Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Dear Sreenadhji, Namaskaar, I wanted to bring to your notice, that if you use courier font while drawing the charts, they will come out with the correct alignment. Best wishes, Neelay , sree nadh <sreesog wrote:>> Dear RK ji,> Probably you have the wrong chart in mind. I give> chart of Vinita ji below -> +--------------+> | | |As |Su MeR |> | | | |Ju Ke |> | | | | |> | | | | |> | | | | |> |-----------+-----------------------+-----------|> | | |Mo Ve |> | | | |> | | | |> | | | |> | | | |> |-----------| Rasi |-----------|> | | | |> | | | |> | | | |> | | | |> | | | |> |-----------+-----------------------+-----------|> |MaR Ra | |SaR | |> | | | | |> | | | | |> | | | | |> | | | | |> +--------------+> > ==>> > As for the Malayalam citation for activation of Moon> > lagna after a > > certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's also> > tend to feel > > there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere.> <==> Yap, you are right.> > ==>> > I know of a chart where all the three (Sun lagan, Mo> > lagna and Udaya > > lagna) have their their 9th and 12th fortified) and> > they are > > fortified by benefics (Ju, Ven, Me). But the> > 'experience' came in > > the dashaa of (benefic) planet that is to do with> > 9th from lagna > > (and in its own sub-period). All the three lagnas> > are strong: with > > Moon sits its sign lord, while Mo has good digit> > strength. Udaya > > sign lord in moolatrikona but not upachaya (in> > kendra), udaya sign > > is aspected by Ju. With Sun sits sign lord (in> > mooltriknona). One > > minor qualification: 12th from Mo is not exactly> > fortified: it is > > unaspected and lord is 2nd from Moon.> > > > The point I am making here is both the three lagnas> > play role but > > Udaya lagna is udaya lagna. Dasha abides by this> > reference point. > > (Transit is another matter though: we know Mo is the> > queen in that > > department. Or she is not?) > > > > I made use of an example where the kind of life> > experience involved > > is pretty rare and thus unmistakable: 9th plus 12th.> > And using that > > experience I daresay it is Udaya lagna that steers> > the course of > > events. Udaya lagna is not just 'thanu bhava' -- the> > body, early > > life and just that.> > > > Udaya lagna is predictive fulcrum, sign strength or> > no sign strength.> <==> I value those statements very much, even though I> agree or disagree with many of them. > Love,> Sreenadh> --- arkaydash arkaydash wrote:> > > Dear Shreenadh, Vinita,> > The Varah Hora criterion renders (Vinita's) Moon> > sign a strength > > conteder: > > > > "If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects (Drishti) or> > posited in the sign then that sign becomes stronger> > (gets more> > importance)."> > > > That is, the lord of the sign tenants the sign. Mo> > being cancer's > > lord is in cancer. Moon is malefic in digit terms.> > But that does not > > rob the planet of its power to lend strength to its> > quarter. The > > Hora verse says lord of the sign, be it a malefic or> > a benefic.> > > > Now, strength crierion varies from planet to planet.> > That reminds > > me: Moon's strength is, say primarily, pakshabala> > while Sa's eg is > > dikbala (in seventh from lagna).> > > > Now supposing, Sa enters into the picture as either> > Moon sign lord > > or Udaya sign lord and is third from the sign (the> > sign being > > Aquarius). We have quite a situation here, don't we?> > Sat in Aries in > > Upachaya. In fall! Saturn in the sign it rules which> > is Udaya lagna. > > Dikbala gone!> > > > We have to resolve whether we stick fast to the twin> > rules cited ( > > from V. Hora & Jaatakadeshamaarga). Literally apply> > them? Or further > > qualify them by pakshyabala and dikbala. If the> > latter, then let's > > procure the citations from classics.> > > > * * *> > > > As for the Malayalam citation for activation of Moon> > lagna after a > > certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's also> > tend to feel > > there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere. But the> > point is is > > that borne out by experience. Sudarshana padhhatti> > requires all the > > three lagnas to be simultaneous reference points.> > > > I know of a chart where all the three (Sun lagan, Mo> > lagna and Udaya > > lagna) have their their 9th and 12th fortified) and> > they are > > fortified by benefics (Ju, Ven, Me). But the> > 'experience' came in > > the dashaa of (benefic) planet that is to do with> > 9th from lagna > > (and in its own sub-period). All the three lagnas> > are strong: with > > Moon sits its sign lord, while Mo has good digit> > strength. Udaya > > sign lord in moolatrikona but not upachaya (in> > kendra), udaya sign > > is aspected by Ju. With Sun sits sign lord (in> > mooltriknona). One > > minor qualification: 12th from Mo is not exactly> > fortified: it is > > unaspected and lord is 2nd from Moon.> > > > The point I am making here is both the three lagnas> > play role but > > Udaya lagna is udaya lagna. Dasha abides by this> > reference point. > > (Transit is another matter though: we know Mo is the> > queen in that > > department. Or she is not?) > > > > I made use of an example where the kind of life> > experience involved > > is pretty rare and thus unmistakable: 9th plus 12th.> > And using that > > experience I daresay it is Udaya lagna that steers> > the course of > > events. Udaya lagna is not just 'thanu bhava' -- the> > body, early > > life and just that.> > > > Udaya lagna is predictive fulcrum, sign strength or> > no sign strength.> > > > Happy brainstorming, everyone,> > > > RK > > > > ,> > "vinita kumar" > > shankar_mamta@ wrote:> > >> > > Dear Shreenadh,> > > > > > Thank you very much for taking the trouble to> > explain this so > > nicely. > > > The mistake i was making is to think Moon is in> > Upachaya even from > > > Moon lagna. > > > > > > I agree with the weakness of moon, though> > according to D-9 Moon is > > in > > > Saggi (and not scorpio). It is with Saturn, but> > then Saturn is in > > > Parivartan with Jupiter in Acquarius. I don't know> > if this can be > > > construed to mean that that Moon is with Jupiter> > in Saggi and > > > therefore not that weak.> > > > > > Anyway, I will leave it at that.> > > > > > Many thanks once again for explaining this.> > > > > > Love,> > > > > > Vinita> > > > > > ,> > "Sreenadh" > > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Vinita ji,> > > > It is not like that.> > > > The second rule says -> > > > ==>> > > > > The strength of the sign is equal to the> > strength of the > > > > > sign lord. If the sign lord is posited in> > Upachaya (3-6-10-11) > > > sign > > > > > from there onwards then the sign becomes> > stronger (gets more > > > > > importance).> > > > <==> > > > From your Lagna sign Ve is in 3rd house - 1 pt.> > > > From the Moon sign Mo is NOT in Upachaya sign -> > 0 pt> > > > > > > > Now comes ascertaining the strength of sign> > based on the > > strength > > > of > > > > planet -> > > > The Lagan lord posited in Cn has navamsa in Aq> > - Normal > > strength > > > > (The same applies to Lagna sign)> > > > The Moon sign lord is posited in its own sign -> > So normally > > should > > > > be considered strong. But look at Navamsa of Mo,> > it is in > > > > debilitation. So there is not much Stanabala to> > Moon. It is said > > > that > > > > for Mo Pakshabala is more important when> > ascertaining the > > strength > > > of > > > > the planet than Stanabala (Strength due to> > placement). You will > > see > > > > that Mo has neither enough Pakshabala as well.> > In your chart Mo > > is > > > so > > > > close to Sun (It is only Sukla Triteeya, the 3rd> > Tithi after > > > amavasi) > > > > and so Mo is week. The same applies to the Moon> > sign as well.> > > > So here the Lagna sign wins over Moon sign.> > All these are > > based > > > on > > > > the Second rule.> > > > Now considering the 1st rule -> > > > ==>> > > > > If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects> > (Drishti) or > > > > > posited in the sign then that sign becomes> > stronger (gets more > > > > > importance).> > > > <== > > > > Neither Lagna lord, Ju or Me aspects Lagna. No> > good or bad > > > === message truncated ===> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Dear neelay, Thanks for the info. I was unaware of that. Thanks again. I will try it now onwards. Love, Sreenadh --- neelay <neelay2006 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadhji, > > Namaskaar, I wanted to bring to your notice, that if > you use courier > font while drawing the charts, they will come out > with the correct > alignment. > > Best wishes, > > Neelay > > > , > sree nadh <sreesog > wrote: > > > > Dear RK ji, > > Probably you have the wrong chart in mind. I > give > > chart of Vinita ji below - > > +--------------+ > > | | |As |Su MeR | > > | | | |Ju Ke | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > | | |Mo Ve | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------| Rasi |-----------| > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | | | > > |-----------+-----------------------+-----------| > > |MaR Ra | |SaR | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > | | | | | > > +--------------+ > > > > ==> > > > As for the Malayalam citation for activation of > Moon > > > lagna after a > > > certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's > also > > > tend to feel > > > there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere. > > <== > > Yap, you are right. > > > > ==> > > > I know of a chart where all the three (Sun > lagan, Mo > > > lagna and Udaya > > > lagna) have their their 9th and 12th fortified) > and > > > they are > > > fortified by benefics (Ju, Ven, Me). But the > > > 'experience' came in > > > the dashaa of (benefic) planet that is to do > with > > > 9th from lagna > > > (and in its own sub-period). All the three > lagnas > > > are strong: with > > > Moon sits its sign lord, while Mo has good digit > > > strength. Udaya > > > sign lord in moolatrikona but not upachaya (in > > > kendra), udaya sign > > > is aspected by Ju. With Sun sits sign lord (in > > > mooltriknona). One > > > minor qualification: 12th from Mo is not exactly > > > fortified: it is > > > unaspected and lord is 2nd from Moon. > > > > > > The point I am making here is both the three > lagnas > > > play role but > > > Udaya lagna is udaya lagna. Dasha abides by this > > > reference point. > > > (Transit is another matter though: we know Mo is > the > > > queen in that > > > department. Or she is not?) > > > > > > I made use of an example where the kind of life > > > experience involved > > > is pretty rare and thus unmistakable: 9th plus > 12th. > > > And using that > > > experience I daresay it is Udaya lagna that > steers > > > the course of > > > events. Udaya lagna is not just 'thanu bhava' -- > the > > > body, early > > > life and just that. > > > > > > Udaya lagna is predictive fulcrum, sign strength > or > > > no sign strength. > > <== > > I value those statements very much, even though I > > agree or disagree with many of them. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > --- arkaydash arkaydash wrote: > > > > > Dear Shreenadh, Vinita, > > > The Varah Hora criterion renders (Vinita's) Moon > > > sign a strength > > > conteder: > > > > > > " If Lord of the sign, Ju or Me aspects (Drishti) > or > > > posited in the sign then that sign becomes > stronger > > > (gets more > > > importance). " > > > > > > That is, the lord of the sign tenants the sign. > Mo > > > being cancer's > > > lord is in cancer. Moon is malefic in digit > terms. > > > But that does not > > > rob the planet of its power to lend strength to > its > > > quarter. The > > > Hora verse says lord of the sign, be it a > malefic or > > > a benefic. > > > > > > Now, strength crierion varies from planet to > planet. > > > That reminds > > > me: Moon's strength is, say primarily, > pakshabala > > > while Sa's eg is > > > dikbala (in seventh from lagna). > > > > > > Now supposing, Sa enters into the picture as > either > > > Moon sign lord > > > or Udaya sign lord and is third from the sign > (the > > > sign being > > > Aquarius). We have quite a situation here, don't > we? > > > Sat in Aries in > > > Upachaya. In fall! Saturn in the sign it rules > which > > > is Udaya lagna. > > > Dikbala gone! > > > > > > We have to resolve whether we stick fast to the > twin > > > rules cited ( > > > from V. Hora & Jaatakadeshamaarga). Literally > apply > > > them? Or further > > > qualify them by pakshyabala and dikbala. If the > > > latter, then let's > > > procure the citations from classics. > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > As for the Malayalam citation for activation of > Moon > > > lagna after a > > > certain age (is it 32?) -- that should do. I's > also > > > tend to feel > > > there should be Sanskrit parallel somewhere. But > the > > > point is is > > > that borne out by experience. Sudarshana > padhhatti > > > requires all the > > > three lagnas to be simultaneous reference > points. > > > > > > I know of a chart where all the three (Sun > lagan, Mo > > > lagna and Udaya > === message truncated === 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.