Neechabhanga with d...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Neechabhanga with debilitated dispositor of debilitated planet?

6 Posts
3 Users
1 Likes
503 Views
CNeelakant
Posts: 7
Topic starter
(@cneelakant)
Active Member
Joined: 3 months ago

Forgive if I've missed this elsewhere, but I've come across this in other forums, that Neechabhanga is caused when the dispositor of a debilitated planet is also debilitated?  Some qualify this by the dispositor needing to be under benefic influence.

Example:  Sun in Libra, Venus and EX Mercury in Virgo.  Is the Sun's debilitation then cancelled, as per the principle?

I know Venus and EX Mercury in Virgo are a classic example of Neechabhanga.

I'm being told elsewhere that Moon in Scorpio and Mars in Cancer cause a "double negative" Neechabhanga on its own?

I've been through the videos and manuals on the topic and seemed to have missed this if it is indeed the case.  This "double negative" version seems to go against the basic principle.

However, the first example I cited seems to make some sense and follow the principle!?  Which is which?

5 Replies
Posts: 37
 jam1
(@jam1)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 months ago

Any chance you've taken the Mastering debilitation course under beginner courses ?

As far as I know, cancellation of debilitation and neechabhanga are two different things. 

- Cancellation of debilitation is factors that make a debilitated planet become average instead of really troublesome.

-Neechabhanga is when another planet produces success to compensate for the debilitated planet. 

The rules are mentioned in the manual for the course. 

Reply
2 Replies
CNeelakant
(@cneelakant)
Joined: 3 months ago

Active Member
Posts: 7

@jam1 I have indeed taken the course and read the manual. And of course I did not find what I'm asking about listed there.  That's why I'm asking. It seemed odd to me. 

"nīca" is the word use for debilitation and "bhaṅga" means breaking or destruction, so my literal brain was not separating this into two different phenomena.

I could ask: does parivartana between debilitated planets cancel debilitation? YES or NO. But the only time this can happen is with Moon in Scorpio (0-3) and Mars in Cancer, so it's unique to this specific interchange. I was curious if I had missed that special rule, and does it have a source?

I was giving this "double negative" idea the benefit of the doubt to try and justify the other question as being possibly a Yes answer on some account.  What account?  I was hoping someone would know. It was ALMOST logical if true.

I could have used better wording somehow.

Before I wrote this off as BS internet Jyotish or more "astrological urban legends from modern India," I wanted a good reason to do so, based on some form of rational intelligence, such as "this is not found in any old Sanskrit textbook"

I'll take it as BS until someone can give me chapter and verse to prove otherwise. Which seems doubtful.

Thanks

Reply
 jam1
(@jam1)
Joined: 7 months ago

Trusted Member
Posts: 37

@cneelakant ahh ok, got it. 

I don't have strong grasp of concepts in parivartana yogas and yoga judgement. But as you point out, can't imagine a double negative to yield positive.  The only positive is Mars in Cancer is delighted

Reply
Scott-M-19
Posts: 597
(@scott-m-19)
Prominent Member
Joined: 4 years ago

In your example with Sun in Libra and Venus in Virgo: if Venus is on an angle from the Lagna or Moon, then it will still cause Neechabhanga raj yoga in Virgo according to what I have learned. Sun's db in Libra is not cancelled. Venus just becomes empowered. Its overall yoga producing power will be lessened though by being in Virgo. Parivartana yoga between two db planets in still PV yoga, but its yoga producing power is lessened. 

Perhaps, Ernst can chime in on this one. It is something I have thought about. 

Reply
1 Reply
CNeelakant
(@cneelakant)
Joined: 3 months ago

Active Member
Posts: 7

@scott-m-19 Interestingly enough, the example is from an actual chart, where indeed Venus is on and angle from the Moon and that Sun is on an angle from the Lagna. So, a bit of levity 🙂

 

Reply
Share: