Ishta Devatha - To Vijayadas and others /Shri Hari

[Guest guest]

Dear HariConjunction is -coming together.Physical conjunction points to two or more planets coming together with a Rashi or Sign as backdrop.Physically they are within the Span of a Rashi.Thus the distance between them is not a problem.On the other hand - marking two planets in a navamsha sign,(unless they are physically conjunct) is not pointing to such a conjunction.There can be planets or rashis seperating them.Thus planets from their place of occupation are having a sambandha with another Rashi individually.When this Sambandha is with the same Rashi,it becomes Vargottama.Having amsha in the same rashi where it is placed.Varga Uttama - I feel Uttama is pointing to the ''same'' as shri Sanjay Prahakaran had mentioned long back as compared to the common understanding - ''best'' among vargas.ThanksPradeepsohamsa , "Jyotisa Shisya" <achyutagaddi wrote:>> |om|> Dear Pradeep,> > If we say that two planets are conjunct in a rasi, PHYSICALLY they are not> conjunct as in reality, they are separated by millions of kilometres! They> are so far away from Earth that they appear like dots in the sky and when> the dots are close to each other, we say that they appear to be conjunct in> a rasi or a given space band.> > The point that I want to make is that if your reasoning is based on the> PHYSICAL, conjunction of two planets is actually a non-reality.> > If this point is irrelevant, then please ignore and excuse me.> > best regards> Hari> > On 6/21/06, vijayadas_pradeep vijayadas_pradeep wrote:> >> > > > ,i have stressed many a times that,two planets can be conjunct in> > > > navamsha,only if they are physically conjunct( Rashi Chakra).> > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

|om|Dear Pradeep, namasteM-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below:con·junc·tion Function: noun

1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being conjoined : 2 : occurrence together in time or space : 3 a : the

apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in which two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation4 :

an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its components is true

Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against the backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when they appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has no physical boundaries in space. The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets are conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), what is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas?Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W (Monier-Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama:

uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. & c. (often ifc. , e.g. %{dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) first, greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place or order or time etc.

best regardsHariOn 6/23/06,

vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear HariConjunction is -coming together.Physical conjunction points to two or more planets coming together with a Rashi or Sign as backdrop.Physically they are within the Span of a Rashi.Thus the distance between them is not a problem.

On the other hand - marking two planets in a navamsha sign,(unless they are physically conjunct) is not pointing to such a conjunction.There can be planets or rashis seperating them.Thus planets from their place of occupation are having a sambandha with another Rashi individually.When this Sambandha is with the same Rashi,it becomes Vargottama.Having amsha in the same rashi where it is placed.Varga Uttama - I feel Uttama is pointing to the ''same'' as shri Sanjay Prahakaran had mentioned long back as compared to the common understanding - ''best'' among vargas.

ThanksPradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari,

 

Thanks for your explanation. I tend to agree with you.

In my experience of reading charts, when two planets

are 'conjunct' either in Rasi or in Navamsa, they tend

to give similar results. Hence, for all practical

purposes we could call them conjunct in other vargas

as well.

 

Probably, only exception would be that planets getting

combust by Ravi. Planets get combust when they are

close to Ravi in Rasi and not when they are close to

Ravi in other vargas. I don't know the exact physical

pehnomenon that causes this. I hope other learned

members will throw some light on this.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

 

--- Jyotisa Shisya <achyutagaddi wrote:

 

> |om|

> Dear Pradeep, namaste

>

> M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below:

>

> *con·junc·tion*

> Function: *noun*

> *1* *:* the act or an instance of conjoining *:* the

> state of being

> conjoined *: *

> *2* *:* occurrence together in time or space *: *

> *3 a* *:* the apparent meeting or passing of two or

> more celestial bodies in

> the same degree of the zodiac *b* *:* a

> configuration in which two celestial

> bodies have their least apparent separation

> *4* *:* an uninflected linguistic form that joins

> together sentences,

> clauses, phrases, or words

> *5* *:* a complex sentence in logic true if and only

> if each of its

> components is true

>

> Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not

> PHYSICAL. Physically

> conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against

> the backdrop of the

> rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when they

> appear to be in the

> same rasi. This is apparent and not true in reality.

> As pointed out earlier,

> rasi is also imaginary; it has no physical

> boundaries in space.

>

> The point I am driving at is that when we say that

> two planets are conjunct

> in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent),

> what is wrong with

> defining similar conjunctions in vargas?

>

> Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) =

> vargottama, M-W

> (Monier-Williams) dictionary gives the following

> meanings for uttama:

>

> uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal,

> best , excellent RV.

> AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. & c. (often ifc. , e.g.

> %{dvijo7ttama} , best of the

> twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) first, greatest, the

> highest (tone) the most

> removed or last in place or order or time etc.

>

> best regards

> Hari

>

> On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep

> <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Hari

> >

> > Conjunction is -coming together.

> > Physical conjunction points to two or more planets

> coming together with a

> > Rashi or Sign as backdrop.Physically they are

> within the Span of a

> > Rashi.Thus the distance between them is not a

> problem.

> >

> > On the other hand - marking two planets in a

> navamsha sign,(unless they

> > are physically conjunct) is not pointing to such a

> conjunction.There can

> > be planets or rashis seperating them.Thus planets

> from their place of

> > occupation are having a sambandha with another

> Rashi individually.Whenthis Sambandha is with the

> same Rashi,it becomes

> > Vargottama.Having amsha in the same rashi where it

> is placed.*Varga Uttama

> > - I feel Uttama is pointing to the ''same'' as

> shri Sanjay Prahakaran had

> > mentioned long back as compared to the common

> understanding - ''best'' among

> > vargas.

> > *

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> >

>