[quote="Kissnaa"]See, if you really want to talk about supreme benefics, then consider Jupiter and Venus only. In Jyotish, the two Brahmin Gurus are the only real natural benefics. Mercury's beneficence depends upon its association, while the phase system defines Moon.

For example, a natural benefic like Jupiter and Venus, when posited in the 10th house from either Lagna or Moon (the stronger one), Amala Yog is formed. Furthermore, if Jupiter aspects Venus or vice-versa, then the Yog is strengthened – consider this a blessing of the highest order!

Mercury, if alone and/or unassociated with malefic planets forms Amala Yog. Similarly, the Moon from Shukla Panchami - Poornima forms Amala Yog of the highest strength, especially considering the Moon. Some people might say that the Moon from Shuka Dwitiya - Krishna Dwitiya forms the Yog. It all depends.

Most importantly, this signifies the boon of having a benefic planet in the 10th house of career, fame, fortune, name, standing, and social stature. Benefics work phenomenally well here ensuring a shining professional life, of course, the rest of the chart also defines that.[/quote]

Kissnaa,

If that were the case, then functional beneficience/maleficience would have been of academic significance only. natural beneficience is only one factor that defines a planet's intrinsic nature. One must combine, at the very least the two kinds of gunas (natural and functional) and the awastha of a planet and then the sources of strength.

It is tempting to take it piecemeal and just focus on selected factors. That is why some people become enthralled when they spot an exalted planet in a rashi chart or one in own sign and develop a bit of a bias thereafter. Some even go on to decry and reject the significance of other vargas and the list goes on and on.

Fact of the matter is that no one knows of a definitive set or minimum set of parameters that they have tested in thousands of charts and have the data or documentation to support that in an objective demonstrable way. Most of us do astrology part-time (at least those of us who have not managed to acquire the siddhi of being able to live on air, and have a few needs other than food and shelter, as well! Many of the claims are made in an anecdotal manner and are exactly that! Impressions and recollections. The cautious ones therefore do not make too strong sounding claims that may sound too definitive but crumble when examined closly!

Out of all what RR said, the following statement was a great learning point for jyotish students like us. This was a single line with very deep implications and applying this simple principle with dexterity can make a lot of difference.

"One must combine, at the very least the two kinds of gunas (natural and functional) and the awastha of a planet and then the sources of strength."

i was discussing this with basab this morning and was suggesting that its all chart specific and need to be looked at holistically rather getting oneself biased by what theory was specified in which book. Off course, the theories in the books need to be kept in mind but finally it all boils down to how you apply in the context of the chart. Hence, I try to refrain as much as possible from commenting on individual theories without the context of a chart since I have seen first hand, how certain opposing factors in a chart can negate them.

That being said, I acknowledge Basab is extremely well read and spends a lot of time exploring each and every principle in depth and I whole heartedly respect his theoretical supremacy. Couple analysis I did with him was a treat, looking forward to some more.

proj

[quote="projenator"]Out of all what RR said, the following statement was a great learning point for jyotish students like us. This was a single line with very deep implications and applying this simple principle with dexterity can make a lot of difference.

"One must combine, at the very least the two kinds of gunas (natural and functional) and the awastha of a planet and then the sources of strength."

i was discussing this with basab this morning and was suggesting that its all chart specific and need to be looked at holistically rather getting oneself biased by what theory was specified in which book. Off course, the theories in the books need to be kept in mind but finally it all boils down to how you apply in the context of the chart. Hence, I try to refrain as much as possible from commenting on individual theories without the context of a chart since I have seen first hand, how certain opposing factors in a chart can negate them.

That being said, I acknowledge Basab is extremely well read and spends a lot of time exploring each and every principle in depth and I whole heartedly respect his theoretical supremacy. Couple analysis I did with him was a treat, looking forward to some more.

proj[/quote]

Proj,

I am a bit perplexed by your posting which seemed to separate jyotish into a theoretical domain and a practical domain. An applied discipline like jyotish (as opposed to a predominantly theoretical discipline like philosopy -- for instance) should only contain theories which can be applied. In other words only when the theory is reliably experienced in charts would it be worthwhile to occupy expensive neuronal real estate! No?

Basab is doing the right thing by testing as much as he can and keeping only that which works. One caution which I am sure, from his description of him, he must be practising is to apply the theory properly and not literally or verbatim as many of our ancient texts are rather pithy and sometimes misleading or confusing even to those well-versed in sanskrit and the different types of encryptions (like katapayadi)

Rohiniranjanji,

It's not been long since I have started learning astrology and I find astrology very very confusing so all these questions about how the yogas are formed. I haven't started applying them on charts yet, it's going to happen much later. I just want to understand the theory first because I believe that's what one should do first before jumping into chart analysis. I am just struggling with the basics and don't want to go ahead until I have got a clear understanding of it all.

Thank you so much for a detailed reply. I have one more question on the benefic qualities of Mercury and Moon. It's said that Mercury is benefic when it is not in conjunction with a malefic and Moon is a benefic only when it is a waxing Moon. What I would like to know is can we consider Mercury as a benefic even when it is with malefics and Moon a benefic even when it is waning for the various yogas in astrology. For example can we consider a waning Moon in the 10th house from the lagna an Amala yoga?