Badhakesh

interesting concept.. i had read about it before... i want to say this is a jaimini technique, but maybe not..

it goes into the question of whether BPHS was corrupted or not..

here is a quote from an article that i also share below..

"It is important to note that Maharishi Parashar has used Badhak only in reference with Chara dasha and not in general application. So should it be used with other dasa systems, especially Nakshatra based dasa systems like Vimshottari dasa, the way it is being used by present astrologers? For example, we don't see reference of badhaka in Vimshottari Dasa chapter, his favorite dasa to which he has devoted most number of chapters. Badhakasthana is a rasi based concept and it makes more sense to use it with a rasi based dasa like Chara dasa."

http://itzhoroscope.astrosage.com/2008/ ... akesh.html

from reading a number of different books on indian astrology, i come to conclude this concept is used by those practicing jaimini astrology.. nowadays it is hard to separate parashara from jaimini....

here is a title of a book i have read.. i don't claim to know this system with any authority... "Jaimini's Chara Dasa" by k. n. rao...

it seems like there is so much mixing of approaches in indian astrology, one can get confused very quickly and apply all sorts of ideas without really understanding the basis for them.. i encourage others to read the article i linked to above... i think he makes some good points, like the paragraph i quoted above...

i am always surprised why threads with a particular focus get derailed over some other completely unrelated technique or topic... oh well.. this is my attempt at continuing this conversation on its own thread is anyone wants to...

We really can't rely on BPHS as an authority on India's astrology. It's a compilation from diverse sources and different centuries without credit being given to anyone in particular.

James wrote:

It seems like there is so much mixing of approaches in Indian astrology, one can get confused very quickly and apply all sorts of ideas without really understanding the basis for them.

Of course this is true, and BPHS is the worst offender of all. Indian astrology is famous for presenting concepts without source data or explanations of how various techniques are to be applied in practice. This is why "closed systems" such as the Khullar Cuspal Interlinks system have been invented which toss most of what has passed for Indian astrology through the centuries.

Although there is nothing about badhaka in Jaimini Sutras, mostly jaimini astrologers use the badhaka concept,especially Sanjay Rath in "Crux of Vedic Astrology : Timing Of Events" with many examples, which i have read so far.

https://archive.org/details/sanjayrathc ... vents19982

I find such concepts very helpful so that we can know whether a planet will be positive or negative for the person at certain events or not (Presupposing, of course, that the concept works.).
For example, if we always start from the assumption that Jupiter should always be positive and Saturn always negative, it leads us to misjudge. Being without research for or against a concept does not help us or astrology.
Some may say that they believe and some may not. But we study astrology not religion. We can always discuss the examples,when someone should have.

therese,

we agree on BPHS! i am not familiar with this other indian system you refer to, but any system that questions the dogma is good by me...

linchi,

i agree with you to never start from an assumption - like 'jupiter should always be positive and saturn always negative'... this has been my experience as well.. nothing is all that simple which is one of the reasons i am drawn to indian astrology... different ascendants will get a different response from or with the planets.. at the same time i think we need some of the generalizations we have on astrology and the planets too... it also seems to me that it is jaimini astrologers who are using this concept of badhaka..i have read some of sanjay raths books and might be where i first heard of this concept..

on a completely unrelated note, i am not convinced of either of your conclusions on joe bidens chart and rectification... to me in this area of rectification astrologers remind me a lot like lawyers arguing how the glove could not have been on o.j. simpsons hand for example.. although astrologers are very good at arguing from a number of different positions, i don't believe it makes it so... but these are just my general views on rectification which i feel is a most complicated art to astrology... thanks for sharing!

james_m wrote:i am not convinced of either of your conclusions on joe bidens chart ....

You mean that Jupiter can' t be a badhaka or the reason something else ?

...........and rectification

Would you also tell me, why ? Of course you do not have to accept my correction, but I would like to know the reasons.
Because I use harmonic 4096 ? or because the correction was very little ?
Now I just saw that you used 08:20 in your prediction. Why should Biden's birth time be 08:20 ? Can you tell me ? Surely you have astrological arguments for this.

hi linchi,

regarding the rectification, it is nothing to do with your approach or any of that... i just don't think it is all that easy.. that's all... i don't believe the time given - 830am is valid.. i think it is rounded off and might be significantly different...

i can't remember the details that makes me believe an earlier time is more likely, but it was thru looking at a few different techniques for arriving at this... however, i am in no way attached to an 820am time...

in retrospect this speculative time for biden was the same deal with hillary clintons chart in the previous election... we had an evening and a morning chart for her... i would have been better to work with the 2 charts that i felt confident with - trump and harris's chart...

no offense meant to you in any of this.. i just don't think rectification is easy.. in fact i think it is a lot harder then astrologers who express great confidence on there approach let on.. anyone who seems so confident to me on rectificatyion is immediately suspect... so, that is my default position on this... you can have the last word here too! cheers james

james_m wrote:no offense meant to you in any of this..

I did not take this as an offense. I just wanted to know how you get the time 08:20. If you do not want to write or do not remember, it is okey.

i just don't think rectification is easy.. in fact i think it is a lot harder then astrologers who express great confidence on there approach let on.. anyone who seems so confident to me on rectificatyion is immediately suspect... so, that is my default position on this...

if you think my techniques are so simple, you are very wrong.I find such an argument a prejudice if someone does not know my techniques and has never used them.

you can have the last word here too! cheers james

now I am disappointed.

good luck james.

linchi,

i never said i thought your techniques were simple! and more generally i find it challenging when things are said and it gets taken personally! perhaps this can't be helped and perhaps this hasn't happened here....

explaining in words what i did in the past to conclude an earlier time of birth was likely doesn't really matter as i see it.. we are all pulling at straws... the best remedy is for the info to be made public off a birth record.. i am sure one exists... but the authority for doing this rests with biden himself and he appears uninterested in releasing this info.. the data source - From memory is dubious at best...

it almost seems like a language thing happens here linchi which has nothing to do with astrology.. please keep in mind we are talking on the internet.. our ability to understand each other is limited by a number of constraints, not the least of which might be differences in philosophy and approach to astrology too! thanks.... hopefully nothing else i have said here is cause for confusion, or hurt as that is also not my intent..

Apparently the source text for the concept of Badhaka is Jataka Parijata (13th century), so what is now called "badhaka" is a fairly recent edition to India's astrology. Here is the exact and brief quote from V. Subramanya Sastri's translation:

Chapter 2, sloka 48:
"In the case of movable, immovable and dual signs, planets occupying respectively the 11th, 9th and 7th houses from these or their lords will prove exceedingly troublesome planets if they happen to own at the same time the houses occupied by the lord of Khara or Mandi."

The special qualification for the ill effects of these planets has been dropped in later texts, and only the house position has been retained. (I don't know the meaning of khara.)

James wrote:

Regarding the rectification, it is nothing to do with your approach or any of that... i just don't think it is all that easy.. that's all... i don't believe the time given - 830am is valid.. i think it is rounded off and might be significantly different...

James, what you "think" or "believe" doesn't really matter. What matters is mathematical principles applied in research. Regarding Biden's birth time we have two verifications as a beginning: Linchi's research procedures which we can't check for ourselves as we lack the software and knowledge to use that software. And we might question the importance of midpoints to midpoints. But if we don't have the experience for ourselves we have nothing to go on to criticize.

But solar returns and other cyclic charts for key life events can be calculated and checked by anyone. Using Biden's time of 8:30 AM, the solar return/ennead chart for the time of what has to be the most traumatic event in Biden's entire life contains relevant partile degree aspects involving the MC, ascendant and 8th lord. These contacts indicate the sudden death of his wife and child. If you don't consider the significance of those contacts based on a precise time of birth, then how are you ever going to find research evidence for anything in astrology??

But if your philosophy is "anything goes" in astrology, then research in itself wouldn't be an important consideration.

Therese Hamilton wrote:I don't know the meaning of khara.

Khara is 64th navamsa.

https://www.thevedichoroscope.com/2017/ ... astrology/

therese,

thanks... of course what you "think" or "believe" doesn't really matter either.. but i appreciate the reminder of how all of the information that all of us use to understand are like small grains of sand on the shore of the ocean, compared to the ocean itself... so, please do continue on!