Mathematical v/s actual separation between planets

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ravi Bhide The seperation between 1st and 5th cusp is 120 only for zero latitude. For other latitudes, when one use the Placidius system of house division as in KP, the seperation will depend on the Latitude. Just check up by casting a Chart for 0 deg Lat and say 30 deg Lat Ravi Bhide <ravirajbhide wrote: Dear learned members, If I understand correctly, separation between 1st and 5th cusp is precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are on the

1st and 5th cusp respectively, they are trine to one another, irrespective of what their mathematical separation (difference between their longitudes) turns out to be. Please consider the chart below: LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51 Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsLASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer 8th 9 14 14

15 Jup Ven Ven Rah 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah 12th 1 11 31 3 Mar Ket Mer Mer If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th above, then although their "mathematical separation" is only 99 deg 29 min 55 sec (Virgo 1 deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in reality be trine to each another. And what might indicate a trine aspect (i.e. "mathematically separated" by 120 degrees) might be something altogether different. Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a good aspect into a bad one! I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems to indicate that mathematical separation doesn't seem like the right approach to calculating aspects. Can someone please address this situation? Thanks! Ravi Good LuckRaichur A RBombay Tel 2506 2609Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that account

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr.Ravi,

 

Your example of 99Degrees would be a trine if you consider

Sign to Sign aspect. But degreecal it would be a seperating

square, already seperated and moving forward,

and if any faster moving Planet is behind,

then it would be a applying trine only if it

enters the portion of 128 Degrees (ie.if you take

the orb +_ of 8 degrees )

 

If we mix the Indian system with the degreecal (Western)one,

then its going to create problems. Both approaches have to be

made seperately and may match in certain examples on

both platforms.

 

If we have a Planet Mars in Aries and another

say Jupiter in Cancer, it would be a square one on

both systems, signwise and Western too, but if you

consider degreecal then not necessarily the planets

may be in square. If Mars is in 5 degrees Aries

and Jupiter in 25 degrees Cancer ,then this

would become a 110Degree aspect, degrecally neither

a Square, and neither a trine.

 

In Your example 135 deg. would become a sesquiquadrate

aspect, therefore naturally as you said ,

the beneficiency of the trine would not be

available here.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, " Ravi Bhide " <ravirajbhide

wrote:

>

>

> Dear learned members,

>

> If I understand correctly, separation between 1st and 5th cusp is

> precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are on the 1st and 5th

cusp

> respectively, they are trine to one another, irrespective of what

their

> mathematical separation (difference between their longitudes) turns

out

> to be.

>

> Please consider the chart below:

>

> LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W

> DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.

> SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51

>

> Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsL

> ASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat

> 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat

> 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer

> 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket

> 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat

> 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven

> 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer

> 8th 9 14 14 15 Jup Ven Ven Rah

> 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven

> 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer

> 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah

> 12th 1 11 31 3 Mar Ket Mer Mer

>

> If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th above, then although

> their " mathematical separation " is only 99 deg 29 min 55 sec (Virgo

1

> deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in reality be trine to

each

> another. And what might indicate a trine aspect

(i.e. " mathematically

> separated " by 120 degrees) might be something altogether different.

> Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a good aspect into

a bad

> one!

>

> I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems to indicate that

> mathematical separation doesn't seem like the right approach to

> calculating aspects. Can someone please address this situation?

>

> Thanks!

>

> Ravi

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ravi Bhide ji,You are right in saying that the 1st and 5th cusps are at 120 degrees separation. Again as respected Raichur ji has pointed out, the separation is for 0 degree latitude. Also, if the planets have the same latitude and occupy the same degree as the cusps, then they are trine. For any other position, even though they are in the same Bhava, their exact longitudinal distance should be considered and not just the fact that they in a particular bhava. The problem with traditional vedic astrology is the consideration of a bhava as the whole sign and two planets in a particular bhava (read sign) as in conjunction, even though the longitudinal distance between them is 18 or 20 degrees (one may be at the beginning of the bhava and the other may be at the end of the bhava but in the same sign), is a fallacy as advocated by the legendary GURU Shri KSK. For KP, one has to consider only Placidian Cusps (which are exact to the minute and second) and the exact

longitudinal distance between planets (Western style aspects).With Warm regardsDr. Kumara SanjayaRavi Bhide <ravirajbhide wrote: Dear learned members, If I understand correctly, separation between 1st and 5th cusp is precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are on the 1st and 5th cusp respectively, they are trine to one another, irrespective of what their mathematical separation (difference between their longitudes) turns out to be. Please consider the chart below:

LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51 Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsLASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer 8th 9 14 14 15 Jup Ven Ven Rah 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah 12th 1 11 31 3

Mar Ket Mer Mer If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th above, then although their "mathematical separation" is only 99 deg 29 min 55 sec (Virgo 1 deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in reality be trine to each another. And what might indicate a trine aspect (i.e. "mathematically separated" by 120 degrees) might be something altogether different. Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a good aspect into a bad one! I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems to indicate that mathematical separation doesn't seem like the right approach to calculating aspects. Can someone please address this situation? Thanks! Ravi

Don't be flakey. Get Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Bhide,

 

Sorry for coming in this conversation.

 

If we assume the 10th cusp which you rightly said is

the highest or elevated point of a Chart, it is not

necessary that there would be only 3 signs in between

the ascendant and the Cusp,there may be a 4th one too,

if we take the Placcidus system as House division.

As there may be some signs whch are not complete

30 degrees in a house. Maybe less or more as in

the case of intercepted signs.

 

I may be wrong in above assessment, we shall wait

for Shri Raichur and his wise observations on the above.

 

Everything is observed here, This is the beautiful

play of Maya. The sun is always there, only we see

it rising and setting. The Planets never retrograde,

only we see them as retrograde or stationary.

Yes conjunction is never coming together its always

lakhs of Miles apart on the Zodiacal belt.

When we see from the top of a terrace on a slanted

angle of 60 degrees on a faraway lane,we would see

two persons standing together ,though they may be

100 metres apart, but since we are watching them in

a line, through a angle they seem together.

God only knows what is real up there. More and

more Astronomical scientific discoveries would

differentiate the Maya and the Real to a certain

extent He(Lord Vishnu) allows us, in time to come.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, " Ravi Bhide " <ravirajbhide

wrote:

>

>

> Dear Raichurji,

>

> Pardon my ignorance. I read that the meridian (10th cusp) is the

highest

> point in the sky, which would mean it is 90 degrees to the ascendant

> regardless of the latitude, as observed from the location of the

chart.

> This would mean that all cusps are 30 degrees apart, as observed

from

> the location of the chart ( " observed separation " ). Since we use this

> " observed separation " to mark the cusps, it seems like the same

should

> be used to calculate aspects, instead of mathematical separation. In

> support of this is the phenomenon of conjuction - no two planets are

> ever in true conjuction, since they cannot both be at the same

point in

> space. They are in conjuction as observed from the location of the

> chart.

>

> Thanks,

> Ravi

>

>

> , Raichur-a-r <raichurar@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Ravi Bhide

> > The seperation between 1st and 5th cusp is 120 only for zero

latitude.

> For other latitudes, when one use the Placidius system of house

division

> as in KP, the seperation will depend on the Latitude. Just check up

by

> casting a Chart for 0 deg Lat and say 30 deg Lat

> >

> >

> > Ravi Bhide ravirajbhide@ wrote:

> > Dear learned members,

> > If I understand correctly, separation between 1st and 5th cusp is

> precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are on the 1st and 5th

cusp

> respectively, they are trine to one another, irrespective of what

their

> mathematical separation (difference between their longitudes) turns

out

> to be.

> > Please consider the chart below:

> > LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W

> > DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.

> > SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51

> > Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsL

> > ASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat

> > 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat

> > 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer

> > 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket

> > 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat

> > 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven

> > 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer

> > 8th 9 14 14 15 Jup Ven Ven Rah

> > 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven

> > 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer

> > 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah

> > 12th 1 11 31 3 Mar Ket Mer Mer

> > If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th above, then

although

> their " mathematical separation " is only 99 deg 29 min 55 sec (Virgo

1

> deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in reality be trine to

each

> another. And what might indicate a trine aspect

(i.e. " mathematically

> separated " by 120 degrees) might be something altogether different.

> Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a good aspect into

a bad

> one!

> > I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems to indicate that

> mathematical separation doesn't seem like the right approach to

> calculating aspects. Can someone please address this situation?

> > Thanks!

> > Ravi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Good Luck

> > Raichur A R

> > Bombay Tel 2506 2609

> > Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that account

> >

> >

> > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

> > Try the free Mail Beta.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

The latitudes are parralel to equator and the

longitudes are theoritically perpendicular to the equator..since the

longitudes interesect at the poles,the distance between two

longitudes narrow down as we proceed towards the poles.This is

elementary geography as taught in schools. how does this reflect in

a horoscope?

 

The best way is an exercise of casting a horoscope

at intervals of say 5 deg latitude difference for the same longitude.

Birth details remain the same.

All the doubts will be answered.Try it out pls.

 

Regards,

 

Satish

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Mr.Ravi,

>

> Your example of 99Degrees would be a trine if you consider

> Sign to Sign aspect. But degreecal it would be a seperating

> square, already seperated and moving forward,

> and if any faster moving Planet is behind,

> then it would be a applying trine only if it

> enters the portion of 128 Degrees (ie.if you take

> the orb +_ of 8 degrees )

>

> If we mix the Indian system with the degreecal (Western)one,

> then its going to create problems. Both approaches have to be

> made seperately and may match in certain examples on

> both platforms.

>

> If we have a Planet Mars in Aries and another

> say Jupiter in Cancer, it would be a square one on

> both systems, signwise and Western too, but if you

> consider degreecal then not necessarily the planets

> may be in square. If Mars is in 5 degrees Aries

> and Jupiter in 25 degrees Cancer ,then this

> would become a 110Degree aspect, degrecally neither

> a Square, and neither a trine.

>

> In Your example 135 deg. would become a sesquiquadrate

> aspect, therefore naturally as you said ,

> the beneficiency of the trine would not be

> available here.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , " Ravi Bhide " <ravirajbhide@>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear learned members,

> >

> > If I understand correctly, separation between 1st and 5th cusp is

> > precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are on the 1st and

5th

> cusp

> > respectively, they are trine to one another, irrespective of

what

> their

> > mathematical separation (difference between their longitudes)

turns

> out

> > to be.

> >

> > Please consider the chart below:

> >

> > LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W

> > DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.

> > SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51

> >

> > Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsL

> > ASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat

> > 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat

> > 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer

> > 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket

> > 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat

> > 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven

> > 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer

> > 8th 9 14 14 15 Jup Ven Ven Rah

> > 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven

> > 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer

> > 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah

> > 12th 1 11 31 3 Mar Ket Mer Mer

> >

> > If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th above, then

although

> > their " mathematical separation " is only 99 deg 29 min 55 sec

(Virgo

> 1

> > deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in reality be trine

to

> each

> > another. And what might indicate a trine aspect

> (i.e. " mathematically

> > separated " by 120 degrees) might be something altogether

different.

> > Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a good aspect

into

> a bad

> > one!

> >

> > I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems to indicate that

> > mathematical separation doesn't seem like the right approach to

> > calculating aspects. Can someone please address this situation?

> >

> > Thanks!

> >

> > Ravi

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Apologise for the intrusion but wish to add:

1. Remember that the earth has a spherical surface.

Hence, the sky does nto appear to be the same from

every place on the earth. That is the reason for

differences in planetary positions for different

places.

 

The meridian being the highest place in the sky

(perpendicular) appears to be the same from all

places, minor tangential differences being very minor

and hence ignored.

 

However, for other zodiac divisons, say more than 10 -

15 deg and greater on either side of the meridian, the

angle of inclination/ declinaiton would vary from

different places on the earth and hence the observed

variations are taken into account.

 

It is for this very reason that some rashis are not

seen at all in the higher latitudes, greater than 66

deg, if my memory does not fail me.

 

As for retrogression of the planets, this is simply

optical illusion - try moving two objects with

different speeds on different elliptical paths and

observe what happens with their relative movement.

 

The relativity of the zodiac with respsect to the

earth makes all the difference for individuals.

 

Regards,

Amitabh

--- Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

 

> Dear Mr. Bhide,

>

> Sorry for coming in this conversation.

>

> If we assume the 10th cusp which you rightly said is

>

> the highest or elevated point of a Chart, it is not

> necessary that there would be only 3 signs in

> between

> the ascendant and the Cusp,there may be a 4th one

> too,

> if we take the Placcidus system as House division.

> As there may be some signs whch are not complete

> 30 degrees in a house. Maybe less or more as in

> the case of intercepted signs.

>

> I may be wrong in above assessment, we shall wait

> for Shri Raichur and his wise observations on the

> above.

>

> Everything is observed here, This is the beautiful

> play of Maya. The sun is always there, only we see

> it rising and setting. The Planets never retrograde,

> only we see them as retrograde or stationary.

> Yes conjunction is never coming together its always

> lakhs of Miles apart on the Zodiacal belt.

> When we see from the top of a terrace on a slanted

> angle of 60 degrees on a faraway lane,we would see

> two persons standing together ,though they may be

> 100 metres apart, but since we are watching them in

> a line, through a angle they seem together.

> God only knows what is real up there. More and

> more Astronomical scientific discoveries would

> differentiate the Maya and the Real to a certain

> extent He(Lord Vishnu) allows us, in time to come.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , " Ravi Bhide "

> <ravirajbhide

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Raichurji,

> >

> > Pardon my ignorance. I read that the meridian

> (10th cusp) is the

> highest

> > point in the sky, which would mean it is 90

> degrees to the ascendant

> > regardless of the latitude, as observed from the

> location of the

> chart.

> > This would mean that all cusps are 30 degrees

> apart, as observed

> from

> > the location of the chart ( " observed separation " ).

> Since we use this

> > " observed separation " to mark the cusps, it seems

> like the same

> should

> > be used to calculate aspects, instead of

> mathematical separation. In

> > support of this is the phenomenon of conjuction -

> no two planets are

> > ever in true conjuction, since they cannot both be

> at the same

> point in

> > space. They are in conjuction as observed from the

> location of the

> > chart.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Ravi

> >

> >

> > , Raichur-a-r

> <raichurar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Ravi Bhide

> > > The seperation between 1st and 5th cusp is 120

> only for zero

> latitude.

> > For other latitudes, when one use the Placidius

> system of house

> division

> > as in KP, the seperation will depend on the

> Latitude. Just check up

> by

> > casting a Chart for 0 deg Lat and say 30 deg Lat

> > >

> > >

> > > Ravi Bhide ravirajbhide@ wrote:

> > > Dear learned members,

> > > If I understand correctly, separation between

> 1st and 5th cusp is

> > precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are

> on the 1st and 5th

> cusp

> > respectively, they are trine to one another,

> irrespective of what

> their

> > mathematical separation (difference between their

> longitudes) turns

> out

> > to be.

> > > Please consider the chart below:

> > > LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W

> > > DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.

> > > SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51

> > > Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsL

> > > ASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat

> > > 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat

> > > 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer

> > > 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket

> > > 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat

> > > 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven

> > > 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer

> > > 8th 9 14 14 15 Jup Ven Ven Rah

> > > 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven

> > > 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer

> > > 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah

> > > 12th 1 11 31 3 Mar Ket Mer Mer

> > > If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th

> above, then

> although

> > their " mathematical separation " is only 99 deg 29

> min 55 sec (Virgo

> 1

> > deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in

> reality be trine to

> each

> > another. And what might indicate a trine aspect

> (i.e. " mathematically

> > separated " by 120 degrees) might be something

> altogether different.

> > Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a

> good aspect into

> a bad

> > one!

> > > I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems

> to indicate that

> > mathematical separation doesn't seem like the

> right approach to

> > calculating aspects. Can someone please address

> this situation?

> > > Thanks!

> > > Ravi

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Good Luck

> > > Raichur A R

> > > Bombay Tel 2506 2609

> > > Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that

> account

> > >

> > >

> > > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

> > > Try the free Mail Beta.

> > >

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

_________

Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for

your free account today

http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://uk.docs./mail/winter07.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr Bhide. In Kp we use the Placidius Syatem of House Division. The Asc is fixed and so is 10th. There are direct formulae for thes two cusps. The Division of houses between these two depends on the Latitude. Here below are the cuspa of My Nephew born in UK Lat 53 deg 49 min North, Long 2 deg 13 Min W Asc 9 26 34 51: 10th 8 3 43 0: The diff is only 52 deg 51 min 51 sec (Not 90 deg as you assume) 11th Cusp is 8 21 17 47. So the 11th house is only of 18 deg abd odd 12th cusp is 9 27 19 34. S0 12th is only 36 deg about 2nd is 11 27 15 43. So 1st house is nearly 60 degrees. I hope this clears the matter. 1oth cusp is also called Midheaven. When Sun is on 10th cusp, it is Noon. But only at zero lat, he will be directly over the head of the observer. In higher Latitudes, it will never be overhead.

In fact at the Poles, all planets will appear to be just at or above the Horizon. good luck Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Dear Mr. Bhide,Sorry for coming in this conversation.If we assume the 10th cusp which you rightly said is the highest or elevated point of a Chart, it is notnecessary that there would be only 3 signs in betweenthe ascendant and the Cusp,there may be a 4th one too, if we take the Placcidus system as House division.

As there may be some signs whch are not complete30 degrees in a house. Maybe less or more as inthe case of intercepted signs. I may be wrong in above assessment, we shall wait for Shri Raichur and his wise observations on the above.Everything is observed here, This is the beautiful play of Maya. The sun is always there, only we see it rising and setting. The Planets never retrograde,only we see them as retrograde or stationary.Yes conjunction is never coming together its alwayslakhs of Miles apart on the Zodiacal belt. When we see from the top of a terrace on a slantedangle of 60 degrees on a faraway lane,we would seetwo persons standing together ,though they may be100 metres apart, but since we are watching them ina line, through a angle they seem together. God only knows what is real up there. More andmore Astronomical scientific discoveries woulddifferentiate the Maya and the Real to a

certainextent He(Lord Vishnu) allows us, in time to come.regards,Bhaskar. , "Ravi Bhide" <ravirajbhide wrote:>> > Dear Raichurji,> > Pardon my ignorance. I read that the meridian (10th cusp) is the highest> point in the sky, which would mean it is 90 degrees to the ascendant> regardless of the latitude, as observed from the location of the chart.> This would mean that all cusps are 30 degrees apart, as observed from> the location of the chart ("observed separation"). Since we use this> "observed separation" to mark the cusps, it seems like the same should> be used to calculate aspects, instead of mathematical separation. In> support of this is the phenomenon of conjuction - no two planets are> ever in true conjuction, since they

cannot both be at the same point in> space. They are in conjuction as observed from the location of the> chart.> > Thanks,> Ravi> > > , Raichur-a-r <raichurar@> wrote:> >> > Dear Shri Ravi Bhide> > The seperation between 1st and 5th cusp is 120 only for zero latitude.> For other latitudes, when one use the Placidius system of house division> as in KP, the seperation will depend on the Latitude. Just check up by> casting a Chart for 0 deg Lat and say 30 deg Lat> >> >> > Ravi Bhide ravirajbhide@ wrote:> > Dear learned members,> > If I understand correctly, separation between 1st and 5th cusp is> precisely 120 degrees. So if planets A and B are on the 1st and 5th cusp> respectively, they are

trine to one another, irrespective of what their> mathematical separation (difference between their longitudes) turns out> to be.> > Please consider the chart below:> > LAT. 37 , 18 NLONG -121 ,-52 W> > DATE : 7 - 4 - 2007 : TIME: 9 H. 50 M.> > SIDERIAL TIME 21 : 44 : 51> > Cusp S D M se Sgl Stl Sbl SsL> > ASC 2 22 0 5 Ven Moo Ven Sat> > 2nd 3 14 14 15 Mer Rah Mer Sat> > 3rd 4 5 35 36 Moo Sat Mer Mer> > 4th 5 0 1 43 Sun Ket Ket Ket> > 5th 6 1 30 0 Mer Sun Jup Sat> > 6th 7 11 31 3 Ven Rah Sat Ven> > 7th 8 22 0 5 Mar Mer Sun Mer> > 8th 9 14 14 15 Jup Ven Ven Rah> > 9th 10 5 35 36 Sat Sun Mer Ven> > 10th 11 0 1 43 Sat Mar Mer Mer> > 11th 12 1 30 0 Jup Jup Rah Rah> > 12th 1 11 31 3 Mar Ket Mer Mer> > If two planets are on the cusps of 1st and 5th above, then although>

their "mathematical separation" is only 99 deg 29 min 55 sec (Virgo 1> deg 30 min - Tau 22 deg 5 sec), they would in reality be trine to each> another. And what might indicate a trine aspect (i.e. "mathematically> separated" by 120 degrees) might be something altogether different.> Infact it could turn out to be 135 deg, turning a good aspect into a bad> one!> > I am quite puzzled by the above since it seems to indicate that> mathematical separation doesn't seem like the right approach to> calculating aspects. Can someone please address this situation?> > Thanks!> > Ravi> >> >> >> >> >> > Good Luck> > Raichur A R> > Bombay Tel 2506 2609> > Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that account> >> > > >

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.> > Try the free Mail Beta.> >>Good LuckRaichur A RBombay Tel 2506 2609Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that account

Never miss an email again! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Bhide Planetary positons, are the same every where at a given time. So the aspects between planets, which is the difference in their longitudes, will be same. This has nothing to do with signs. IN KP the aspect between planets is recommended to be taken as per WESTERN SYSTEM of absolute difference in Longitudes of the two planets, allowing some ORB or allowance. For Example Conjunction of two planets has an orb of 10 degrees. So when two planets are within 10 degrees of each other,(as per their longitudes, irrespective of sign) they are said to be conjunct. For example, Say Moon is in Sign Aires 23 degree, and Mars is in Taurus 3 degrees. Here according to the western system, they are conjunct, even though in different signs. Moon being the faster moving planet, this is approaching conjunction, and this state will continue till Moon moves to say Tarus 14 degrees, assumming Mars has move

one degree in the meanwhile. From the time is reaches exact postion of Mars, till it moves a further 10 degrees(orb), Moon is in a seperating conjunction. Now in the Eastern or tradition system, only the signs in which planets are placed are considered. In the Above case, Moon is not conjunct with Mars as Moon is in Aries, and Mars in Taurus. But Once Moon moves to taurus, it is held conjunct with Mars, as along as it is in that Sign of Taurus. Same thing applies to other aspects like TRINE,(120 deg,with orb of 8 degrees), Square (90 deg with 6 deg orb) etc. Ravi Bhide <ravirajbhide wrote: Dear learned members,Thanks for your patience and all the responses so far! It has clearedsome of my doubts. Being a beginner, perhaps I was not able to put myquestion in the right words. So I am trying to break down myunderstanding into logical pieces as follows:(1) Between the ascendant and the meridian, there can be more than (orless than) 3 signs - I agree and understand this. My question isslightly different and has to do with houses & their cusps rather thansigns themselves - isn't the ascendant and the meridian always at 90degrees as observed from any point? This would make each house (notsign!) always 30 degrees in length (i.e. "observed length"). The signitself could appear more (or less) than 30 degrees, which I agree to

andunderstand, is due to the latitude as Raichurji pointed out. At zerodegree latitude (equator), all signs would appear to be exactly 30degrees in length.(2) Placidus system - I understand that this system is used forcalculating the cusps of the houses in KP. My question has more to dowith how we calculate planetary separation (or more generally, how wecalculate separation between any two points), which I believe, thePlacidus system doesn't talk about. This is where my main doubt lies.Why do we take the "observed separation" (i.e. Placidus system) whencalculating cusps and mathematical separation when calculating aspects?(In other words, there is a reason why we use Placidus and don't justadd 30 degrees to the ascendant to calculate the cusp of the 2nd houseand so on. My question is why do we use the latter method to computeaspects. I hope I was able to express my question clearly this time.)(3) Per my

understanding, planetary positions on the zodiac are notrelative. They are the same, no matter where on earth we observe theplanets from. (e.g. Sun at 5 degrees Aries is the same for every pointon earth.) However, planetary positions with respect to the cusps differfrom location to location, since the cusps are for a particularlocation. This would imply that the meridian is also for a particularlocation and would change from place to place.(4) Retrogression is an illusion - I agree to and understand this.Thanks for your time and patience!RaviGood LuckRaichur A RBombay Tel 2506 2609Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that account

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.

[Guest guest]

Would like to add a few more clarifications:

1. Ascendent is calculated based on the Local Mean

Time. This depends on the longitude and hence the deg

of zodiac rising in the East becomes the Ascendent.

Now MC for all latitudes (within a hemisphere) being

the highest point in the sky remains the same for all

latitudes but is dependent on the local mean time and

corresponding siderial time. This however is not 90

degs from the Asc. (This will be clarified before end

of this mail)

2. Though earth is not the centre of the solar

system, it has been taken to be so to make

calculations easier... the resultant complexities

would have been much more difficult to explain.

Accordingly all planets positions are relative to the

earth, not the sun - observed motion.

3. The zodiac signs being much further away from the

earth are observed in different planes from different

positions on the earth. Remember the earth is tilted

on its axis by about 23deg and moving in a West to

East direction to complete a revolution in approx 24

hrs. Also the Sun also keeps on changing its position

from the Tropic of Cancer in Summers to the Tropic of

Capricorn in Winters.

As a result the zodiac signs appear to be different

from different positions on the earth, some longer,

some shorter depending on the latitude.

All 12 zodiacs aren't exactly 30 deg in size and

neither do they take 2 hrs each to rise - that is only

rough approximation for purposes of simplification.

Actually some signs are longer, others shorter. Some

rise head first, others hind side first. Depending on

the Asc, and the latitude, the size of the zodiac sign

changes. Remember 1 - 6 Bhavas are below the horizon,

rest above starting from the Descendent to the

Ascendent, thus completing the Circle in unequal

distances of arc along the imaginary Great Solar

Circle.

In the Southern latitudes, the MC and Nadir

interchange their positions. 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3

houses become 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9!!!

As for planets their positions also vary depending on

the LMT and may change signs as per latitude.

This is all the play of mathematics of spherical

bodies in motion.

Hats off to the great sages who codefied these complex

situations for every inquisitve mind to understand in

easy terms.

 

Best wishes,

Amitabh

 

 

 

--- Raichur-a-r <raichurar wrote:

 

> Dear Shree Bhide

> Planetary positons, are the same every where at a

> given time. So the aspects between planets, which is

> the difference in their longitudes, will be same.

> This has nothing to do with signs.

> IN KP the aspect between planets is recommended to

> be taken as per WESTERN SYSTEM of absolute

> difference in Longitudes of the two planets,

> allowing some ORB or allowance. For Example

> Conjunction of two planets has an orb of 10 degrees.

> So when two planets are within 10 degrees of each

> other,(as per their longitudes, irrespective of

> sign) they are said to be conjunct. For example, Say

> Moon is in Sign Aires 23 degree, and Mars is in

> Taurus 3 degrees. Here according to the western

> system, they are conjunct, even though in

> different signs. Moon being the faster moving

> planet, this is approaching conjunction, and this

> state will continue till Moon moves to say Tarus 14

> degrees, assumming Mars has move one degree in the

> meanwhile. From the time is reaches exact postion of

> Mars, till it moves a further 10 degrees(orb), Moon

> is in a seperating conjunction.

>

> Now in the Eastern or tradition system, only the

> signs in which planets are placed are considered. In

> the Above case, Moon is not conjunct with Mars as

> Moon is in Aries, and Mars in Taurus. But Once Moon

> moves to taurus, it is held conjunct with Mars, as

> along as it is in that Sign of Taurus.

>

> Same thing applies to other aspects like

> TRINE,(120 deg,with orb of 8 degrees), Square (90

> deg with 6 deg orb) etc.

>

>

> Ravi Bhide <ravirajbhide wrote:

>

> Dear learned members,

>

> Thanks for your patience and all the responses so

> far! It has cleared

> some of my doubts. Being a beginner, perhaps I was

> not able to put my

> question in the right words. So I am trying to break

> down my

> understanding into logical pieces as follows:

>

> (1) Between the ascendant and the meridian, there

> can be more than (or

> less than) 3 signs - I agree and understand this. My

> question is

> slightly different and has to do with houses & their

> cusps rather than

> signs themselves - isn't the ascendant and the

> meridian always at 90

> degrees as observed from any point? This would make

> each house (not

> sign!) always 30 degrees in length (i.e. " observed

> length " ). The sign

> itself could appear more (or less) than 30 degrees,

> which I agree to and

> understand, is due to the latitude as Raichurji

> pointed out. At zero

> degree latitude (equator), all signs would appear to

> be exactly 30

> degrees in length.

>

> (2) Placidus system - I understand that this system

> is used for

> calculating the cusps of the houses in KP. My

> question has more to do

> with how we calculate planetary separation (or more

> generally, how we

> calculate separation between any two points), which

> I believe, the

> Placidus system doesn't talk about. This is where my

> main doubt lies.

> Why do we take the " observed separation " (i.e.

> Placidus system) when

> calculating cusps and mathematical separation when

> calculating aspects?

> (In other words, there is a reason why we use

> Placidus and don't just

> add 30 degrees to the ascendant to calculate the

> cusp of the 2nd house

> and so on. My question is why do we use the latter

> method to compute

> aspects. I hope I was able to express my question

> clearly this time.)

>

> (3) Per my understanding, planetary positions on the

> zodiac are not

> relative. They are the same, no matter where on

> earth we observe the

> planets from. (e.g. Sun at 5 degrees Aries is the

> same for every point

> on earth.) However, planetary positions with respect

> to the cusps differ

> from location to location, since the cusps are for a

> particular

> location. This would imply that the meridian is also

> for a particular

> location and would change from place to place.

>

> (4) Retrogression is an illusion - I agree to and

> understand this.

>

> Thanks for your time and patience!

> Ravi

Good Luck

> Raichur A R

> Bombay Tel 2506 2609

> Do not use anant_1608 @.cm Iam closing that

> account

>

>

> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000

> hotels

> in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your

fit.

 

 

 

_________

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it

now.

http://uk.answers./