Navamsha conjunction Apparant/Real -Shri Hari

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Namaste

Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees andMars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need not be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all Rashi Chakra placements).

Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then what is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always assigned to Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to Aries as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not represent any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the difference is clear this time.

ThanksPradeepsohamsa , "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> >>

[Guest guest]

|om|Dear Pradeep, namasteCorrect; so the perspective is that of bhuloka. Going by the example of Mercury/Mars/Jupiter in the first degree of the respective agni tatva signs, is it okay for me to say that from their respective positions in the rasi chakra, these grahas exercise their influence on the same navamsa?If I define conjunction to mean that two or more planets exercise their influence on the same rasi, what is wrong in saying the same about planets conjunct in the same navamsa?best regardsHari

On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Hari Namaste

Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and

Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need not be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all Rashi Chakra placements).

Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then what is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always assigned to Aries

..Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to Aries as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not represent any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the difference is clear this time.

ThanksPradeepsohamsa , " 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>

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Namaste

 

The kind of influence is different.And each infleuence has a specific

purpose.

1)In Rashi both the planets apart from influencing the rashi are also

physically close.Thus combustion,planetary wars,yogas etc are possible.

2)Through navamsha influence a planet from its position is influencing

another Rashi or the same(if vargottama).Thus two planets drawn in the

same sign in navamsha,are not placed there,but is related.Ofcourse

through these relations they can infleunce the said rashi.But they

cannot cast an aspect,nor they can have wars nor they can be combust.

 

For example think of Karakamsha,it is the Rashi on to which Atmakaraka

is having amsha.This influence can make the said rashi a lagna.We can

find planets placed in the 10th,9th etc.planets having amsha in 10th

from the said place is totally different.If sages talk about such,we can

use it as well.

 

The point is to understand the difference.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

sohamsa , " Jyotisa Shisya " <achyutagaddi

wrote:

>

> |om|

> Dear Pradeep, namaste

>

> Correct; so the perspective is that of bhuloka. Going by the example

of

> Mercury/Mars/Jupiter in the first degree of the respective agni tatva

signs,

> is it okay for me to say that from their respective positions in the

rasi

> chakra, these grahas exercise their influence on the same navamsa?

>

> If I define conjunction to mean that two or more planets exercise

their

> influence on the same rasi, what is wrong in saying the same about

planets

> conjunct in the same navamsa?

>

> best regards

> Hari

>

> On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Hari Namaste

> >

> > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of

> > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say

> > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of

Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance

> > between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and

> > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need not

be a

> > concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all Rashi

> > Chakra placements).

> >

> > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in

Aries.Doyou think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then what is

navamsha?

> > *First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY* sign is always *assigned to

Aries*.Any

> > planet placed within this degree span will relate to Aries as

> > navamsha.This is a *tattwa based sambandha* and *does not represent

any

> > placement*.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an

astronomically

> > measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha

correction.Distance/Conjunction in

> > Rashi chakra -points towards physical seperation/proximity while

navamsha

> > points towards sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope

the

> > difference is clear this time.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> > sohamsa , " 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

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari , Kindly let me know if my understanding is correct: 1.In combustion and in inter planetary war angular arc is more important .It is not necessary for them in same sign. 2.If a planet is in same bhava in two Vargas it is called bhava vargottama and it is equally effective as Rashi vargottama planet.(Lagna vargottama is considered on this basis where in Rashi falls in same bhava instead of planet) Regards, G.K.GOELvijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: Dear Hari

NamasteThe kind of influence is different.And each infleuence has a specificpurpose.1)In Rashi both the planets apart from influencing the rashi are alsophysically close.Thus combustion,planetary wars,yogas etc are possible.2)Through navamsha influence a planet from its position is influencinganother Rashi or the same(if vargottama).Thus two planets drawn in thesame sign in navamsha,are not placed there,but is related.Ofcoursethrough these relations they can infleunce the said rashi.But theycannot cast an aspect,nor they can have wars nor they can be combust.For example think of Karakamsha,it is the Rashi on to which Atmakarakais having amsha.This influence can make the said rashi a lagna.We canfind planets placed in the 10th,9th etc.planets having amsha in 10thfrom the said place is totally different.If sages talk about such,we canuse it as well.The point is to understand the

difference.ThanksPradeepsohamsa , "Jyotisa Shisya" <achyutagaddiwrote:>> |om|> Dear Pradeep, namaste>> Correct; so the perspective is that of bhuloka. Going by the exampleof> Mercury/Mars/Jupiter in the first degree of the respective agni tatvasigns,> is it okay for me to say that from their respective positions in therasi> chakra, these grahas exercise their influence on the same navamsa?>> If I define conjunction to mean that two or more planets exercisetheir> influence on the same rasi, what is wrong in saying the same aboutplanets> conjunct in the same navamsa?>> best regards> Hari>> On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep vijayadas_pradeep wrote:> >> > Dear Hari Namaste> >> >

Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of> > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say> > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries ofAries/Leo/Sag.Distance> > between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and> > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need notbe a> > concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all Rashi> > Chakra placements).> >> > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct inAries.Doyou think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then what isnavamsha?> > *First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY* sign is always *assigned toAries*.Any> > planet placed within this degree span will relate to Aries as> > navamsha.This is a *tattwa based sambandha* and *does not representany> > placement*.On the other hand

Rashi chakra placement is anastronomically> > measured value,adjusted for ayanamshacorrection.Distance/Conjunction in> > Rashi chakra -points towards physical seperation/proximity whilenavamsha> > points towards sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hopethe> > difference is clear this time.> >> > Thanks> > Pradeep> > sohamsa , "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 ofbeing> > > 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 togethersentences,> > > clauses, phrases, or words> > > *5* *:* a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each ofits> > > components is true> > >> > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL.Physically> > > conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against the backdropof the> > > rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when they appear to bein the> > > same rasi. This is apparent and not true in reality. As pointedout> > 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 wrongwith> > > defining similar conjunctions in vargas?> > >> > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W> > > (Monier-Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings foruttama:> > >> > > 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> > >> >>

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new Click here

Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on India Click here

[Guest guest]

|om|

Dear Pradeeep, namaste

 

Do you agree that conjunction is an apparent phenomenon defined so as to imply fundamentally:-

 

(1) That 2 or more grahas influence the same rasi.

(2) Individual influences are modified to yield a composite influence.

(3) With respect to the rasi or if the said rasi becomes a bhava, yogas can be defined as an extension of point (2) above. The term 'yoga' has a lot of implied meanings (refer

http://srath.com) and need not be restricted to rasi alone.

(4) Combustion/interplanetary wars can be defined as an extension of point (2) above and are dependent on the degree of the grahas as pointed out by Sri Goel.

 

OK, now you insist that conjunction as a phenomenon can occur only in rasi and not in other vargas. Thats fine and let us consider that as a supposition.

 

My question to this supposition is why should we consider vargas? If all phenomena should occur only in the rasi chakra, it follows that there would be no need to consider vargas. It should be enough to use only the rasi chakra and make predictions based on this alone.

 

 

I submit that in order to reflect on this question, it is necessary to understand the brilliant hint given by Jaimini Maharishi who says 'vipareetam ketoh'.

 

As regards your other mail on vargottama, Sri Goel has given his opinion. However the answer to your question on this is also linked to my question above.

 

best regards

Hari

 

On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Hari NamasteThe kind of influence is different.And each infleuence has a specificpurpose.1)In Rashi both the planets apart from influencing the rashi are alsophysically close.Thus combustion,planetary wars,yogas etc are possible.

2)Through navamsha influence a planet from its position is influencinganother Rashi or the same(if vargottama).Thus two planets drawn in thesame sign in navamsha,are not placed there,but is related.Ofcourse

through these relations they can infleunce the said rashi.But theycannot cast an aspect,nor they can have wars nor they can be combust.For example think of Karakamsha,it is the Rashi on to which Atmakaraka

is having amsha.This influence can make the said rashi a lagna.We canfind planets placed in the 10th,9th etc.planets having amsha in 10thfrom the said place is totally different.If sages talk about such,we can

use it as well.The point is to understand the difference.

ThanksPradeep

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Namaste.

 

1)Do you think combustion as a function of physical

disposition(degree).If yes,Rashi positions are physical.Navamsha is a

tattwa based sambandha,different from physical conjunction.Hence my view

is not a supposition,but an objective fact.

 

2)Regarding yogas,i agree.Yoga in the sense - two individual sambandhas

are having composite influence on a single rashi.But this does not

justify ''bhavas'' in vargamshas.9+10 bhava lords(rashi chakra) having

navamsha in a single rashi is an example.

 

 

3)Vargas are important.Concerns are on the way it is studied/understood.

 

4)Lagna vargottama is not different from graha vargottama.Surya is

Vargottama,when Suryamsha is in the same rashi as placement.Lagna is

vargottama,when Lagnamsha is in the same rashi as placement.Thus no

difference.Bhava Vargottama - Lagna determines bhava and not vice-versa.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

sohamsa , " Jyotisa Shisya " <achyutagaddi

wrote:

>

> |om|

> Dear Pradeeep, namaste

>

> Do you agree that conjunction is an apparent phenomenon defined so as

to

> imply fundamentally:-

>

> (1) That 2 or more grahas influence the *same* rasi.

> (2) Individual influences are modified to yield a composite influence.

> (3) With respect to the rasi or if the said rasi becomes a bhava,

yogas can

> be defined as an extension of point (2) above. The term 'yoga' has a

lot of

> implied meanings (refer http://srath.com) and need not be restricted

to rasi

> alone.

> (4) Combustion/interplanetary wars can be defined as an extension of

point

> (2) above and are dependent on the degree of the grahas as pointed out

by

> Sri Goel.

>

> OK, now you insist that conjunction as a phenomenon can occur only in

rasi

> and not in other vargas. Thats fine and let us consider that as a

> supposition.

>

> My question to this supposition is why should we consider vargas? If

all

> phenomena should occur only in the rasi chakra, it follows that there

would

> be no need to consider vargas. It should be enough to use only the

rasi

> chakra and make predictions based on this alone.

>

> I submit that in order to reflect on this question, it is necessary to

> understand the brilliant hint given by Jaimini Maharishi who says

> 'vipareetam ketoh'.

>

> As regards your other mail on vargottama, Sri Goel has given his

opinion.

> However the answer to your question on this is also linked to my

question

> above.

>

> best regards

> Hari

>

>

>

> On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Hari Namaste

> >

> > The kind of influence is different.And each infleuence has a

specific

> > purpose.

> > 1)In Rashi both the planets apart from influencing the rashi are

also

> > physically close.Thus combustion,planetary wars,yogas etc are

possible.

> > 2)Through navamsha influence a planet from its position is

influencing

> > another Rashi or the same(if vargottama).Thus two planets drawn in

the

> > same sign in navamsha,are not placed there,but is related.Ofcourse

> > through these relations they can infleunce the said rashi.But they

> > cannot cast an aspect,nor they can have wars nor they can be

combust.

> >

> > For example think of Karakamsha,it is the Rashi on to which

Atmakaraka

> > is having amsha.This influence can make the said rashi a lagna.We

can

> > find planets placed in the 10th,9th etc.planets having amsha in 10th

> > from the said place is totally different.If sages talk about such,we

can

> > use it as well.

> >

> > The point is to understand the difference.

> >

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

>