

> > They lose beneficience due to ownership of kendra houses as well.

> >

> > So when we say benefics or malefics it is relative,though

natural

> > ones have priority.

> >

> > If they own good as well as bad houses then results can be mixed.

> >

> > Learned members could help me in understanding the basics.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

> > <puneet_b> wrote:

> > > Dear Friends,

> > > I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some

clarification

> > > on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> > > 1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> > > malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we

talking

> > > about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> > >

> > > 2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and

aspect of

> > > malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> > rising

> > > signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in those

charts

> > > even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> > >

> > > Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> > > Thanx and Regards

> > > Puneet Bhardwaj

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekar ji

 

Thanks for making the points clear and helping us to understand more.

 

respect

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, Chandrashekhar <boxdel>

wrote:

> Dear Puneet,

> What Pradeep was, probably trying to tell you was that beneficence

or

> otherwise of planets depends on other factors as well. However to

come

> to your questions,

> 1) When classics refer to benefics such as Benefics in Kendras,

Natural

> benefics are meant.

> 2) Functional beneficence or malfeacance does not change the way

an

> aspect of a benefic/malefic operates.

>

> Having said this while applying the principles to real life charts

other

> factors as indicated by Praeep have also to be factored in.

> Hope this make it clear.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Puneet Bhardwaj wrote:

>

> >Dear Pradeep,

> > Thank you for replying.. But you have just defined

Functional

> >benefics and not really answered my question about how to

interpret

> >the astrology classics/books. I hope some body can clarify my

doubts.

> >Once again my questions were :-

> >

> >1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> >malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> >about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >

> >2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and aspect

of

> >malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> >rising signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in

those

> >charts even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >

> >Regards,

> >Puneet bhardwaj

> >vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> ><vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> >

> >

> >>Dear Puneet

> >>

> >>At the elementary level my understanding is as folows.

> >>Priority should be given to Natural benefics and malefics.

> >>Natural benefics become functional malefics due to ownership of

> >>inauspiscious houses like 3,6,8,12,11 etc.Then they will give

results

> >>in relation to the houses they own.

> >>They lose beneficience due to ownership of kendra houses as well.

> >>

> >>So when we say benefics or malefics it is relative,though

natural

> >>ones have priority.

> >>

> >>If they own good as well as bad houses then results can be mixed.

> >>

> >>Learned members could help me in understanding the basics.

> >>

> >>Thanks

> >>Pradeep

> >>

> >>

> >>vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

> >><puneet_b> wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>>Dear Friends,

> >>>I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some

clarification

> >>>on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> >>>1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> >>>malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> >>>about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >>>

> >>>2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and

aspect of

> >>>malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> >>>

> >>>

> >>rising

> >>

> >>

> >>>signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in those

charts

> >>>even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >>>

> >>>Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> >>>Thanx and Regards

> >>>Puneet Bhardwaj

> >>>

> >>>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

> >

> >....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

dear chandershekarjia and others

long time since i have written. the ban by

govt on yahogroups and my exams was reponsible for it.

wrt to natural/ functional nature of planets, i think

(chandershekarji had advised so) natural benfics/malefics is for

aspects and for all other purpose(like dasa interpretion , postion

etc) functional nature is important.

bye

ajoy

vedic astrology,

Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

> Dear Puneet,

> What Pradeep was, probably trying to tell you was that beneficence

or

> otherwise of planets depends on other factors as well. However to

come

> to your questions,

> 1) When classics refer to benefics such as Benefics in Kendras,

Natural

> benefics are meant.

> 2) Functional beneficence or malfeacance does not change the way an

> aspect of a benefic/malefic operates.

>

> Having said this while applying the principles to real life charts

other

> factors as indicated by Praeep have also to be factored in.

> Hope this make it clear.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Puneet Bhardwaj wrote:

>

> >Dear Pradeep,

> > Thank you for replying.. But you have just defined

Functional

> >benefics and not really answered my question about how to interpret

> >the astrology classics/books. I hope some body can clarify my

doubts.

> >Once again my questions were :-

> >

> >1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> >malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> >about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >

> >2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and aspect

of

> >malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> >rising signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in

those

> >charts even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >

> >Regards,

> >Puneet bhardwaj

> >vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> ><vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> >

> >

> >>Dear Puneet

> >>

> >>At the elementary level my understanding is as folows.

> >>Priority should be given to Natural benefics and malefics.

> >>Natural benefics become functional malefics due to ownership of

> >>inauspiscious houses like 3,6,8,12,11 etc.Then they will give

results

> >>in relation to the houses they own.

> >>They lose beneficience due to ownership of kendra houses as well.

> >>

> >>So when we say benefics or malefics it is relative,though natural

> >>ones have priority.

> >>

> >>If they own good as well as bad houses then results can be mixed.

> >>

> >>Learned members could help me in understanding the basics.

> >>

> >>Thanks

> >>Pradeep

> >>

> >>

> >>vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

> >><puneet_b> wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>>Dear Friends,

> >>>I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some clarification

> >>>on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> >>>1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> >>>malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we talking

> >>>about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >>>

> >>>2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and

aspect of

> >>>malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> >>>

> >>>

> >>rising

> >>

> >>

> >>>signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in those

charts

> >>>even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >>>

> >>>Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> >>>Thanx and Regards

> >>>Puneet Bhardwaj

> >>>

> >>>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

> >

> >....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajoy,

You are right to certain extent. However in case of specific yogas,

Natural benefics/ malefics are to be considered. When the house

ownership is involved in the yoga, it is indicated unambiguously. The

strength of the yoga and precise effects that might occur can of course

be determined from the house ownership as indicated by you.

Good to see your post after a long time.

Chandrashekhar.

ajoypb wrote:

dear chandershekarjia and others

long time since i have written. the ban by

govt on yahogroups and my exams was reponsible for it.

wrt to natural/ functional nature of planets, i think

(chandershekarji had advised so) natural benfics/malefics is for

aspects and for all other purpose(like dasa interpretion , postion

etc) functional nature is important.

bye

ajoy

vedic astrology,

Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

> Dear Puneet,

> What Pradeep was, probably trying to tell you was that beneficence

or

> otherwise of planets depends on other factors as well. However to

come

> to your questions,

> 1) When classics refer to benefics such as Benefics in Kendras,

Natural

> benefics are meant.

> 2) Functional beneficence or malfeacance does not change the way

an

> aspect of a benefic/malefic operates.

>

> Having said this while applying the principles to real life charts

other

> factors as indicated by Praeep have also to be factored in.

> Hope this make it clear.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Puneet Bhardwaj wrote:

>

> >Dear Pradeep,

> > Thank you for replying.. But you have just defined

Functional

> >benefics and not really answered my question about how to

interpret

> >the astrology classics/books. I hope some body can clarify my

doubts.

> >Once again my questions were :-

> >

> >1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about benefics and

> >malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are we

talking

> >about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >

> >2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good and

aspect

of

> >malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic for some

> >rising signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad in

those

> >charts even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >

> >Regards,

> >Puneet bhardwaj

> >vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> ><vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> >

> >

> >>Dear Puneet

> >>

> >>At the elementary level my understanding is as folows.

> >>Priority should be given to Natural benefics and malefics.

> >>Natural benefics become functional malefics due to

ownership of

> >>inauspiscious houses like 3,6,8,12,11 etc.Then they will

give

results

> >>in relation to the houses they own.

> >>They lose beneficience due to ownership of kendra houses

as well.

> >>

> >>So when we say benefics or malefics it is relative,though

natural

> >>ones have priority.

> >>

> >>If they own good as well as bad houses then results can be

mixed.

> >>

> >>Learned members could help me in understanding the basics.

> >>

> >>Thanks

> >>Pradeep

> >>

> >>

> >>vedic astrology, "Puneet Bhardwaj"

> >><puneet_b> wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>>Dear Friends,

> >>>I am a new student of hindu astrology and want some

clarification

> >>>on the nature of the planets in the chart.

> >>>1. You see a lot of mention in the classics about

benefics and

> >>>malefics e.g "when benefics are in the kendra..." Are

we talking

> >>>about natural benefics here or functional benefics?

> >>>

> >>>2. Some books say that the aspect of a benefic is good

and

aspect of

> >>>malefic is bad. Well, Jupiter is a functional malefic

for some

> >>>

> >>>

> >>rising

> >>

> >>

> >>>signs, does that mean that the Jupiter aspect is bad

in those

charts

> >>>even though Jupiter is a natural benefic?

> >>>

> >>>Your help in guiding me will be highly appreciated.

> >>>Thanx and Regards

> >>>Puneet Bhardwaj

> >>>

> >>>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

> >

> >....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

> >

> >