RE: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

> About Rahu

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> //17. If a node is in an angle in aspect to or association with

> a trinal lord or be in a trine in similar relation with an

> angular lord it will become Yogakaraka.* *//

>

> In my case, Rahu is conjunct Jupiter (though they are in

> different Rasis if one considers true nodes). Jupiter is 5th

> lord (in addition to being the 8th lord). Hence, I suppose this

> dictum applies to my case.

>

> In addition to being a Yogakaraka, Rahu is Vargottama as well.

> And, due to conjunction with Jupiter, Rahu acquires the

> qualities of Jupiter. This explains why my Rahu MD was an

> excellent period for my education. I am an University topper and

> Gold Medalist in Engineering. I completed my graducation in 1980

> during Rahu MD. Later, I completed my post-graduation in

> Engineering during Jupiter MD.

>

> However, I had no luck with money during this period. Financial

> situation was very tight at home and my father struggled to even

> pay my fees.

>

> Thanks for guiding me to this shloka.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call

> rates

http://www.dirah.org/osho.htm

__________

GET FREE 5GB EMAIL - Check out spam free email with many cool features!

Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!

November 2, 2006

Dear Prafulla,

//While defining functional benefic and malefic planets, Sage Parashara has

defined rahu-ketu as functional malefic, unless they are in trine/kendra and

are in conjunction with yoga graha (for that specific lagna).//

I'm sure this must be just a 'Typo' and you actually meant to write "Sage

Parashara has defined Rahu-Ketu as natural malefics." You must know, of

course, that functional malefics are defined as per the houses they

rule...different for each lagna. But, that's alright, we all can make

mistakes :-)

//But no where, such associations are defined as raj yoga.//

There are just so many who disagree with you it would take me all day to

type each quote (that I've found in just half an hour). I'll just send a few

links instead and you can go through them yourself.

http://lightonVedic Astrology.com/dailyjyotish-031106.htm

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-techniques/planets-dasas.php

http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/lesson10.htm

//Guru / Rahu conjunction is generally seen as both swapping their

attributes, and Jupiter dasa is, then - normally very good for materialistic

pursuits. In my assessment, such combination in leo sign will prosper more

if not occuring in magha constellation. BTW, guru is not yoga graha for leo

lagna.//

I'm sorry, weren't we discussing MA/RA conjunction? None-the-less, let's

consider the JU/RA conjunction for a moment. You seem to be making the same

mistake that is common amongst many astrologers i.e. generalising a

combination (any combination) without considering the many factors

influencing the conjunction...each is unique and must be assessed on its own

merits.

Perhaps we can talk some more about this later when I have a little more

free time...

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

> http://www.dirah.org/osho.htm

___

-

"Prafulla Gang" <jyotish (AT) inbox (DOT) com>

<jyotish-vidya>

Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:25 AM

RE: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

Dear Wendy, Kishore and Krishna,

While defining functional benefic and malefic planets, Sage Parashara has

defined rahu-ketu as functional malefic, unless they are in trine/kendra and

are in conjunction with yoga graha (for that specific lagna). But no where,

such associations are defined as raj yoga.

In my experience - If we take leo positioning of mars/rahu as positive yoga

is not true (as thumb rule), unless mars is yogagraha (which is true only

for leo and karka lagna). If Mars is yoga graha, then this close conjunction

will make rahu as benefic planet - (not a raj yoga). Hence, this is

conditional validity, applicable for specific charts only. (Yes, Kishore -

you are absolutely right; the conjunction is not a raj yoga; for leo / caner

lagna, it just makes rahu as benefic). Moreover, this needs to be evaluated

from natal moon, ashtakavarga valuations, constellation lordship and D

charts as well. In my assessment, if this conjunction is wide (or away from

bhava madhya), then even for leo / cancer lagna, this conjunction will cease

to give its good effects in full.

Generally speaking mars / rahu conjunction in any house, is not looked as

positive combination and in leo sign- has its own heavy burdens. Let members

share their experience and charts (for mars / rahu in leo - except when leo

/ cancer is lagna) and let us evaluate, how many such natives have achieved

raj yoga results (I am referring to mars / rahu for karka / simha lagna)?

Guru / Rahu conjunction is generally seen as both swapping their attributes,

and Jupiter dasa is, then - normally very good for materialistic pursuits.

In my assessment, such combination in leo sign will prosper more if not

occuring in magha constellation. BTW, guru is not yoga graha for leo lagna.

regards / Prafulla Gang

When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

************************************************

November 2, 2006

Dear Wendy,

I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not say

that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal lord.

The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

Please clarify.

Regards,

Krishna

--- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

> Dear Prafulla,

>

> //While defining functional benefic and malefic planets, Sage

> Parashara has

> defined rahu-ketu as functional malefic, unless they are in

> trine/kendra and

> are in conjunction with yoga graha (for that specific

> lagna).//

>

> I'm sure this must be just a 'Typo' and you actually meant to

> write "Sage

> Parashara has defined Rahu-Ketu as natural malefics." You must

> know, of

> course, that functional malefics are defined as per the houses

> they

> rule...different for each lagna. But, that's alright, we all

> can make

> mistakes :-)

>

> //But no where, such associations are defined as raj yoga.//

>

> There are just so many who disagree with you it would take me

> all day to

> type each quote (that I've found in just half an hour). I'll

> just send a few

> links instead and you can go through them yourself.

> http://lightonVedic Astrology.com/dailyjyotish-031106.htm

>

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-techniques/planets-dasas.php

> http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/lesson10.htm

>

> //Guru / Rahu conjunction is generally seen as both swapping

> their

> attributes, and Jupiter dasa is, then - normally very good for

> materialistic

> pursuits. In my assessment, such combination in leo sign will

> prosper more

> if not occuring in magha constellation. BTW, guru is not yoga

> graha for leo

> lagna.//

>

> I'm sorry, weren't we discussing MA/RA conjunction?

> None-the-less, let's

> consider the JU/RA conjunction for a moment. You seem to be

> making the same

> mistake that is common amongst many astrologers i.e.

> generalising a

> combination (any combination) without considering the many

> factors

> influencing the conjunction...each is unique and must be

> assessed on its own

> merits.

>

> Perhaps we can talk some more about this later when I have a

> little more

> free time...

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Prafulla Gang" <jyotish (AT) inbox (DOT) com>

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:25 AM

> RE: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy, Kishore and Krishna,

>

> While defining functional benefic and malefic planets, Sage

> Parashara has

> defined rahu-ketu as functional malefic, unless they are in

> trine/kendra and

> are in conjunction with yoga graha (for that specific lagna).

> But no where,

> such associations are defined as raj yoga.

>

> In my experience - If we take leo positioning of mars/rahu as

> positive yoga

> is not true (as thumb rule), unless mars is yogagraha (which

> is true only

> for leo and karka lagna). If Mars is yoga graha, then this

> close conjunction

> will make rahu as benefic planet - (not a raj yoga). Hence,

> this is

> conditional validity, applicable for specific charts only.

> (Yes, Kishore -

> you are absolutely right; the conjunction is not a raj yoga;

> for leo / caner

> lagna, it just makes rahu as benefic). Moreover, this needs to

> be evaluated

> from natal moon, ashtakavarga valuations, constellation

> lordship and D

> charts as well. In my assessment, if this conjunction is wide

> (or away from

> bhava madhya), then even for leo / cancer lagna, this

> conjunction will cease

> to give its good effects in full.

>

> Generally speaking mars / rahu conjunction in any house, is

> not looked as

> positive combination and in leo sign- has its own heavy

> burdens. Let members

> share their experience and charts (for mars / rahu in leo -

> except when leo

> / cancer is lagna) and let us evaluate, how many such natives

> have achieved

> raj yoga results (I am referring to mars / rahu for karka /

> simha lagna)?

>

> Guru / Rahu conjunction is generally seen as both swapping

> their attributes,

> and Jupiter dasa is, then - normally very good for

> materialistic pursuits.

> In my assessment, such combination in leo sign will prosper

> more if not

> occuring in magha constellation. BTW, guru is not yoga graha

> for leo lagna.

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

>

> When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

> ************************************************

>

Regards,

Krishna

(http://advision.webevents./mailbeta)

______

Check out the New Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

November 2, 2006

Dear Krishna,

In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the same rasi in

Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your chart, Rahu is

in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra rasi).

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

___

-

"Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998 >

<jyotish-vidya>

Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

Dear Wendy,

I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not say

that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal lord.

The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

Please clarify.

Regards,

Krishna

November 2, 2006

Dear Wendy,

This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they are

in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

Regards,

Krishna

--- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

> Dear Krishna,

>

> In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the

> same rasi in

> Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> chart, Rahu is

> in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> rasi).

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998 >

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> say

> that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

> angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> lord.

> The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

>

> Please clarify.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

Regards,

Krishna

Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates

November 2, 2006

Dear Krishna,

When grahas occupy the same bhava(rasi) they are said to be conjunct. Of

course the closer the conjunction the greater influence they have upon each

other. Consider the dictum of 'planetary war' when two grahas are within one

degree.

I invite further comments from learned members (citing scriptural

references) on this...

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

___

-

"Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998 >

<jyotish-vidya>

Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:51 AM

Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

Dear Wendy,

This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they are

in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

Regards,

Krishna

--- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

> Dear Krishna,

>

> In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the

> same rasi in

> Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> chart, Rahu is

> in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> rasi).

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998 >

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> say

> that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

> angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> lord.

> The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

>

> Please clarify.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

Regards,

Krishna

Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call

rates

November 2, 2006

Dear Shri Krishna,

I am taking the liberty to reply to your query although you have addressed same to Wendy ji.

I had the same question sometime back and I found the answer in (Pandit Gopesh Kumar Ohja and his son Ashutosh Ohja) a book entitled "Aspects"

"What is a conjunction? It means the conjoining of two or more planets. In Western astrology two planets (be they in the same or adjoining signs) are deemed in conjunction if they are within a specified distance from each other."

"In Hindu astrology, if the two planets are in the same sign they are treated as being in conjunction, even if one is in the first degree of the sign and the other in the thirtieth degree. But if they are in different signs (even though the intervening distance between them be only four or five degrees) they are not treated as conjunct."

David

Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 > wrote:

Dear Wendy,

This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they are

in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

Regards,

Krishna

--- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

> Dear Krishna,

>

> In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the

> same rasi in

> Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> chart, Rahu is

> in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> rasi).

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998 >

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> say

> that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

> angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> lord.

> The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

>

> Please clarify.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

Regards,

Krishna

________

Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates

We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to .

November 2, 2006

Dear David,

Thanks for your clarification.

The fact that two planets are not considered conjunct when they

are in two Rasis (though close to each other) does not sound

logical to me. When they are so close physically they interfere

with each others's rays. Hence, there has to be some kind

interaction between them which can't be ignored.

Hope someday I will understand this better.

Regards,

Krishna

--- David Andrews <dprapus > wrote:

> Dear Shri Krishna,

> I am taking the liberty to reply to your query although you

> have addressed same to Wendy ji.

> I had the same question sometime back and I found the answer

> in (Pandit Gopesh Kumar Ohja and his son Ashutosh Ohja) a book

> entitled "Aspects"

> "What is a conjunction? It means the conjoining of two or

> more planets. In Western astrology two planets (be they in the

> same or adjoining signs) are deemed in conjunction if they are

> within a specified distance from each other."

> "In Hindu astrology, if the two planets are in the same sign

> they are treated as being in conjunction, even if one is in

> the first degree of the sign and the other in the thirtieth

> degree. But if they are in different signs (even though the

> intervening distance between them be only four or five

> degrees) they are not treated as conjunct."

>

> David

>

> Krishnamurthy Seetharama <krishna_1998 > wrote:

> Dear Wendy,

>

> This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

>

> In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

> conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

> that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

> degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

>

> Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

> are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

>

> And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they

> are

> in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

>

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy

> the

> > same rasi in

> > Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> > chart, Rahu is

> > in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> > rasi).

> >

> > Best Wishes,

> > Mrs. Wendy

> > http://JyotishVidya.com

> > jyotish-vidya

> > ___

> >

> > -

> > "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998 >

> > <jyotish-vidya>

> > Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> > Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

> >

> > Dear Wendy,

> >

> > I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> > say

> > that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> > says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord

> or

> > angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> > lord.

> > The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken.

> Thanks.

> >

> > Please clarify.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> ________

> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap

> PC-to-Phone call rates

>

> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes

> to .

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Krishna,

I will mention below what has been taught to me -

a) From the normal vedic school, I was taught that the

conjunction should be within 8 degrees orb.to be considered

as conjunction.

(For aspects Major/Medium of course the orbs differ)

b) From the Gurus practising Constellational (Nakshatra)

astrology I was taught that the conjunctions be considerd

only within 4 degrees of orbs.

c) Both schools have taught me that whether one planet may go to

the next Raashi in Bhava (Cuspal chart),does not matter, yet

the conjunction is there, for there are no

partitions in the sky.

What to infer from above, is left to the readers.

regards,

Bhaskar.

jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

>

> In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

> conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

> that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

> degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

>

> Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

> are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

>

> And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they are

> in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish wrote:

>

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the

> > same rasi in

> > Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> > chart, Rahu is

> > in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> > rasi).

> >

> > Best Wishes,

> > Mrs. Wendy

> > http://JyotishVidya.com

> > jyotish-vidya

> > ___

> >

> > -

> > "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998

> > <jyotish-vidya>

> > Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> > Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

> >

> > Dear Wendy,

> >

> > I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> > say

> > that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> > says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

> > angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> > lord.

> > The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

> >

> > Please clarify.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

____________________

______________

> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone

call rates

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Shri Krishna,

If I am not considered that I am intruding in this thread, I would

like to write a few lines here:

Please consider this:

You are standing near the compound wall of your house which is

dividing the neighbour's house from you. Your neighbour is standing

the other side of your compound wall. Both you are discussing

something. He hears what you say. You hear what he says. This could

be treated that two planets are in two different Rasis.

He enters your doorstep. Now You are at your Balcony of the first

floor of your house. Both of you see others and wish others. This

could be treated that two planets are in a Rasi but away from each

other considerably.

Your neighbour comes to your house. Both of you sitting in the lawn

enjoying your cup of coffee. The discussion further goes on. This

could be considered that two planets are closely conjunct.

In all three cases you are interacting with your neighbour. Well you

can conclude the degree of intensity of your interactions.

You may perhaps very well aware that in Hindu Astrology each rasis

are having their own natural significations. The planets are

influenced by those very significations and their behaviour get

modified according to the rasis where they are placed.

Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear David,

>

> Thanks for your clarification.

>

> The fact that two planets are not considered conjunct when they

> are in two Rasis (though close to each other) does not sound

> logical to me. When they are so close physically they interfere

> with each others's rays. Hence, there has to be some kind

> interaction between them which can't be ignored.

>

> Hope someday I will understand this better.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Krishna,

Rejoinder to my previous mail.

How I judge-

Personally I just take 4 to 4.5 degrees maximum as

distance of

orb, and consider it as conjunction, even if

one planet goes to next Sign, still I consider it as

conjunction.

Though we are not talking of Sayana now,neither

of aspects, but there I was taught to check the

daily motions of planets to make the normal

considered orbs between Major/Medium aspects

increase or decrease by 1-2 degrees. I have

yet to understand this system fully and probably

next year I will devote to learning progressions

in Sayana astrology.

regards,

Bhaskar.

jyotish-vidya, "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Krishna,

>

> I will mention below what has been taught to me -

>

> a) From the normal vedic school, I was taught that the

> conjunction should be within 8 degrees orb.to be considered

> as conjunction.

> (For aspects Major/Medium of course the orbs differ)

> b) From the Gurus practising Constellational (Nakshatra)

> astrology I was taught that the conjunctions be considerd

> only within 4 degrees of orbs.

> c) Both schools have taught me that whether one planet may go to

> the next Raashi in Bhava (Cuspal chart),does not matter, yet

> the conjunction is there, for there are no

> partitions in the sky.

>

> What to infer from above, is left to the readers.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

> jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Wendy,

> >

> > This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

> >

> > In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

> > conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

> > that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

> > degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

> >

> > Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

> > are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

> >

> > And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they are

> > in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish@> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Krishna,

> > >

> > > In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the

> > > same rasi in

> > > Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> > > chart, Rahu is

> > > in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> > > rasi).

> > >

> > > Best Wishes,

> > > Mrs. Wendy

> > > http://JyotishVidya.com

> > > jyotish-vidya

> > > ___

> > >

> > > -

> > > "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998@>

> > > <jyotish-vidya>

> > > Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> > > Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

> > >

> > > Dear Wendy,

> > >

> > > I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> > > say

> > > that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> > > says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

> > > angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> > > lord.

> > > The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

> > >

> > > Please clarify.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> > http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com

> >

>

____________________

> ______________

> > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-

Phone

> call rates

> > (http://voice.)

> >

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Ravindramaniji,

That was a beautiful example and analogy provided by you

to make matters easier to understand.

Just one point -

Planets in conjunction but in 2 different Rashis. I

would consider as two friends meeting on the

common lawn which is divided not by a cemented wall

but by a fence, so they can see each other, hold each others

hands, talk, express emotions and everything, except that

both would be bound by the rules of their own masters of the house,

patriarch of the family,(Now quoting you -// The planets are

influenced by those very significations and their behaviour get

modified according to the rasis where they are placed//)

regards,

Bhaskar.

jyotish-vidya, "ravindramani"

<ravindramani wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Krishna,

>

> If I am not considered that I am intruding in this thread, I would

> like to write a few lines here:

>

> Please consider this:

>

> You are standing near the compound wall of your house which is

> dividing the neighbour's house from you. Your neighbour is standing

> the other side of your compound wall. Both you are discussing

> something. He hears what you say. You hear what he says. This

could

> be treated that two planets are in two different Rasis.

>

> He enters your doorstep. Now You are at your Balcony of the first

> floor of your house. Both of you see others and wish others. This

> could be treated that two planets are in a Rasi but away from each

> other considerably.

>

> Your neighbour comes to your house. Both of you sitting in the lawn

> enjoying your cup of coffee. The discussion further goes on. This

> could be considered that two planets are closely conjunct.

>

> In all three cases you are interacting with your neighbour. Well

you

> can conclude the degree of intensity of your interactions.

>

> You may perhaps very well aware that in Hindu Astrology each rasis

> are having their own natural significations. The planets are

> influenced by those very significations and their behaviour get

> modified according to the rasis where they are placed.

>

> Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

>

> jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear David,

> >

> > Thanks for your clarification.

> >

> > The fact that two planets are not considered conjunct when they

> > are in two Rasis (though close to each other) does not sound

> > logical to me. When they are so close physically they interfere

> > with each others's rays. Hence, there has to be some kind

> > interaction between them which can't be ignored.

> >

> > Hope someday I will understand this better.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

>

November 2, 2006

Sorry, do not hold my words, just the essence, for they could be

friends as well as enemies.

regards,

Bhaskar.

jyotish-vidya, "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Ravindramaniji,

>

> That was a beautiful example and analogy provided by you

> to make matters easier to understand.

> Just one point -

> Planets in conjunction but in 2 different Rashis. I

> would consider as two friends meeting on the

> common lawn which is divided not by a cemented wall

> but by a fence, so they can see each other, hold each others

> hands, talk, express emotions and everything, except that

> both would be bound by the rules of their own masters of the house,

> patriarch of the family,(Now quoting you -// The planets are

> influenced by those very significations and their behaviour get

> modified according to the rasis where they are placed//)

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

> jyotish-vidya, "ravindramani"

> <ravindramani@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Krishna,

> >

> > If I am not considered that I am intruding in this thread, I

would

> > like to write a few lines here:

> >

> > Please consider this:

> >

> > You are standing near the compound wall of your house which is

> > dividing the neighbour's house from you. Your neighbour is

standing

> > the other side of your compound wall. Both you are discussing

> > something. He hears what you say. You hear what he says. This

> could

> > be treated that two planets are in two different Rasis.

> >

> > He enters your doorstep. Now You are at your Balcony of the

first

> > floor of your house. Both of you see others and wish others.

This

> > could be treated that two planets are in a Rasi but away from

each

> > other considerably.

> >

> > Your neighbour comes to your house. Both of you sitting in the

lawn

> > enjoying your cup of coffee. The discussion further goes on.

This

> > could be considered that two planets are closely conjunct.

> >

> > In all three cases you are interacting with your neighbour. Well

> you

> > can conclude the degree of intensity of your interactions.

> >

> > You may perhaps very well aware that in Hindu Astrology each

rasis

> > are having their own natural significations. The planets are

> > influenced by those very significations and their behaviour get

> > modified according to the rasis where they are placed.

> >

> > Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

> >

> > jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear David,

> > >

> > > Thanks for your clarification.

> > >

> > > The fact that two planets are not considered conjunct when they

> > > are in two Rasis (though close to each other) does not sound

> > > logical to me. When they are so close physically they interfere

> > > with each others's rays. Hence, there has to be some kind

> > > interaction between them which can't be ignored.

> > >

> > > Hope someday I will understand this better.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> >

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Sir,

You wrote:

.....Just one point - Planets in conjunction but in 2 different

Rashis. I would consider as two friends meeting on the common lawn

which is divided not by a cemented wall but by a fence,....

Ravindramani writes:

Well, when a lawn is divided by a fence, whether the fence could be

of wooden panels, or it could be of iron strings, that means, the

lawn is divided it is no more a common lawn.

Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

November 2, 2006

Sir,

Well I have seen bungalows in Delhi and Jaipur where the lawns

are common between both the houseowners with just a waist

high division whatever it would be made of does not matter.

Anyay the crux of the matter is where there is no ambiquity,

that players on both side would intermingle with the conditions

and restrictions laid down by the owners of both the bungalows.

(Conjunction with Influence of Rashi Lords of both Planets)

regards,

Bhaskar.

jyotish-vidya, "ravindramani"

<ravindramani wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> You wrote:

>

> ....Just one point - Planets in conjunction but in 2 different

> Rashis. I would consider as two friends meeting on the common lawn

> which is divided not by a cemented wall but by a fence,....

>

> Ravindramani writes:

>

> Well, when a lawn is divided by a fence, whether the fence could be

> of wooden panels, or it could be of iron strings, that means, the

> lawn is divided it is no more a common lawn.

>

> Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Bhasker,

This explanation seems to be quite logical and I can digest

this.

I am getting good results in my reseach considering 12 degrees

as the limit for conjunction irrespective of the location. With

this assumption, I could overcome different views on Rasi and

Bhava. I remember getting this number 12 degrees from B V

Raman's book.

However, I notice that even B V Raman does not consider

conjunction when two planets are less than 12 degrees apart

while in different Rasis.

Regards,

Krishna

--- Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

> Dear Krishna,

>

> I will mention below what has been taught to me -

>

> a) From the normal vedic school, I was taught that the

> conjunction should be within 8 degrees orb.to be considered

>

> as conjunction.

> (For aspects Major/Medium of course the orbs differ)

> b) From the Gurus practising Constellational (Nakshatra)

> astrology I was taught that the conjunctions be considerd

> only within 4 degrees of orbs.

> c) Both schools have taught me that whether one planet may go

> to

> the next Raashi in Bhava (Cuspal chart),does not matter,

> yet

> the conjunction is there, for there are no

> partitions in the sky.

>

> What to infer from above, is left to the readers.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

> jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

>

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Wendy,

> >

> > This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

> >

> > In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

> > conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to

> assume

> > that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

> > degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

> >

> > Will there be no influence of planets on each other when

> they

> > are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

> >

> > And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they

> are

> > in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Krishna,

> > >

> > > In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy

> the

> > > same rasi in

> > > Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In

> your

> > > chart, Rahu is

> > > in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava

> (Libra

> > > rasi).

> > >

> > > Best Wishes,

> > > Mrs. Wendy

> > > http://JyotishVidya.com

> > > jyotish-vidya

> > > ___

> > >

> > > -

> > > "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998

> > > <jyotish-vidya>

> > > Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> > > Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

> > >

> > > Dear Wendy,

> > >

> > > I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does

> not

> > > say

> > > that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka.

> It

> > > says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord

> or

> > > angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> > > lord.

> > > The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken.

> Thanks.

> > >

> > > Please clarify.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> > http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com

> >

>

____________________

> ______________

> > Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap

> PC-to-Phone

> call rates

> > (http://voice.)

> >

>

Regards,

Krishna

Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates

November 2, 2006

Dear Shri Ravindramani,

Thanks for the beautiful analogy. From your analogy I conclude

that there will some interaction between planets which are

closely placed but separated by Rasi boundaries. And, the

interaction between them is influenced by the Rasis in which the

planets are situated.

This makes sense. Thank you.

Regards,

Krishna

--- ravindramani <ravindramani > wrote:

> Dear Shri Krishna,

>

> If I am not considered that I am intruding in this thread, I

> would

> like to write a few lines here:

>

> Please consider this:

>

> You are standing near the compound wall of your house which is

>

> dividing the neighbour's house from you. Your neighbour is

> standing

> the other side of your compound wall. Both you are discussing

>

> something. He hears what you say. You hear what he says.

> This could

> be treated that two planets are in two different Rasis.

>

> He enters your doorstep. Now You are at your Balcony of the

> first

> floor of your house. Both of you see others and wish others.

> This

> could be treated that two planets are in a Rasi but away from

> each

> other considerably.

>

> Your neighbour comes to your house. Both of you sitting in the

> lawn

> enjoying your cup of coffee. The discussion further goes on.

> This

> could be considered that two planets are closely conjunct.

>

> In all three cases you are interacting with your neighbour.

> Well you

> can conclude the degree of intensity of your interactions.

>

> You may perhaps very well aware that in Hindu Astrology each

> rasis

> are having their own natural significations. The planets are

> influenced by those very significations and their behaviour

> get

> modified according to the rasis where they are placed.

>

> Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

>

> jyotish-vidya, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

>

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Dear David,

> >

> > Thanks for your clarification.

> >

> > The fact that two planets are not considered conjunct when

> they

> > are in two Rasis (though close to each other) does not sound

> > logical to me. When they are so close physically they

> interfere

> > with each others's rays. Hence, there has to be some kind

> > interaction between them which can't be ignored.

> >

> > Hope someday I will understand this better.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

>

Regards,

Krishna

Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates

November 2, 2006

Dear Shri Krishna,

What is conjunction? This is my position.

When two planets are in a same Rasi irrespective of the longitudanal

distance, they are conjunt. (Saturn and Mars placed in Aris Rasi -

They are conjunct.) Now both are influenced by the significations of

Aris. Now they are influencing the 7th house from there with the

modified influence of Aries.

Mars placed in Aris. Saturn Placed in Taurus. (They are not

conjunct.) Now they are influencing the 7th house from their

placement. Mars is in his own house. This is a dignity. Now it

throws its influence on the 7th house with the infleunce of Saturn.

Saturn is in Taurus. It influences the 7th house from there with the

modifications of the nature of Taurus. (without any influence of Mars)

Mars may be at 28 degrees in Aris. Saturn may be at 2 Degree in

Taurus. (They are not conjunct.)

Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

====================================================================

Dear Shri Ravindramani,

Thanks for the beautiful analogy. From your analogy I conclude

that there will some interaction between planets which are

closely placed but separated by Rasi boundaries. And, the

interaction between them is influenced by the Rasis in which the

planets are situated.

This makes sense. Thank you.

Regards,

Krishna

November 2, 2006

Dear Shri Ravindramani,

OK, I think I am getting clearer now.

By extending your example when Mars placed in Aries, Saturn

Placed in Taurus, can we say "Saturn throws its influence on the

8th house (Taurus) with the influence of Mars"?

Regards,

Krishna

--- ravindramani <ravindramani > wrote:

> Dear Shri Krishna,

>

> What is conjunction? This is my position.

>

> When two planets are in a same Rasi irrespective of the

> longitudanal

> distance, they are conjunt. (Saturn and Mars placed in Aris

> Rasi -

> They are conjunct.) Now both are influenced by the

> significations of

> Aris. Now they are influencing the 7th house from there with

> the

> modified influence of Aries.

>

> Mars placed in Aris. Saturn Placed in Taurus. (They are not

> conjunct.) Now they are influencing the 7th house from their

> placement. Mars is in his own house. This is a dignity. Now

> it

> throws its influence on the 7th house with the infleunce of

> Saturn.

>

> Saturn is in Taurus. It influences the 7th house from there

> with the

> modifications of the nature of Taurus. (without any influence

> of Mars)

>

> Mars may be at 28 degrees in Aris. Saturn may be at 2 Degree

> in

> Taurus. (They are not conjunct.)

>

> Regards, C.S. Ravindramani.

>

====================================================================

>

> Dear Shri Ravindramani,

>

> Thanks for the beautiful analogy. From your analogy I conclude

> that there will some interaction between planets which are

> closely placed but separated by Rasi boundaries. And, the

> interaction between them is influenced by the Rasis in which

> the

> planets are situated.

>

> This makes sense. Thank you.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

Regards,

Krishna

Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New .com

(http://www./preview)

November 2, 2006

Dear Bhaskar and All,

To avoid any confusion it should be understood that, according to the

dictums of Vedic astrology, planets in the same bhava (rasi) are said to be

conjunct or (to make it simpler to understand) conjunction, in the general

sense, denotes that they are together in the same bhava/rasi...this is what

is commonly termed as conjunction.

When we look at degrees of (exact) conjunction, opposition, square,

semisquare etc. there are differing opinions as to the exact degrees...these

are (more) commonly used in Western astrology.

The important thing to remember is that, as per the dictums of Vedic

astrology, planets occupying different bhavas (signs) are not conjunct. The

only exception to this, if we could call it that, is combustion; where a

planet occupying another bhava (sign) can still be combust due to the heat

of Sun's rays.

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

> jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au

___

-

"Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish (AT) (DOT) co.in>

<jyotish-vidya>

Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:46 PM

Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

Dear Krishna,

I will mention below what has been taught to me -

a) From the normal vedic school, I was taught that the

conjunction should be within 8 degrees orb.to be considered

as conjunction.

(For aspects Major/Medium of course the orbs differ)

b) From the Gurus practising Constellational (Nakshatra)

astrology I was taught that the conjunctions be considerd

only within 4 degrees of orbs.

c) Both schools have taught me that whether one planet may go to

the next Raashi in Bhava (Cuspal chart),does not matter, yet

the conjunction is there, for there are no

partitions in the sky.

What to infer from above, is left to the readers.

regards,

Bhaskar.

November 2, 2006

Dear Wendy,

Sage Parashar has defined rahu / ketu as natural malefic and while discussing roles of each planet for specific lagna, he has categorically prescribed functional roles. I meant by functional benefic / malefic by those roles.

The thread, as I could understand, was on simple / blanket statement - "leo positioning of mars / rahu is raj yoga". My jyotish understanding does not accept it, as I suggested that - rahu / ketu becomes yoga karaka only in conditional positioning - Hence unless mars is yoga karaka (i.e. for simha / karka lagna), it will not be a favourable conjunction and will carry heavy burden. I am afraid, the whole line of arguments on this entire thread is far drifted from the original statement.

Best test of real life resultants of this combination is the submission of charts with mars / rahu in leo and let us see, if raj yoga has fructified for this conjunction.

My reference for guru / rahu, was for Krishna's mail on the thread (with specific to simha lagna and such combination in lagna). Yes, this needs to be evaluated with wholistic approach.

regards / Prafulla Gang

When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

************************************************

>

> Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:29:04 +0800

> http://www.dirah.org/osho.htm

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Prafulla,

>

> //While defining functional benefic and malefic planets, Sage Parashara

> has

> defined rahu-ketu as functional malefic, unless they are in trine/kendra

> and

> are in conjunction with yoga graha (for that specific lagna).//

>

> I'm sure this must be just a 'Typo' and you actually meant to write "Sage

> Parashara has defined Rahu-Ketu as natural malefics." You must know, of

> course, that functional malefics are defined as per the houses they

> rule...different for each lagna. But, that's alright, we all can make

> mistakes :-)

>

> //But no where, such associations are defined as raj yoga.//

>

> There are just so many who disagree with you it would take me all day to

> type each quote (that I've found in just half an hour). I'll just send a

> few

> links instead and you can go through them yourself.

> http://lightonVedic Astrology.com/dailyjyotish-031106.htm

> http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-techniques/planets-dasas.php

> http://www.aryabhatt.com/vediclessons/lesson10.htm

>

> //Guru / Rahu conjunction is generally seen as both swapping their

> attributes, and Jupiter dasa is, then - normally very good for

> materialistic

> pursuits. In my assessment, such combination in leo sign will prosper

> more

> if not occuring in magha constellation. BTW, guru is not yoga graha for

> leo

> lagna.//

>

> I'm sorry, weren't we discussing MA/RA conjunction? None-the-less, let's

> consider the JU/RA conjunction for a moment. You seem to be making the

> same

> mistake that is common amongst many astrologers i.e. generalising a

> combination (any combination) without considering the many factors

> influencing the conjunction...each is unique and must be assessed on its

> own

> merits.

>

> Perhaps we can talk some more about this later when I have a little more

> free time...

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Prafulla Gang" <jyotish (AT) inbox (DOT) com>

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:25 AM

> RE: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy, Kishore and Krishna,

>

> While defining functional benefic and malefic planets, Sage Parashara has

> defined rahu-ketu as functional malefic, unless they are in trine/kendra

> and

> are in conjunction with yoga graha (for that specific lagna). But no

> where,

> such associations are defined as raj yoga.

>

> In my experience - If we take leo positioning of mars/rahu as positive

> yoga

> is not true (as thumb rule), unless mars is yogagraha (which is true only

> for leo and karka lagna). If Mars is yoga graha, then this close

> conjunction

> will make rahu as benefic planet - (not a raj yoga). Hence, this is

> conditional validity, applicable for specific charts only. (Yes, Kishore

> -

> you are absolutely right; the conjunction is not a raj yoga; for leo /

> caner

> lagna, it just makes rahu as benefic). Moreover, this needs to be

> evaluated

> from natal moon, ashtakavarga valuations, constellation lordship and D

> charts as well. In my assessment, if this conjunction is wide (or away

> from

> bhava madhya), then even for leo / cancer lagna, this conjunction will

> cease

> to give its good effects in full.

>

> Generally speaking mars / rahu conjunction in any house, is not looked as

> positive combination and in leo sign- has its own heavy burdens. Let

> members

> share their experience and charts (for mars / rahu in leo - except when

> leo

> / cancer is lagna) and let us evaluate, how many such natives have

> achieved

> raj yoga results (I am referring to mars / rahu for karka / simha lagna)?

>

> Guru / Rahu conjunction is generally seen as both swapping their

> attributes,

> and Jupiter dasa is, then - normally very good for materialistic

> pursuits.

> In my assessment, such combination in leo sign will prosper more if not

> occuring in magha constellation. BTW, guru is not yoga graha for leo

> lagna.

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

>

> When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

> ************************************************

November 2, 2006

Dear Prafulla,

//Best test of real life resultants of this combination is the submission of

charts with mars / rahu in leo and let us see, if raj yoga has fructified

for this conjunction.//

Very well.. If you visit the following link and scroll down to the bottom

right column you will see a link (pop-up window) titled "Yogas for Royal

Association". http://jyotishvidya.com/diana.htm

This page, as it is, was published some years ago...long before this

(2nd) group existed and certainly long before I knew either you or Bhaskar.

Some of our long-standing members may recall we had discussed this very

topic (Rahu as RajYoga) on the original JyotishVidya group using Diana's

horoscope as an example, if I'm not mistaken.

The fact of the matter is that Lady Diana (a commoner, albeit from an

aristocratic family) became a Princess during Rahu dasa. At the time of her

marriage (29 Jul 1981) 7th lord Venus was transiting RA/MA in 10th house...a

tremendous change in her 'STATUS' through marriage. I suggest you take a

good look at her horoscope paying particular attention to the transits at

time of marriage.

If you want more examples I'm sure we can find them...this thread can go on

endlessly if that's what it takes to convince you (just don't make it about

Bhaskar), or you can accept the dictum and move on to other discussions.

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy

> jyotish (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au

___

-

"Prafulla Gang" <jyotish (AT) inbox (DOT) com>

<jyotish-vidya>

Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:16 PM

Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

Dear Wendy,

Sage Parashar has defined rahu / ketu as natural malefic and while

discussing roles of each planet for specific lagna, he has categorically

prescribed functional roles. I meant by functional benefic / malefic by

those roles.

The thread, as I could understand, was on simple / blanket statement - "leo

positioning of mars / rahu is raj yoga". My jyotish understanding does not

accept it, as I suggested that - rahu / ketu becomes yoga karaka only in

conditional positioning - Hence unless mars is yoga karaka (i.e. for simha /

karka lagna), it will not be a favourable conjunction and will carry heavy

burden. I am afraid, the whole line of arguments on this entire thread is

far drifted from the original statement.

Best test of real life resultants of this combination is the submission of

charts with mars / rahu in leo and let us see, if raj yoga has fructified

for this conjunction.

My reference for guru / rahu, was for Krishna's mail on the thread (with

specific to simha lagna and such combination in lagna). Yes, this needs to

be evaluated with wholistic approach.

regards / Prafulla Gang

When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

************************************************

November 2, 2006

Dear Wendy,

Many thanks for sharing the Diana's chart and the article.

Late MC Jain in his books (two books - KCP and Rahu/Ketu) has explained various charts - where rahu / mars conjunction in fiery sign, is indicated as fatal one ( as proven in Diana's chart as well - ofcourse subject to fulfillment of many conditions from wholistic perspective). Yes, if rahu becomes functional benefic (per dictum we are discussing on thread), then it gives rise in status and works as benefic for materialistic pursuits.

I never discounted the benefic role of rahu in any chart, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. and I mentioned in my mails as well.

BTW, my mail was on a thread without bias, not on Bhaskar's chart. I do not think, we were discussing his chart on the thread.

So for the sake of conclusion of this thread- "if rahu / mars are in leo - it is Raj Yoga" !

regards / Prafulla Gang

When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

************************************************

>

> Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:09:27 +0800

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Prafulla,

>

> //Best test of real life resultants of this combination is the submission

> of

> charts with mars / rahu in leo and let us see, if raj yoga has fructified

> for this conjunction.//

>

> Very well.. If you visit the following link and scroll down to the bottom

> right column you will see a link (pop-up window) titled "Yogas for Royal

> Association". http://jyotishvidya.com/diana.htm

>

> This page, as it is, was published some years ago...long before this

> (2nd) group existed and certainly long before I knew either you or

> Bhaskar.

> Some of our long-standing members may recall we had discussed this very

> topic (Rahu as RajYoga) on the original JyotishVidya group using Diana's

> horoscope as an example, if I'm not mistaken.

>

> The fact of the matter is that Lady Diana (a commoner, albeit from an

> aristocratic family) became a Princess during Rahu dasa. At the time of

> her

> marriage (29 Jul 1981) 7th lord Venus was transiting RA/MA in 10th

> house...a

> tremendous change in her 'STATUS' through marriage. I suggest you take a

> good look at her horoscope paying particular attention to the transits at

> time of marriage.

>

> If you want more examples I'm sure we can find them...this thread can go

> on

> endlessly if that's what it takes to convince you (just don't make it

> about

> Bhaskar), or you can accept the dictum and move on to other discussions.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Prafulla Gang" <jyotish (AT) inbox (DOT) com>

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:16 PM

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> Sage Parashar has defined rahu / ketu as natural malefic and while

> discussing roles of each planet for specific lagna, he has categorically

> prescribed functional roles. I meant by functional benefic / malefic by

> those roles.

>

> The thread, as I could understand, was on simple / blanket statement -

> "leo

> positioning of mars / rahu is raj yoga". My jyotish understanding does

> not

> accept it, as I suggested that - rahu / ketu becomes yoga karaka only in

> conditional positioning - Hence unless mars is yoga karaka (i.e. for

> simha /

> karka lagna), it will not be a favourable conjunction and will carry

> heavy

> burden. I am afraid, the whole line of arguments on this entire thread is

> far drifted from the original statement.

>

> Best test of real life resultants of this combination is the submission

> of

> charts with mars / rahu in leo and let us see, if raj yoga has fructified

> for this conjunction.

>

> My reference for guru / rahu, was for Krishna's mail on the thread (with

> specific to simha lagna and such combination in lagna). Yes, this needs

> to

> be evaluated with wholistic approach.

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

>

> When everybody's coming your way, youâ€™re in the wrong lane

> ************************************************

November 2, 2006

dear all,

Can we not decide this matter by seeing CHALIT CHART ????

nanavati

-- In jyotish-vidya, "Wendy Vasicek" <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Krishna,

>

> When grahas occupy the same bhava(rasi) they are said to be

conjunct. Of

> course the closer the conjunction the greater influence they have

upon each

> other. Consider the dictum of 'planetary war' when two grahas are

within one

> degree.

>

> I invite further comments from learned members (citing scriptural

> references) on this...

>

> Best Wishes,

> Mrs. Wendy

> ___

>

> -

> "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998

> <jyotish-vidya>

> Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:51 AM

> Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

>

> Dear Wendy,

>

> This opens up a doubt that was always bothering me.

>

> In general, is it necessary for two planets to be considered

> conjunct to be placed in the same Rasi/Bhava? I used to assume

> that two planets are in conjunction when they are within 12

> degrees from each other irrespective of their location.

>

> Will there be no influence of planets on each other when they

> are in close proximity even if they are in different Rasis?

>

> And, should we consider two planets to be conjunct when they are

> in the same Rasi/Bhava but are more than 12 degrees apart?

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Wendy Vasicek <jyotish wrote:

>

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > In regards to the conjunction of RA/JU they need to occupy the

> > same rasi in

> > Janma Kundali (the rasi that has become the bhava). In your

> > chart, Rahu is

> > in 2nd bhava (Virgo rasi) and Jupiter is in 3rd bhava (Libra

> > rasi).

> >

> > Best Wishes,

> > Mrs. Wendy

> > http://JyotishVidya.com

> > jyotish-vidya

> > ___

> >

> > -

> > "Krishnamurthy Seetharama" <krishna_1998

> > <jyotish-vidya>

> > Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:12 AM

> > Re: About Rahu / Mars in Leo

> >

> > Dear Wendy,

> >

> > I would like to understand this clearly. The sholka does not

> > say

> > that the Rahu should be in conjunction with a yogakaraka. It

> > says that Rahu should be in conjunction with a trinal lord or

> > angular lord. Am I correct? In my case Jupiter is a trinal

> > lord.

> > The point about Rahu in Mars Nakshatra is well taken. Thanks.

> >

> > Please clarify.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

____________________

______________

> Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone

call

> rates

>

November 2, 2006

Dear Prafulla,

//Late MC Jain in his books has explained various charts - where rahu / mars

conjunction in fiery sign, is indicated as fatal one ( as proven in Diana's

chart as well//

In Diana's chart, Rahu's dispositor (Sun) in nakshatra of Rahu himself,

inimically placed in 8th and conjunct 8th lord, told the story of her sudden

(accidental) death. Were Sun not so placed would RA/MA combination have

proved fatal?

//Yes, if rahu becomes functional benefic (per dictum we are discussing on

thread), then it gives rise in status and works as benefic for materialistic

pursuits.//

It all depends on what influences Rahu...under certain conditions he can

also draw one irresistibly towards spiritual pursuits.

//So for the sake of conclusion of this thread- "if rahu / mars are in leo -

it is Raj Yoga" !//

Now you're being facetious! I know you're fully aware that this is not so in

all instances...as you, yourself, have already stated.

Best Wishes,

Mrs. Wendy