From Guru chandala to Mandaarka

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

I agree with you. This nomenclature blunts finer aspects like Rasi

effects and lordship effects. Your line reminds me of my 'Functional

etc' line of probing. We could not round it off.

 

My example was Saturn and Sun (called Mandaarka Yoga). But I was

inclined to go by the lordships, where the houses involved (9, 10,

and 4; Taurus lagna) generate pretty strong subha yoga in a good hse

(2nd) being Gemini.

 

Now, how do we go about this? Do we see planetary combination first

and also finally as planets with their inherent qualities or

attributes? Little can be changed about that. Or sign and lordship

modification finally matters?

 

RK

 

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Srinivas ji and Verna ji,

> I am against any such special naming of 2 planet planetary

> combinations (Dwigraha Yogas). We won't find such a system

followed in

> Rishi Horas. Ofcourse we should also remember that Graha Yogas (a

> special branch of which is Dwigraha yogas), is just a part of 7-

fold

> Yoga classification system. For the special branch Dwi graha yogas

(2

> planet combinations) no special naming convention was followed by

> Rishi horas except by using the names of the planet. In short, if

we

> follow the Rishi hora system, then it is better to call -

> Guru-Rahu Yoga (and not Guru-Chandala Yoga)

> Kuja-Sani Yoga (and not Agni-Maruta Yoga)

> Ravi-Budha Yoga (and not Nipuna Yoga)

> etc. This applies to all 2 planet combinations. Please notice the

> following fact; and understand why this naming should be dropped -

> * the new names are used by some just to indicate one of the many

> peculiar results provided by the yoga

> * the new naming fail to reflect all the possibilities indicated

by

> the Yoga (combination).

> * This system fail to name all the 2 planet combinations (Dwi

graha

> yogas)

> * This type of naming is not supported by the Rishi horas.

> A two planet combination may indicate many results. It includes-

> * The results based on the combining of significance (The slokas

> related this are available in plenty in slandered texts)

> * The results based on the combining of the significance of the

> houses owned by the two grahas (This changes based on situation and

> horoscopes and so one will not find much slokas related to this).

> Remember that the lord of the house is natural karaka for the house

> (Adhipa sarva bhavanam karaka parikeertita)

> * The results based on the combining of the significance of the

signs

> owned by the two grahas.

> Such results for sure will contain some positive and some negative

> results. In other words even the worst Dwigraha (2 planet)

combination

> will have some good things as well to indicate in a horoscope. Due

to

> this reason as well, such naming (by making the Yoga stiff; and

> disturbing the balanced thinking of the astrologer about that yoga)

> conventions should be discarded. Yes, yet again notice the fact

that

> no astrologer before Mihira (including Mihira) used such names.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> , " vernalagnia "

> <vernalagnia@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Srinivas,

> >

> > I'm personally skeptical on interpreting any yoga, the GCY

included,

> > purely on face value regardless of all else. A strong lagna and

lagna

> > lord and unafflicted Moon are, for example, known to mitigate

the

> > effects of any adverse yogas. There's additionally the matter of

> > functional lordships. I've seen at least three charts where Ju is

> > conjunct one of the nodes, with that node gaining lordship over

Sc or

> > Aq, with no terrible effects as such. For one, a Sc asc native,

the

> > Ju-Ra combine means a conjunction of 4th and 5th lords, in 10th.

He's

> > doing quite well in his career and other matters, as far as I

know.

> >

> > I've a Ju-Mo combine in Cancer and Su-Me in Gemini, and if

there's any

> > good of either the gajakesari or budhaditya, I'm yet to see it

> >

> > Btw, there's another theory that even a Sa-Ju combine is deemed

GCY...

> >

> > +++

> >

> > , " sreeram

srinivas "

> > <sreeram64@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I think this email response of Mr. Krishnamurthy Seetharama is

the

> most

> > > balanced view of Guru Chandal yoga. I totally agree with him.

> >

>